Skip to main content

Tag: senate commerce committee

Senate Commerce Committee proves that bipartisanship doesn’t have to equal terrible transportation policy

The Senate committee tasked with handling the rail portions of the larger transportation bill managed to produce a bipartisan bill that also makes the expansion of reliable, frequent rail service to more Americans a cornerstone of its approach. 

Residents of Pascagoula, MS outside the train station during the Gulf Coast Inspection Train several years ago

While the House writes their five-year transportation proposal all at once in one committee, the Senate breaks up the policy work between three committees. The Senators on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee focused on bipartisanship at the expense of good outcomes for spending transportation dollars, but the Commerce Committee Senators, charged with passenger rail, safety, and a few other related issues, managed to be both bipartisan and set policy that will create a better, more effective transportation system.

Here’s a look at the good and the bad in the Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021 before the committee considers it in full and likely votes on it this Wednesday, June 16.

The good: A national network of robust, passenger rail service is vital for the country’s future.

These Senators are proposing substantial steps to 1) expand, increase, and improve service, 2) focus on the entire national network (rather than just the northeast corridor), 3) encourage more local, ground-up coalitions of local-state partnerships for improving or adding new service, and 4) make it easier to finance projects and expand that authority to transit-oriented development projects. They also propose some important changes to the data we gather on safety across the entire transportation system, including our streets and roads.

Funding to expand/improve passenger rail service
When it comes to providing more funding overall for passenger rail, they propose $5 billion for the same program (Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements) which provided $33 million for restoring Gulf Coast passenger rail, allowing many more communities to benefit from this program. (Current funding is about $350 million a year, or ~$1.75b over the life of the current law..)

They also provide $300 million for the Restoration and Enhancements grants that provide critical start-up operating support for new or expanded passenger service, and allow those funds to be used over six years instead of just three—recognizing that establishing new ridership on a line can take a few years. 

A lot of the country’s rail infrastructure is also badly in need of updates, and the bill proposes $1.5 billion to make long overdue repairs through what they call the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants for state of repair.

Amtrak
For the country’s passenger rail operator, they propose a small but vital shift in mission and goals to emphasize Amtrak’s role in providing service both to rural communities and in long-distance routes and a national network. To help make this happen, they will require representation on the Amtrak Board from the Northeast Corridor, state-supported routes and long distance routes. They’ll require Amtrak to post station agents at stations with at least 40 passengers a day (and require them to be able to sell tickets), making it easier for people to use and navigate the service in smaller towns. And lastly, they’ll prohibit Amtrak from discontinuing, reducing the frequency of, suspending, or substantially altering the route of any long-distance route if Amtrak receives adequate funding for that route. 

Duplicate the success of the Southern Rail Commission
A new grant program will authorize up to ten interstate rail compacts, including the Southern Rail Commission, which has been key to restoring passenger rail service on the Gulf Coast, and provide up to $1 million annually for each one. (This is double what the House provided for these commissions.)  Up to $1 million—which has to be matched 50/50 with local or state dollars—isn’t a huge sum but it would be hard to overstate the potential impact of creating nine more entities like the SRC to lay the groundwork and build the coalitions required to create or improve rail service in scores of other regions. (Read more about a similar House bill and the importance of these rail compacts here.)

Improving access to financing for rehab and improvement projects
A major challenge with rail rehabilitation and improvement (RRIF) projects has been not only securing financing, but incorporating the project’s credit risk (the cost of creating the loan). This bill proposes $50 million to help offset some of these credit risk insurance premiums on financing RRIF projects. 

Making it easier to finance transit-oriented development projects

More homes, offices, and retail near transit are in high demand, but because these big, complex projects are more difficult to finance than other types of conventional suburban development. The bill makes these projects (not just their rail components) permanently eligible for financing from the above RRIF program—something we’ve been working on for more than six years.  “The areas around our country’s passenger rail stations are often economic sleeping giants,” as T4America co-chair John Robert Smith said in this 2015 T4America story about a previous iteration of this idea. “Finding ways to finance and catalyze smart development in and around them is a proven strategy to boost local economies.”

Extra: Safety provisions
While most of the road and transit policy gets written by other Senate committees, the Commerce Committee also has jurisdiction over safety data and reporting, and they propose some notable changes. 

As chronicled in Dangerous by Design, federal data on who is being killed while using the transportation system—especially people who aren’t in a car—are incredibly limited. We don’t even know how many people are killed while trying to navigate unsafe streets in wheelchairs, for example, so the committee calls for new crash data systems to be able to distinguish bicycles, electric scooters, and wheelchairs. They propose a $200 million a year grant program for local governments to develop and carry out Vision Zero safety plans to prevent death and injury on our roads and streets. Perhaps most interestingly, they require the Secretary of Transportation to finally examine updating hood and bumper safety standards for cars and trucks with a focus on how they are affecting the injuries and deaths of pedestrians, bicyclists, or other vulnerable road users. While more needs to be done on this count (and it needs to be done far faster than the bill specifies), it’s a big deal to see a bipartisan bill finally start to call out this issue in legislation.

The bad, or opportunities missed

While the bill has a ton to praise, there are just a few missed opportunities worth noting and a few places where it falls short of what was in the INVEST Act in the House.

The bill doesn’t include two exciting rail investment programs proposed by the House.
The bill lacks any funding for the PRIME program, which is devoted to expanding and improving intercity passenger rail. The Senate proposal also lacks the Bridge, Tunnels and Safety grants which would fund major capital projects, rail bridges, stations, and tunnels that are publicly owned or owned by Amtrak. The House proposed $25 billion for each of these programs.

Just because projects are big or expensive doesn’t mean they are wise investments.
A new National Infrastructure Project Assistance program is designed to help fund projects of national significance that cost over $500 million or a large portion of small states’ transportation budgets. But while these projects are indeed hard to fund, this program is far too focused on costs and price tags, and only barely mentions any measurable things we want to accomplish. Just because projects are big doesn’t mean they are smart, and we should think about what they might do before providing money for them.

A new multimodal grant program like TIGER needs to provide more money for the best local projects.
A new program called Local and Regional Project Assistance is basically like a new $1.5 billion TIGER/BUILD/RAISE program for locals, but the $25 million cap is too low and should be raised to at least $75 million so that it doesn’t keep larger but worthwhile projects with good outcomes from applying. The program’s size is sufficiently large to both advance a few larger projects while also giving out a large number of grants to the best projects. As an example, in the first round of TIGER, there was $1.5 billion available with no cap, yet USDOT made 3 grants of around $100 million while still advancing 55 total projects.

A multimodal freight program should not presume that half of the country’s best freight projects are road projects.
The bill provides $1.2 billion for Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight Projects, but for some inexplicable reason, this bill caps the funding for truly multimodal projects at only 50 percent of the program—basically earmarking 50 percent for highway projects, before they’ve ever seen a proposal or spent a dime. 

Why in the world is the committee with multimodal jurisdiction—rail, ports, and pipelines— and no jurisdiction over the highway part of the bill so intent on giving money to highway projects? And these are not gas tax dollars subject to the trust fund—this is a discretionary program using general tax dollars. Lose the cap entirely on multimodal projects and just select whatever projects will accomplish the most with the money.

T4America Statement on Senate Commerce AV START Markup

press release

On Wednesday, October 4, the Senate Commerce Committee marked up and approved the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act. Beth Osborne, senior policy advisor for T4America, offered this statement in response.

“We share the committee’s enthusiasm about the potential of automated vehicles (AVs) to reduce fatalities and improve access to necessities for all Americans. However, today’s committee markup is emblematic of what has been troubling about this entire process — it has all been too rushed and the process is too opaque.

“The committee is not listening to nor addressing the concerns expressed by city and state leaders who are ultimately responsible for the roads where these vehicles will operate. The preemption language in this bill challenges their ability to regulate their own roads and, without requirements to share any data on their operations, creates a climate of secrecy around AV testing or deployment. This approach is unlikely to win the public trust, which will be necessary to successfully bring these vehicles to market.

“Neither this bill nor its House counterpart is a product of methodical policymaking, gathering robust feedback from everyone involved, and forging a true bipartisan consensus. It’s more the product of an unfortunate lack of interest on a critical issue that could reshape our towns and cities.

“Local and state transportation leaders stand ready to address these problems before work on the bill is completed — or whenever the auto industry and Congress realize the confusion and problems this approach creates.”

###

Senate revises bill on automated vehicles but fails to address the primary concerns of cities and states

press release

On Wednesday, October 4, the Senate Commerce Committee will mark up the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act. A revised draft was released by the committee on September 29.

In numerous meetings with the Senate Commerce Committee, staff have agreed with us that cities and states must maintain their existing authority to manage the operation of all vehicles on their road networks. Unfortunately, the revised draft introduced last week does not reflect this.

“We appreciate that the committee heard our concerns on preemption, but they merely replaced their preemption language with language from the House bill, which still puts just as many cities and states at risk of losing control of their roads,” said Beth Osborne, Senior Policy Advisor of Transportation for America. “That House bill, and the preemption language within it, was hastily assembled and rushed through a House committee overnight with no time for comment or thoughtful debate from city or state transportation officials or law enforcement.”

The Senate bill restricts local governments from passing or enforcing any laws that are an “unreasonable restriction on the design, construction, or performance” of an automated vehicle. Without defining what “unreasonable restriction” or “performance” means, the language enables an endless series of lawsuits and leaves the management of our roads in the hands of judges.

Automated vehicles should be tested in real-world situations, but proper management and public safety should be paramount. This requires manufacturers sharing information on how these vehicles are operating and where they are struggling to keep up with the rules of the road with the agencies charged with managing those roadways. Merely requiring a publicly available safety report once a year does not cut it. Without access to real-time or near-real-time data on how these vehicles move throughout our streets, city and state governments as well as law enforcement will be unable to enforce their laws or adapt their infrastructure designs and investments in a timely way to ensure these vehicles have the necessary tools on the road to operate safely.

“Automated vehicles have the potential to make our cities safer, more efficient, and more economically productive, and cities want to do their part to bring this new technology to our streets,” said Linda Bailey, Executive Director of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). “The legislation as currently written hinders this progress — weakening instead of strengthening cities’ and states’ ability to engage with private partners on safe operations and data sharing.”

This new technology is exciting and poised to have dramatic impacts on the safety of our streets in the long-term. But in the short-term, we need to give our cities and states — where these vehicles are operating — the authority and information to ensure their safety. Getting this right requires tackling challenges head on, and we’re disappointed the committee has chosen to run away from them.

###

About T4A

Transportation for America is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in smart, homegrown, locally-driven transportation solutions — because these are the investments that hold the key to our future economic prosperity. Visit t4america.org

About NACTO

NACTO is an association of 55 North American cities formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. The organization’s mission is to build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible, and equitable transportation choices that support a strong economy and vibrant quality of life. To learn more, visit nacto.org.

Contact: Alexander Engel
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
alex@nacto.org 

 Contact: Steve Davis
Transportation for America
202-971-3902
Steve.davis@t4america.org

Take action on Senate automated vehicles bill that would would leave cities, states, and the public in the dark

Congress is on the cusp of passing the very first federal law to regulate automated vehicles (AVs). Unfortunately, a Senate committee has produced a law that would leave cities, states, and the public in the dark while handing the keys to the industry.

Flickr photo by Ed and Eddie. Source

The AV START bill could put hundreds of thousands of AVs on the roads, preempt states and cities from having any oversight on how those vehicles operate, and keep the public from accessing any of the valuable data about where and how they are operating.

The Senate Commerce Committee will be considering this bill on Wednesday, October 4. Write your Senators today and urge them to reconsider and improve their approach.

Thus far, Congress has hastily legislated on a complicated issue with impacts that will be felt for decades primarily by people and groups who were never invited into the room.

Any state and local laws for AVs could be at risk if they are found to be an “unreasonable restriction” — vague language that will almost certainly lead to costly legal battles.

For example, if a city wants to prevent empty AVs from endlessly circling their streets or keep them from operating on certain streets, they could be left with no recourse for setting local policies to do so.

When it comes to safety, cities (and others) also need access to data on these vehicles’ performance on their own streets. Is there a particular intersection that’s more dangerous than others for automated vehicles? They’ll have no way to find out on their own.

While the bill does require manufacturers testing AVs to report all crashes to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and produce a publicly available annual safety report, there are no requirements for sharing more robust real-time or near-real-time data with cities or states. This ensures that no one other than the private companies doing the testing will be able to learn anything from the massive amounts of data produced by the tests.

In order to create more hospitable conditions for all modes of travel — especially AVs — cities and states need these data to inform and optimize their planning, policymaking and operations to prepare for the coming wave of automation.

Take action and tell the Senate that they need to do better — this issue has the potential to dramatically reshape our cities in profound ways.

Federal approach to regulating automated vehicles described as a “giveaway to the industry”

After producing draft legislation for discussion last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing this week about automated vehicles (AVs). Some of the witnesses’ testimony highlighted the continued problems with the committee’s approach that would hand the oversight keys to automakers and manufacturers, kick cities to the curb, and threaten the safety of millions.

The hearing, “Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and our Nation’s Highways,” was intended to inform the Senate’s approach to the inclusion of commercial vehicles in their AV legislation. But the hearing also highlighted many of the larger issues about the proposed framework to manage all automated vehicles — commercial or not — and much of the discussion focused on the need to get the framework right before setting it into law.

It’s hard to imagine they’ll get it right with the private sector in charge.

Ken Hall, General Secretary-Treasurer of the Teamsters, raised this point throughout the hearing, noting the private sector and auto industry’s long history of skirting rules and putting consumers at risk, and warned that we “can’t trust the industry to guide the process to safety based on their past behavior.”

The hearing came the same week that the National Highway Traffic Safety Association released new guidance on automated vehicles, guidance which Senator Richard Blumenthal described as “anemic,” and “a giveaway to the industry,” adding that the introduction of these vehicles “could result in lives lost unless we have enforceable rules to protect the public.”

Not only have both the House and Senate ignored the important role of state and local governments in the process of testing vehicles, but their approach threatens state and local ability to regulate their own roads. From our statement about the Senate draft:

The bill strips states and local governments of the authority to manage the vehicles on their roadways and leaves them without the tools to deal with problems already arising during the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Cities work to make streets safe places for all users and are not willing to endanger citizens for the sake of innovation with no levers of control. For example, if the safety report showed that a certain type of LIDAR system is incapable of reading a stop sign if vandalized with graffiti, or confused by bike lanes if painted a certain shade of green, state or local authorities — who own and maintain almost all roadways — would have no ability to intervene.

Public confidence in AVs will be vital to their adoption, and it’s hard to imagine how they could ever be deployed effectively by hiding their safety performance from the public and preventing the managers of our roadways and public safety officers from having a role in managing them.

“States and municipalities have to be at the table, whether we’re talking about lane markings and how we have systems that interact with each other, or about the rules of the road we set,” Deborah Hersman, President of the National Safety Council, said in the hearing. “We need to bring all parties in the loop and state and local leaders need to have a role in that.”

The committee has asked for all comments on the draft discussion to be submitted by the end of the day today (Friday). Based on how quickly they’ve moved so far, we expect them to take comments, produce a revised draft, and prepare for a markup soon. In the meantime, we’re continuing to push the committee to consider the issues that we and their witnesses raised in the past week and produce a bill that provides all levels of government with the tools to ensure the safety of these vehicles on our roads and in our communities.

Senate automated vehicles legislation would jeopardize the safety of millions and leave cities and states on the side of the road

For Immediate Release
September 12, 2017

Transportation for America (T4A) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) issued the following response to the released Senate discussion draft of the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act from Chairman John Thune (SD) and Senator Gary Peters (MI).

We support the deployment of automated vehicles (AVs) and are pleased to see Congress supporting the effort of automakers to test and improve this technology. The best way to do this is to ensure that the testing is done with full transparency and in cooperation with the cities and states that own and manage the roads on which AVs are operating. Sadly, this legislation does not do that.

Protecting public safety is the fundamental role of government and has been the stated priority of the Commerce Committee for regulating automated vehicles, but the staff discussion draft circulated last Friday by Chairman Thune and Senator Peters puts business interests above the basic safety of Americans.

No one wants to see a patchwork of regulations that stifle innovation, but the unified federal framework is a poisoned chalice: it provides no mechanism for local, state, or even federal safety regulators to hold companies accountable for the safety of their vehicles or technology.

The bill’s requirement of a safety report is just an exercise: the draft bill actively prevents USDOT or any local government from taking any action based on a review of that data. If the safety report showed that a particular fleet of AVs was frequently blowing through red lights, even the Secretary of Transportation would have no recourse to require changes or to pull the cars from the road.

The bill strips states and local governments of the authority to manage the vehicles on their roadways and leaves them without the tools to deal with problems already arising during the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Cities work to make streets safe places for all users and are not willing to endanger citizens for the sake of innovation with no levers of control. For example, if the safety report showed that a certain type of LIDAR system is incapable of reading a stop sign if vandalized with graffiti, or confused by bike lanes if painted a certain shade of green, state or local authorities — who own and maintain almost all roadways — would have no ability to intervene.

Automated vehicles will be deployed at the state and local level. But the draft legislation kicks cities and states to the curb by both failing to require any inclusion of state or local representatives on a new federal Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Safety Committee and by stripping away key means of local government control.

AVs should be tested in real-world situations, but proper management and public safety should be paramount. This draft legislation would put hundreds of thousands of untested vehicles on our streets without giving state and local governments critical information about where and how those vehicles are operating.

Understanding vehicle movement at the corridor level provides immense value for governments and citizens. Data on vehicle collisions and near-misses allows cities to proactively redesign dangerous intersections and corridors to ensure safety for all street users. Real-time data on vehicle speeds, travel times and volumes have the potential to inform speed limits, manage congestion, uncover patterns of excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street redesign projects and ultimately improve productivity and quality of life. But without access to these data, city and state governments will be blind to the impacts of emerging transportation technologies, how their construction and management of their roadways interacts with those technologies and unable to determine their own destinies.

Protecting public safety is the fundamental role of government, but this bill would actively prevent federal, state and local authorities from creating safe conditions for the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Building public confidence should be in the industry’s self-interest and if the public doesn’t believe AVs are safe, this technology will go nowhere. It is hard to imagine how the deployment of AVs could be promoted effectively by hiding from the public their safety performance and preventing the managers of our roadways and public safety officers from having a role in managing them.

Instead of creating a framework that unlocks the transformative potential of this technology and allows cities and states to experiment and innovate to tackle their most pressing challenges, this draft puts business interests first, handcuffs transportation leaders and revokes their ability to keep our streets and residents safe by deploying automated vehicles in a thoughtful manner.

###

About T4A

Transportation for America is an alliance of elected, business and civic leaders from communities across the country, united to ensure that states and the federal government step up to invest in smart, homegrown, locally-driven transportation solutions — because these are the investments that hold the key to our future economic prosperity.

About NACTO

NACTO is an association of 55 North American cities formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. The organization’s mission is to build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible, and equitable transportation choices that support a strong economy and vibrant quality of life. To learn more, visit nacto.org.

Stories You May Have Missed: June 26th – June 30th

Stories You May Have Missed

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes news articles to inform your work. Check out a list of stories you may have missed last week. 

  • Senator John Thune (Republican-South Dakota), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said work on an infrastructure plan could slip into next year. (The Hill)
  • With “asset recycling” a big part of President Trump’s infrastructure plan, the Economist explores the “promises and pitfalls” of asset recycling. (The Economist)
  • S. DOT has revised the FASTLANE program’s criteria and changed the name to the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program. (The Hill)
  • Amidst proposals from the White House to privatize some infrastructure to pay for their proposed infrastructure plan, the Senate Commerce Committee has rejected the White House’s proposal to privatize the U.S.’s air-traffic control system. (The Hill)
  • Amtrak has named former Delta Airlines CEO Richard Anderson as their new CEO effective June 12th. He will be co-CEO with current CEO Wick Moorman until December 31st. (The Hill)
  • The Hill lists six potential contenders to be Uber’s new CEO after former CEO Travis Kalanick resigned. (The Hill)
  • Oregon Governor Kate Brown and state legislature leaders reached an agreement on a package to raise funds for transportation. (The Register Guard)

Big questions largely avoided during the first confirmation hearing for Trump’s Secretary of Transportation nominee

Trump’s appointee to serve as Secretary of Transportation had a confirmation hearing yesterday before a Senate committee, and though she was light on specifics, there were some illuminating questions from Senators and answers from Secretary-designate Elaine Chao.

In a confirmation hearing largely overshadowed by the higher-profile (and more controversial) hearings going on at the same time for Secretary of State and Attorney General, Elaine Chao answered questions from senators on the Commerce Committee yesterday morning and provided at least a glimpse into what can be expected at USDOT under the incoming administration.

She filed a short opening statement that was light on specifics, but emphasized the need to increase private investment in infrastructure, to streamline the process of building transportation projects, and to help the federal government be a partner in the innovation of emerging technologies that is happening on the ground in cities — which is currently “led by the private sector,” she said.

In that statement, she identified how our transportation investments have helped us be competitive, but noted that those “gains are jeopardized by infrastructure in need of repair, the specter of rising highway fatalities, growing congestion, and by a failure to keep pace with emerging technologies.”

While highway fatalities are indeed increasing, pedestrian fatalities are also on the rise after years of decline. Following the release of Dangerous by Design 2016, which highlights the 46,000-plus people who were killed while walking from 2005-2014, T4America sent a letter signed by hundreds of supporters to the committee members asking them to press her on this safety issue.

Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii took up the cause during the hearing, noting that we have a “serious safety crisis” overall, with more than 35,000 people dying on our roads in 2015 — “the largest increase in years;” “10 percent of those [deaths] were pedestrians,” he added, noting that the problem is particularly bad in Hawaii.

But “these [pedestrian fatalities] are preventable through best practices,” Senator Schatz added, noting how better street designs — and direct guidance from the federal government — can help states and MPOs build streets that are safer for everyone. He asked about her commitment to work on a safe streets agenda, to which Ms. Chao answered that she looked forward to working with him on the issue.

On the TIGER competitive grant program that is increasingly one of the best (or only) sources of funding for smart, local projects, Chao made no promises about overall funding for the program but noted that it was “one area of great agreement,” and that she was “impressed with how many members like it.”

On the elephant in the room, long-term funding for transportation, there was the typical rhetoric and few details — perhaps to be expected by any nominee at this point.

“President-elect Trump’s vision for an infrastructure proposal is ambitious, futuristic and comprehensive,” she said, noting that private investment and public-private partnerships need to be part of the mix. She was supportive of the TIFIA financing program (“It’s an important and valuable source of funding…we need more innovative sources like it.”) And she’s aware of the long-term structural problems with the gas tax, such as improved vehicle efficiency, and vehicle-miles-traveled — though now increasing after ten years of no growth — failing to come close to any of the federal projections for huge long-term growth.

She did answer a pointed question from Senator Cory Booker, who asked — financing and private investment aside — if she and President-elect Trump are in favor of increasing direct federal investment in transportation. Chao said, “I believe the answer is yes.”

And though it would be a question for Congress rather than the USDOT, she didn’t rule out Senator Mike Lee’s plan to essentially kill the federal transportation program, cut the federal gas tax down to a few pennies and let states decide whether or not (and how) they want to invest in transportation. “I’m open to all ideas,” she said, although this specific idea stands in stark opposition to the notion of increasing direct federal investment in infrastructure.

There was no vote on her confirmation today, and there could be another hearing for further questions. But evidence thus far suggests that Democrats are unlikely to oppose her nomination and she should be confirmed in a matter of time. As for what USDOT will look like under a Secretary Chao, there were a few hints of the approach today, but the proof will be in the pudding in 2017.

Watch the full video of the hearing above.

Senate Commerce Committee considers the (rapidly approaching) autonomous vehicle future

google self driving carsYesterday the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing with representatives from the autonomous vehicle industry to gather input on the needs and concerns of the rapidly growing industry.

Witnesses were:

  • Chris Urmson, Director of Self-Driving Cars, Google X
  • Mike Ableson, Vice President, Strategy and Global Portfolio Planning, General Motors Company
  • Glen DeVos, Vice President, Global Engineering and Services, Electronics and Safety, Delphi Automotive
  • Joseph Okpaku, Vice President of Government Relations, Lyft
  • Mary (Missy) Louise Cummings, Director, Humans and Autonomy Lab and Duke Robotics, Duke University

The key takeaways from this hearing were:

Autonomous vehicle technology is rapidly advancing and is close to market.

Each witness highlighted the strides their own companies have made. The message from all the panelists is that this in no longer an abstraction, but real technology that could very soon be on the road.

Mr. Ableson from GM and especially Mr. DeVos from Delphi focused on market-ready technologies that add semi-autonomous features to vehicles. Certain 2017 model year Cadillacs will feature technology allowing the cars to drive themselves on the highway. DeVos highlighted several crash avoidance and warning systems that will soon be entering the market and praised committee members for including a provision in last year’s FAST Act that adds new safety ratings for such technologies, incentivizing their adoption.

Google’s fully autonomous vehicles are further away, but Dr. Urmson noted that these vehicles have already logged 1.4 million miles in testing.

Despite these impressive advances, there are still significant hurdles to overcome. Dr. Cummings noted the challenges that autonomous vehicles face, for instance, in dealing with rain or other poor weather.

Panelists were concerned about conflicting regulations.

 Panelists all expressed concerns about the possibility of a “patchwork” of overlapping or conflicting regulations enacted at the state or local level and requested that the committee and federal regulators such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) steer consistent rules nationwide.

But disagreements about what and how much regulation is appropriate.

While panelists asked the committee to help avoid a patchwork of local regulations, they were reluctant to back any specific federal regulations on the industry, either. Several senators brought but unresolved regulatory challenges. Ranking Member Sen. Nelson (D-FL) struck a cautionary tone and brought up the ongoing recall of Takata airbags of an example of the devastating impact of design defects. Sens. Markey (D-MA) and Blumenthal (D-CT) pushed the panelists on what regulations they would endorse. But under direct questions from Sen. Markey all of the industry representatives would not support any mandatory requirements over safety or privacy, arguing that the industry is evolving too quickly for regulators to keep up. Dr. Cummings, speaking from an academic perspective, cautioned about technology moving to quickly to implementation, but also warned that federal regulators did not have the expertise to keep up with technological developments.

Autonomous vehicles will bring new business models.

Mr. Ableson from GM and Mr. Opaku from Lyft frequently brought up the new arrangement between the two companies which they see as a way to pioneer autonomous vehicles through a growing rideshare market. This strategic move from GM—an effort to move from selling vehicles to selling mobility—shows how disruptive this technology can be. Transportation network companies—especially Uber and Lyft—have already created an entirely new transportation service in only a few years, using existing technology. Adding radically new technology will undoubtedly be transformative.

Autonomous vehicles will be transformative and bring big benefits.

Committee members brought up numerous benefits of autonomous vehicles. The safety benefits could be tremendous, given that nationwide 38,000 people die each year in car crashes and 90% of those involve driver error. Additionally, several senators and the panelists noted the potential to help people with disabilities and others who currently have poor mobility options connect to economic opportunity. In his opening remarks, Chairman Thune (R-SD) noted that the transformation in how Americans get around would also allow cities to reclaim the one-third of their land now devoted to parking, increase vehicle efficiency, and turn time now wasted behind the wheel into productive, quality time.

Even with quick technological development, full implementation could take a long time.

Mr. DeVos of Delphi noted that the average vehicle on the road today is 11 years old, and there are more than 262 million vehicles registered across the country. Mr. Ableson said GM is only designing autonomous vehicles from the ground up and, from their perspective, autonomous retrofits would not be possible. That means even if the first autonomous vehicles are close to the market, it will take a long time for a large portion of the vehicle fleet to be autonomous without bigger changes to how people get around.

Senate committee responds to outcry, restores competitive TIGER grant program in final bill

Just a few hours after receiving a letter with 150 signatories from across the country in support of the TIGER program, late yesterday the Senate Commerce Committee removed the language from their bill that would have essentially ended that popular program of competitive transportation grants.

After many of you combined to send in over 1,700 letters to your Senators over the last 48 hours and we organized a letter of more than 150 elected officials, DOTs, MPOs, chambers of commerce and others, Senate Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) amended the bill late yesterday before the committee markup and removed the language that eliminated the TIGER program as we know it.

saved-tiger-featured

This is a big win and it wouldn’t have happened without your help! Thanks to everyone who got involved and made your voice heard in support of the TIGER program.

The win does come with an asterisk, however.

The original version of the Commerce bill wasn’t eliminating competitive grants entirely, it just repurposed the funds currently used for TIGER to create a smart competitive multimodal grant program explicitly for freight projects.

While a competitive program to help direct funds to the smartest freight projects is the direction federal transportation policy should be heading in, that shouldn’t happen at the expense of TIGER. We need more transportation dollars, not fewer, awarded competitively on the merits to the best projects.

Also, TIGER still lacks the permanent authorization of a program like New and Small Starts for example, which is why we’re constantly fighting battles to keep TIGER funded each year. Appropriators can choose not to fund it in any given budget year, and it’s an uphill battle to change that. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced a bill that would authorize the TIGER program and enshrine it as a permanent part of the federal transportation program — which will hopefully be considered on the Senate floor now that the bill has cleared the committee.

Logged-in members can read our summary of the TIGER Act (S. 1748) below.

[member_content]Senate TIGER Act (S 1748) Summary memo for members
Senators Murray (D-WA), Collins (R-ME), Durbin (D-IL), and Reed (D-RI) introduced the Transportation Infrastructure Grants and Economic Reinvestment (TIGER) Act (S. 1748) to formally authorize the federal TIGER discretionary grant program for the first time.[/member_content]

There are other provisions to applaud in the Committee’s bill — some of which we’ll go into detail on in today’s open conference call— including the Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act from Senators Wicker (R-MS) and Booker (D-NJ). That bill will make numerous improvements to the country’s passenger rail policy, but most importantly, by virtue of its inclusion in the full Commerce bill marked up yesterday, would be fully authorized as part of a long-term transportation bill if it remains there.

So we applaud the Committee for hearing the outcry and making the change to TIGER, but there’s still work to be done and our full request from yesterday’s letter still stands:

We request that the Commerce Committee authorize a strong, multimodal freight policy and freight investment grant program, as well as pass a complementary, authorization of the TIGER grant program separate from the multimodal freight discretionary grant program at or near equal funding levels.

We’re looking forward to working with the rest of the Senate as they continue putting together the long-term transportation reauthorization that we so desperately need.

Update: Read Smart Growth America’s post covering some of the bill’s provisions for complete streets, transit-oriented development and passenger rail, including a great summary of what to expect next — exactly the kind of topics we’ll be covering at length on today’s open conference call!

Senate leaders will combine this with other bills from the Committees on Environment and Public Works, Commerce as well as Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. That combined bill will then go to the full Senate for consideration—possibly as early as next week. Senate leaders are also working with the Finance Committee to agree on how to fund it all.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives yesterday passed a five-month extension of the current transportation bill, MAP-21. Questions remain as to whether the Senate will be able to pass a long-term bill or accept the House’s short-term extension before MAP-21 expires at the end of the month.

Don’t forget to register for today’s open conference call discussing everything that’s happening with regards to transportation in Congress.

Cities and towns could lose one of their best options for funding smart local projects

The Senate Commerce Committee is marking up a version of a long-term transportation funding bill Wednesday morning with no authorization for the popular TIGER program, thus limiting the money available to local communities.

Let me tell you a short story.

In central Illinois, there’s a classic medium-sized American town that desperately wanted to revitalize their downtown, fan the flames of the community’s civic pride, and provide a new lynchpin to encourage development in a part of town that had been neglected for far too long.

The elected leaders, business leaders and citizens in Normal, Illinois had an ambitious vision for their city’s core to become a powerful asset; helping them compete and prosper economically and creating a new framework for creating value for decades to come.

save-tiger-featuredSince 2009, the federal TIGER program has made projects like Normal’s downtown transportation hub and civic centerpiece a reality, directing a relatively tiny $4 billion into smart, ready-to-go homegrown transportation projects that bring a high return on investment.

Unfortunately, in the just-released proposal for a new long-term transportation bill, the Senate Commerce Committee has decided to entirely scrap the oversubscribed and woefully underfunded TIGER program that awards competitive, merit-based grants.

Can you send a message right now to your Senators and urge them to preserve TIGER? 

The Senate Commerce Committee is marking up the bill on Wednesday morning (7/15), so there’s not a moment to lose!

The committee is creating a very smart competitive multimodal grant program explicitly for freight projects, but that shouldn’t happen at the expense of TIGER. We need more transportation dollars, not fewer, awarded competitively on the merits to the best projects.

When we choose projects on the merits, we can get a greater bang for the buck. In Normal, where the new transportation hub opened in 2012, a total public investment of $80 million has catalyzed $165 million in private development surrounding the station, with another $40-50 million in the works.

These TIGER grants have been rewarding communities all across the country that are thinking outside the box to cut congestion, improve safety, promote economic development, or improve access to jobs and opportunities through smarter transportation investments.

It’s time to take a stand for TIGER. Can you send a message today?