Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Automated Vehicles and Public Policy: State and Local Perspectives

Presentation by Ginger Goodin at the 2014 Automated Vehicles Symposium, hosted by TRB and AUVSI (July 16, 2014, San Francisco)

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Automated Vehicles and Public Policy: State and Local Perspectives

  1. 1. Automated Vehicles and Public Policy: State and Local Perspectives Ginger Goodin
  2. 2. State and Local Public Policy Who? • State – State legislatures – Agencies – DOT, DMV, Police, Insurance • Local – Regional planning organizations – Transit authorities – Toll authorities – Counties and municipalities
  3. 3. State and Local Public Policy Why? • Safety and security • Quality of life • Economic prosperity
  4. 4. State and Local Public Policy What? • Safe vehicle operation and accountability – License vehicle operators – Regulate vehicle use of roadways – Establish traffic laws and enforcement of laws – Regulate insurance • Supportive infrastructure – Determine how infrastructure is planned, funded, developed, operated, maintained
  5. 5. State and Local Policy Roles Vehicle operation, safety and accountability Infrastructure planning, development, operation and maintenance State Legislature   State DMV  State Police  State Insurance  State DOT  Regional planning (MPO)  Transit  County  Municipality  Toll authority  STATELOCAL
  6. 6. State and Local Policy Roles Vehicle operation, safety and accountability Infrastructure planning, development, operation and maintenance State Legislature   State DMV  State Police  State Insurance  State DOT  Regional planning (MPO)  Transit ()  County ()  Municipality ()  Toll authority ()  Future ? () STATELOCAL
  7. 7. State and Local Public Policy How? • Through laws, rules, regulations, directives, investment decisions • Guided by transportation agency staff but responsive to constituents • Risk aversion inherent in strategic policy change Institutional inertia Unclear alternatives Short-term horizon Lack of social consensus Risk Aversion in Policy Development
  8. 8. State and Local Public Policy How? Incrementalism vs. Punctuated equilibrium States serve as laboratories of policy innovation Focusing event occurs Time ChangeinPublicPolicy Process (Bumgartner and Jones, 1993)
  9. 9. AV Policy Scoping Study Southwest University Transportation Center (SWUTC) • Study team conducted interviews with industry and government representatives • Increase understanding of – Economic and societal implications – State and local government policy perspectives – Public policy research needs
  10. 10. Overarching Findings • Uncertainty in AV capabilities, benefits and development path contribute to the lack of clarity needed for state and local public policy development. • Unresolved public policy and institutional issues will play a role in slowing deployment. • Forces unrelated to vehicle technology will dominate state and local transportation policy focus in the near term.
  11. 11. Actions Supporting State and Local Policy Development • Industry and government collaboration, communication • Research and product development • Field demonstrations and pilot projects • Plausible deployment scenarios – including transitional - to test • Conversations about structural policy change informed by data
  12. 12. www.tti.tamu.edu/policy/technology Ginger Goodin g-goodin@tamu.edu Jason Wagner j-wagner@tti.tamu.edu

×