AUTOMATED VEHICLES AND TRANSIT 2017 OPTC Conference Oct. 3, 2017 Pendleton, OR Andrew Dick, CAEV Advisor 2 1
94% of motor vehicle crashes are primarily caused by human error motor vehicle deaths in U.S., 40,000 a 6% increase over 2015 motor vehicle deaths in Oregon, 495 a 10% increase over 2015 3 What if we could use technology to improve roadway safety? 2
5 6 3
In an ideal world, autonomous vehicles will... Improve roadway safety Provide mobility Decrease congestion Reduce emissions by carefully navigating the road environment without getting tired, distracted, or intoxicated for the elderly, disabled, and others who do not or cannot drive by optimizing use of the roadway and through advanced ridesharing through highly efficient electric powertrains On the other hand, AVs could Increase VMT by lowering the cost of transportation and inducing more trips Exacerbate congestion through more travel, including zero-occupancy trips Increase sprawl as drivers tolerate longer travel distances Increase unemployment by automating professional driving jobs, from taxis and rideshare to long-haul trucking 4
A Range of Use Cases for Autonomous Vehicles Low-Speed 12-Passenger Shuttle Passenger Vehicles Automated Freight 9 Potential impacts of new transportation technologies 10 Source: Atlanta Regional Commission 5
Securing the future Automated vehicles could have positive and negative effects Government policy helps secure the benefits and mitigate the risks of AV technology Federal Role: Safety, design, and performance requirements for automated vehicles State Role: Licensing, registration, and operation of vehicles on the roadway Federal AV policy NHTSA developing federal AV policy September 2016: Federal Automated Vehicles Policy September 2017: Automated Driving Systems 2.0 Key differences in federal responsibilities Elimination of Privacy focus area Emphasis on voluntary nature of guidance Elimination of discussion of potential binding standards ODOT comment: If federal government asserts responsibility for developing safety standards, then federal government must develop safety standards 12 6
NHTSA s model state policy 2.0 may consider forming States should form AV safety technology committee including DOT, DMV, Gov s Office, Law Enforcement, Office of Information Technology, etc. may consider examining States should examine laws to remove unnecessary barriers to AV testing and deployment may consider taking States should take necessary steps to establish authority over AV testing may consider establishing States should establish process for accepting, reviewing, and approving applications for AV testing 13 Safety Vocabulary for Automated Vehicles Operational Design Domain (ODD) The conditions under which the automated system is designed to operate (geography, weather, road type) Object and Event Detection and Response (OEDR) How the vehicle detects and responds to roadway entities and conditions. A list of objects the vehicle can recognize and behaviors it can perform. Fallback (Minimum Risk Condition) If the vehicle malfunctions, it must return to a safe condition (e.g., pull out of traffic and stop), even without relying on a human driver 14 7
Takeaways AVs need binding federal safety standards voluntary guidance insufficient States may oversee testing, licensing, operation on roadway Other issues VMT, congestion, emissions, land use will be critical in long term 15 In an ideal world, autonomous transit will... Provide increased mobility Increase transit ridership Lower costs of additional service Strengthen transit services solve first-mile/last-mile problem and lower cost of dial-a-ride service by using AVs to provide connections to existing transit services by adding automated BRT and other new automated routes by ensuring that transit providers capture the gains of automation 8
9
Then again, automated vehicles could Decrease transit ridership Exacerbate congestion Threaten existing services Weaken transit services as riders choose automated door-to-door TNC services over transit through less efficient use of roadway space by lower-capacity vehicles if lower ridership and decreasing revenue make service difficult to maintain as conventional transit agencies compete head-to-head against autonomous TNCs 10
21 Source: Rocky Mountain Institute Low-Cost Door-to-Door Transportation of Autonomous Vehicles Automated TNCs: $0.80/passenger-mile Door-to-Door Transportation close in cost to transit Challenges if transit competes directly with AVs Low-occupancy AVs may increase congestion 22 11
City of Muenster 23 Getting it Right Integrate AVs with transit services to capture their benefits Strategies Circulators & Links to Transit First-mile/Last-mile High Capacity Bus/Train/BRT Integrated Payment Internal & External Outreach 24 12
Paths Forward for Transit Providers Click to enter text Pilot Programs Click to enter text Complementary Policies Click to enter text Partner & Customer Buy-in Collaboration 25 AUTOMATED VEHICLES AND TRANSIT 2017 OPTC Conference Oct. 3, 2017 Pendleton, OR Andrew Dick, CAEV Advisor andrew.e.dick@odot.state.or.us (503) 986-3839 13