In fact, it is especially important for AVs, which – because of reduced costs of operation and reduced time costs – have been estimated to travel more miles than cars with drivers. Unsurprisingly, this strategy also makes sense for driverless vehicles. Increasing vehicle occupancy (e.g., carpooling and public transit) can reduce traffic and emissions, and has been a common sense strategy for decades. The state can set parameters to ensure that innovation is targeted where it’s needed most, especially in underserved areas, and provide transit agencies flexibility to build lasting partnerships with automated shared mobility companies.Ģ) Discourage personal ownership of AVs and low- and no-occupancy AV travel. Lawmakers can help transit agencies innovate by creating dedicated secure revenue streams and encouraging them to experiment with new, forward-thinking services and technologies. Too often these grants are rigid (which can restrict agencies from innovating or iterating on their ideas), limit funding flexibility to support capital and operating costs, and are temporary. For example, AVs have operated as a circulator for an underserved neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio, and there are AV shuttles expanding transit options on campuses in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Arlington, Texas.īut if a pioneering public transit agency wants to add AV service to their network, they’ll most likely need a grant to help make it happen. Many address gaps in transportation networks. Dozens of AV service programs exist around the world ( including these).
The state can encourage shared AV services that connect underserved Californians with public transit. They are designed for California lawmakers, but can also inform other states and national governments.ġ) Support AVs that complement public transit. The following ten policy strategies are not ranked, but provide a menu of options. Our analysis identifies gaps in existing state policy and ideas for addressing these gaps. The intent is to utilize the potential of AVs to improve local mobility, enhance safety, and help meet larger state climate goals.
#DRIVER SIDE DEPLOYMENT LOOP OPEN FULL#
Below is a list of the top ten strategies to consider when developing AV policy in California ( see the full report for more detail). Our team, at UC Davis and UC Berkeley, has developed a menu of options that lawmakers can refine to set the state on a path toward AV safety, social equity, mobility, and sustainability. The delay in AV deployment provides an opportunity to formulate more thoughtful policies that will heighten societal benefits and reduce adverse risks. However, the pace of technological change demands stronger policy action, and soon. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) recently shared a draft Strategic Framework for AVs, which we applaud. There is widespread agreement that AVs have promise, but they will require oversight that doesn’t yet exist. Meanwhile, California policymakers have been proposing bills and regulations for this new area of the law. One company, Nuro, has been granted permission to deploy small robots for deliveries.
#DRIVER SIDE DEPLOYMENT LOOP OPEN DRIVER#
A handful of AV-taxi companies even hold permits to test without a safety driver in the vehicle, but the bulk are still in earlier stages of testing. Over fifty companies now have permits to test fully automated vehicles in California. While overblown promises never materialized, investment has continued and progress has been made in bringing them closer to market. Automated vehicle (AV) hype has soared in recent years.