[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ROAD AHEAD FOR AUTOMATED VEHICLES
=======================================================================
(117-39)
REMOTE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 2, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-612 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DON YOUNG, Alaska ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois MARK DeSAULNIER, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin GREG STANTON, Arizona, Vice Chair
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
Puerto Rico ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ viii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, opening statement..................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 99
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 137
WITNESSES
Hon. Martha Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore, Houston, TX,
and Councilmember, District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of the
National League of Cities, oral statement...................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, oral statement....................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
John Samuelsen, International President, Transport Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO, oral statement............................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, oral statement......................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora, oral statement...... 56
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Doug Bloch, Political Director, Joint Council 7, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, oral statement....................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Nico Larco, AIA, Director and Professor, Urbanism Next Center,
University of Oregon, oral statement........................... 71
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry
Association, oral statement.................................... 78
Prepared statement........................................... 80
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tom Karol, General Counsel
Federal, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois...... 3
``Broadside'' Cartoon by Jeff Bacon, Included in a Letter From
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, Published in the November 17, 2021, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Hearing Transcript Entitled,
``Industry and Labor Perspectives: A Further Look at North
American Supply Chain Challenges,'' Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford................................. 93
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His
Remarks to Hon. Mike Bost.................................. 137
Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His
Remarks to Hon. Julia Brownley............................. 138
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Garrick Francis, Vice
President, Federal Affairs, Alliance for Automotive
Innovation................................................. 139
Statement of the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators............................................. 140
Statement of the American Property Casualty Insurance
Association................................................ 141
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers......... 144
Statement of the American Traffic Safety Services Association 145
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Bill Sullivan, Executive
Vice President of Advocacy, American Trucking Associations. 147
Letter of February 14, 2022, from Jimmy Christianson, Vice
President, Government Affairs, Associated General
Contractors of America..................................... 148
Letter of February 17, 2022, from Michael Robbins, Executive
Vice President of Advocacy, Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International.............................. 150
Letter of February 2, 2022, from Koustubh ``K.J.'' Bagchi,
Senior Director, Federal Public Policy, Chamber of Progress 151
Letter of February 17, 2022, from Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities Transportation Task Force Cochairs....... 153
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Gary Shapiro, President and
CEO, Consumer Technology Association....................... 155
Statement of Kenneth W. Stuebing, BHSc, CCP(f), FO IV,
President and Board Chair, International Association of
Fire Chiefs................................................ 156
Statement of ITS America..................................... 158
Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tara Lanigan, Head of
Policy, May Mobility Inc................................... 161
Letter of February 16, 2022, from Ben Siegrist, Director,
Infrastructure, Innovation, and Human Resources Policy,
National Association of Manufacturers...................... 163
Statement of the National Safety Council..................... 164
Letter of February 1, 2022, and Autonomous Vehicles Policy
Guide, from Rick Guerra, P.E., F.NSPE, President, National
Society of Professional Engineers.......................... 168
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Todd Spencer, President and
CEO, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc... 170
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Jordan Crenshaw, Vice
President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce........................................ 171
Statement of the American Alliance for Vehicle Owners' Rights,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri........ 173
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sharice Davids of Kansas:
Article Entitled, ``Kansas Man Struck, Killed on I-70 in
Kansas City Early Saturday, Police Say,'' by Kaitlyn
Schwers, fox4kc.com, August 30, 2021....................... 174
Article Entitled, ``Grim Reminder: Latest Roadside Tragedies
Underscore Need for Drivers to Slow Down, Move Over,'' by
Ellen Edmonds, Manager, AAA Public Relations, AAA,
September 29, 2021......................................... 175
Article Entitled, ``Your Car's Emergency Flashers Could Get a
Major Upgrade Soon--and Here's Why,'' by Mark Phelan,
Detroit Free Press, December 5, 2020....................... 176
Article Entitled, ``Stopped-vehicle Crashes Result in
Hundreds of Fatalities Per Year,'' Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute, June 3, 2021.. 178
APPENDIX
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Martha
Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore, Houston, TX, and
Councilmember, District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of the
National League of Cities...................................... 181
Questions to Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, from:
Hon. Sharice Davids.......................................... 181
Hon. Sam Graves.............................................. 182
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 183
Questions to John Samuelsen, International President, Transport
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, from:
Hon. Nikema Williams......................................... 185
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson................................... 185
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 186
Questions to Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety, from:
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 186
Hon. Sharice Davids.......................................... 188
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 189
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 190
Hon. Eric A. `` Rick'' Crawford.............................. 190
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 191
Questions to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora, from:
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 192
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson................................... 193
Hon. David Rouzer............................................ 194
Hon. Steve Cohen............................................. 194
Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Doug Bloch, Political
Director, Joint Council 7, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters...................................................... 196
Questions to Nico Larco, AIA, Director and Professor, Urbanism
Next Center, University of Oregon, from:
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........................................ 196
Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr........................... 197
Questions to Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous
Vehicle Industry Association, from:
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson................................... 198
Hon. Rodney Davis............................................ 200
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 201
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
January 31, 2022
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``The Road Ahead for
Automated Vehicles''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Wednesday, February 2, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn
House Office Building and virtually via Zoom to receive
testimony related to the hearing entitled ``The Road Ahead for
Automated Vehicles.'' The purpose of this hearing is for
Members of the Subcommittee to explore the impact of automated
vehicle deployment, including automated trucks and buses, on
mobility, infrastructure, safety, workforce, and other economic
and societal implications or benefits. The Subcommittee will
hear from representatives of the National League of Cities,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, University of
Oregon, Transport Workers Union of America, Autonomous Vehicle
Industry Association, Teamsters, and Aurora.
BACKGROUND
Automated vehicles (AVs), including automated trucks and
buses, are vehicles in which the safety-critical control
functions (e.g., steering, acceleration, or braking) can occur
without direct driver input.\1\ There are at least 1,400
automated vehicles, including automated trucks, currently in
testing by more than 80 companies across 36 states, according
to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automated
Vehicles, https://one.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crash-Avoidance/Automated-
Vehicles. Accessed January 18, 2022.
\2\ Darrell Etherington, ``Over 1,400 self-driving vehicles are now
in testing by 80+ companies across the US,'' Tech Crunch, June 11,
2019, https://tcrn.ch/3fUunoP. Accessed January 18, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV TECHNOLOGY
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) classifies
vehicle automation into six levels. The levels of automation
are as follows: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ SAE International, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related
to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles
(J3016_202104), Revised April 30, 2021, https://www.sae.org/standards/
content/j3016_202104/. Accessed January 18, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0: No Driving Automation
Level 1: Driver Assistance
Level 2: Partial Driving Automation
Level 3: Conditional Driving Automation
Level 4: High Driving Automation
Level 5: Full Driving Automation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (https://bit.ly/
34dUqVI)
Only vehicles equipped with levels 3, 4, or 5 automation
are considered automated vehicles. The combination of hardware
and software that automates control functions of AVs is called
the automated driving system (ADS).\4\ Vehicles with levels 0-2
automation are considered equipped with automated driver
assistance systems (ADAS). Many vehicles available today are
equipped with some automation (levels 1-2), which includes
features such as automatic emergency braking and lane
centering.\5\ Although vehicles equipped with level 3-5
automation are not yet commercially available, many trucking
companies have partnered with self-driving technology firms and
are testing trucks with level 4 service and some jurisdictions
are providing level 4 autonomous transit service.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automated
Vehicles for Safety, https://bit.ly/33L01TA. Accessed January 18, 2022.
\5\ SAE International, ``SAE Levels of Driving Automation \TM\
Refined for Clarity and International Audience,'' May 3, 2021, https://
www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update. Accessed January 18, 2022.
\6\ https://bit.ly/3ofrC6m ; https://bit.ly/3IOhU2w ; https://
bit.ly/3IVHAdL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conditions and scenarios under which an AV can safely
operate is called an operational design domain (ODD).\7\ These
conditions may include geographies, roadway types, speed range,
weather, and time of day.\8\ AVs with more limited ODDs, such
as automated long-haul trucks operating only on Interstate
highways, may be closer to deployment. Conversely, AVs with
more complex ODDs, such as automated passenger vehicles
operating in dense urban areas, have a more complex path to
deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Waymo, ``Waymo Safety Report,'' page 16, February 2021. https:/
/bit.ly/33KBb6j. Accessed January 18, 2022.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In place of a human driver, AVs ``see'' the road using a
complex, complementary suite of technologies that work together
to paint a picture of their environment.\9\ Examples of these
technologies may include the following: \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid, page 14.
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LiDAR: uses light to detect objects and
distances.
Radar: uses electromagnetic waves to detect
objects and movement.
Vision systems: uses cameras to capture the
surrounding environment and important objects, such as traffic
lights, construction zones, school buses, and the lights of
emergency vehicles.
Computers: processes images captured by cameras
to discern between objects.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: World Economic Forum (https://bit.ly/3rWYwcP)
Similar to automated vehicles, connected vehicles (CVs)
operate by transmitting radio signals that allow CVs to
communicate with both other CVs and the surrounding
environment.\11\ CVs utilize the 5.9 gigahertz radio frequency
band to enable vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications
through a technology called dedicated short-range
communications (DSRC).\12\ Connected vehicle technology is
largely different than automated vehicle technology, but the
two technologies may eventually merge and complement one
another. Connected vehicles are not yet broadly commercially
available, and the technology is still in development. In 1999,
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reserved 75 MHz in
the 5.9 GHz spectrum band for DSRC for use with Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) to develop and test technologies
that increase roadway safety.\13\ In November 2020, the FCC
authorized unlicensed Wi-Fi devices to share more than half of
the 5.9 GHz band, reducing the amount of spectrum available for
V2X devices to 30 MHz.\14\ This controversial action was
criticized by members of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,\15\ State Departments of Transportation, and
the Intelligent Transportation Society of America.\16\ At that
time, DOT stated that the FCC's decision ``suffers from
numerous deficiencies.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Department of Transportation, How Connected Vehicles
Work, Updated February 27, 2020, https://www.transportation.gov/
research-and-technology/how-connected-vehicles-work. Accessed January
23, 2022.
\12\ Ibid.
\13\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Defining Safety of Life
in 5.9 GHz,'' Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, June 8, 2016, available
at https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/06/08/defining-auto-
safety-life-59-ghz. Accessed January 27, 2022.
\14\ Federal Communications Commission, ``First Report and Order,
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed
Modification in the Matter of the Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band,'' ET
Docket No. 19-138. November 18, 2020. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-
modernizes-59-ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive-safety-0. Accessed
January 23, 2022.
\15\ Letter to the DOT from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. 2020-01-22 Full TI Letter to FCC.pdf (house.gov).
Accessed January 26, 2022.
\16\ Traffic Technology Today Website, ``ITS America and AASHTO ask
US Transportation Secretary to preserve 5.9 GHz spectrum for V2X''
March 16, 2021. available at ITS America and AASHTO ask US
Transportation Secretary to preserve 5.9 GHz spectrum for V2X--Traffic
Technology Today. Accessed January 26, 2022.
\17\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Comments in the Federal
Register, ``First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification in the Matter of the Use
of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band,'' ET Docket No. 19-138, November 6, 2020,
page 1, https://bit.ly/344O0YL. Accessed January 23, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILITY
AV technology has the potential to revolutionize mobility
and make the transport of goods and people easier, cheaper,
more efficient, and more accessible.\18\ AVs could improve
mobility for vulnerable groups, including the elderly and those
with disabilities.\19\ Adoption of AVs may provide options to
those facing transportation challenges, increasing their access
to jobs and services and their ability to live
independently.\20\ Expanding transportation options for
underrepresented communities may address one of the major
barriers to entry for enhanced equality and inclusion in
society.\21\ In addition, AVs may also facilitate quicker and
cheaper freight transportation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ JTL Urban Mobility Lab at MIT, Autonomous Vehicles and Cities,
available at https://mobility.mit.edu/av.
\19\ National Highway Traffic Safety, Automated Vehicles for
Safety, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/
automated-vehicles-safety. Accessed January 26, 2022.
\20\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 8, available
at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-
initiatives/automated-vehicles/360956/
ensuringamericanleadershipav4.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2022.
\21\ Automotive World, Automated vehicles: the opportunity to
create an inclusive mobility system, March 27, 2019, available at
https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/automated-
vehicles-the-opportunity-to-create-an-inclusive-mobility-system/
#: :text=Automated%20
vehicles%20are%20expected%20to%20improve%20mobility%20and,mobility%20tod
ay%2C%20
existing%20mobility%20issues%20may%20be%20amplified., Accessed January
26, 2022.
\22\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
(transportation.gov) page 9, available at Driving Automation Systems in
Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential
Workforce Impacts (transportation.gov). Accessed January 27, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AVS
Because AVs will ``see'' the road differently,
transportation officials are beginning to evaluate the role of
road infrastructure in the safe deployment of AVs.
Stakeholders have noted that roadways and traffic control
devices--which include signs and lane markings--will likely
need to be in a state of good repair for safe AV operation.\23\
For example, today's AV technology may be unable to accurately
read, interpret, and take the proper action in the presence of
potholes, unclear road signage, or faded lane markings.\24\
Similarly, traffic control devices today are not uniform across
all states and are designed for humans to interpret.\25\
Different states and regions use different kinds of traffic
control devices.\26\ It is unclear how AVs and their
technologies--which vary between companies--may develop to
interpret disparate signs and lane markings in the future.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Impacts Committee of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Comments in the Federal Register,
``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-0049, March 5, page
3, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2017-0049-0079. Accessed
January 20, 2022.
\24\ American Traffic Safety Services Association, Comments in the
Federal Register, ``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-
0049, March 5, page 2. https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2017-
0049-0067. Accessed January 20, 2022.
\25\ Ibid.
\26\ Ibid.
\27\ Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Impacts Committee of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Comments in the Federal Register,
``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-0049, March 5, page
4, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FHWA-2017-0049-0079. Accessed
January 20, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is in the early
stages of evaluating the role of infrastructure in the
deployment of AVs and what federal action may be necessary.
This includes researching what data is needed for updating
infrastructure, modeling how AVs may impact traffic operations,
and awarding grants to allow states and localities to pursue
their own research.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 21, https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmerican
LeadershipAVTech4.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2022; Federal Highway
Administration, ``Automated Driving Systems,'' Docket No. FHWA-2017-
0049, January 18, 2018, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2017-
0049-0001. Accessed January 21, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA is also in the process of updating the national Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to account for AVs.
The national MUTCD is a manual developed by FHWA that sets
minimum standards and provides guidance for traffic control
devices.\29\ In December 2020, FHWA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the MUTCD with, among other
modifications, new guidance focused on accommodating AVs.\30\
This rulemaking is currently underway, and the comment period
closed on May 14, 2021.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, ``Overview,'' https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno-
overview.htm. Accessed January 21, 2022.
\30\ Federal Highway Administration, ``National Standards for
Traffic Control Devices: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways; Revision,'' Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001, December
14, 2020, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FHWA-2020-0001-0001.
Accessed January 21, 2022.
\31\ Federal Highway Administration, ``National Standards for
Traffic Control Devices; the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
for Streets and Highways; Revision,'' Docket No. FHWA-2020-0001,
February 2, 2021, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/02/
2021-01440/national-standards-for-traffic-control-devices-the-manual-
on-uniform-traffic-control-devices-for. Accessed January 27, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAFETY AND FEDERAL ACTIONS
Automated vehicles have the potential to drastically
increase vehicle safety and reduce motor vehicle crashes and
deaths. In 2020, there were 38,680 people killed in motor
vehicle crashes on U.S. roadways.\32\ Despite an initial drop
in the number of vehicle miles traveled, traffic fatalities
have increased dramatically since the start of the COVID-19
pandemic. Early estimates show that 20,160 people died in the
first half (January-June) of 2021, an increase of 18.4 percent
over the same time period in 2020.\33\ This represents the
largest number of projected fatalities in the first half of the
year since 2006 and the highest half-year percentage increase
in the history of data recorded, according to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813199. Accessed January 30, 2022.
\33\ Ibid.
\34\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT's research has indicated that up to 94 percent of
serious crashes involve human factors.\35\ However, the Chair
of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recently
criticized that statistic as ``misleading.'' \36\ AVs can
mitigate or correct driver error, and level 5 AVs have the
potential to remove the need for a human driver from the chain
of events that can lead to a crash. Provided that AVs respond
appropriately to avoid a crash, this heralds the potential to
significantly increase safety for drivers, passengers, and
other road users; and reduce the economic costs of crashes.\37\
Trucking and technology firms are currently testing the
technology to ensure that AVs can and will respond
appropriately in complex traffic and varying roadway
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812456. Accessed January 30, 2022.
\36\ https://www.ttnews.com/articles/ntsbs-homendy-calls-dots-
serious-crash-stat-misleading.
\37\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automated
Vehicles for Safety, available at National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Automated Vehicles for Safety--NHTSA. Accessed on
January 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because automated vehicles are still in development, AV
regulatory regimes are still in their beginning stages.\38\ At
the federal level, automated vehicle safety is overseen by
NHTSA. Although there is no overarching federal framework for
automated vehicles, DOT has taken preliminary steps to adapt
its regulatory regime for AVs. Since 2016, DOT has released
several iterations of voluntary guidance for AVs, the latest
being the ``Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan'' and
``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0.'' \39\ In December 2020,
NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) seeking public comment on the potential development of
a framework of principles to govern AV safety.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 7, https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmerican
LeadershipAVTech4.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2022.
\39\ Ibid.
\40\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Framework
for Automated Driving System Safety,'' Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0106,
December 3, 2020, https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2020-0106-
0001. Accessed January 23, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because private companies are in the early stages of
developing, testing, and piloting AVs and AV technologies,
there is little publicly available data on collision rates and
vehicle safety.\41\ NHTSA encourages automated vehicle
manufacturers to submit Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments
(VSSAs) demonstrating their approaches to safe testing and
deployment of AVs.\42\ To date, 29 companies have submitted
VSSAs to NHTSA.\43\ NHTSA also encourages AV companies to
voluntarily disclose information, including location and type
of vehicle, through the Automated Vehicle Transparency and
Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) tracking tool.\44\ All of
this information is publicly available. In June 2021, NHTSA
issued a Standing General Order that requires AV manufacturers
and operators to report crashes to the agency.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ U.S. Department of Transportation and National Science &
Technology Council, ``Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0,'' January 2020, page 7, https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-02/EnsuringAmerican
LeadershipAVTech4.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2022.
\42\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Automated
Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety,'' September 2017, page 7,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/13069a-
ads2.0_090617_v9a_tag.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2022.
\43\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Voluntary
Safety Self-Assessment, https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-
systems/voluntary-safety-self-assessment. Accessed January 23, 2022.
\44\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, AV TEST
Initiative, https://www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool.
Accessed January 23, 2022.
\45\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Standing
General Order on Crash Reporting for Levels of Driving Automation 2-5,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-
reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5. Accessed January 23, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
establishes Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs),
which set minimum safety standards for motor carriers and
drivers.\46\ In May 2019, FMCSA released an ANPRM requesting
comment on FMCSRs that may need to be updated, modified, or
eliminated to facilitate the safe introduction of automated
commercial motor vehicles.\47\ Potentially affected FMCSRs
included Licensing and Driver Qualifications, Hours of Service,
and Safe Driving.\48\ The NPRM is currently under internal
agency review.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, ``What Are
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMRs) and Where are They Published?'', The Motor
Carrier Safety Planner, https://bit.ly/3nWFJwY.
\47\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, ``Automated
Driving Systems (ADS) for Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs); Request for
Comments Concerning Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
Which May Be a Barrier to the Safe Testing and Deployment of ADS-
Equipped CMVs on Public Roads,'' Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0037, March 26,
2018, https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2018-0037. Accessed
January 23, 2022.
\48\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, ``Automated
Driving Systems (ADS) Policy Development for Commercial Vehicle
Operations,'' March 10, 2021, page 5, https://bit.ly/3AAkMNx. Accessed
January 23, 2022.
\49\ Ibid, page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE AND LOCAL ACTIONS
In lieu of a federal AV framework, 41 states and the
District of Columbia have enacted legislation or issued
executive orders related to AVs.\50\ Most of these state
actions are intended to encourage AV development and
testing.\51\ Some of these actions incorporate AVs into the
state's broader regulatory framework, including operating
authorities, safety standards, licensing and registration
requirements, and liability laws.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ National Conference of State Legislatures, Autonomous Vehicles
State Bill Tracking Database, Updated January 12, 2022, https://
www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-legislative-
database.aspx. Accessed January 23, 2022.
\51\ Ibid.
\52\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKFORCE IMPACTS
While it is difficult to determine the exact impact AVs
will have on the nation's workforce, automating the task of
driving commercial motor vehicles could dramatically change
professional driving careers in numerous ways. Impacts could
include job displacement, changes in job responsibilities, and
changes in wages and quality of life.\53\ According to DOT
analysis, the primary economic motivation for adoption of
advanced AV technology (e.g., level 5) is to remove the need
for a human driver and thereby reduce operating costs.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Driving Automation
Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
Potential Workforce Impacts,'' January 2021, page 9, https://bit.ly/
3AKXPHP. Accessed January 24, 2022.
\54\ Ibid, page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to DOT estimates, the current size of the heavy
truck and tractor-trailer driver workforce is approximately 2
million drivers, making it one of the largest occupational
sectors in the U.S.\55\ The American Trucking Associations
estimates that the industry needs 80,000 more drivers today
with those estimates expected to surpass 160,000 drivers by
2030.\56\ Other segments of the industry cite driver retention
as the workforce challenge most plaguing the industry,
highlighting driver wages and working conditions as obstacles
to attracting and retaining qualified drivers.\57\ These groups
point to U.S. Department of Labor analysis of trucking industry
turnover rates,\58\ as well as FMCSA estimates that over
400,000 commercial driver's licenses are issued each year.\59\
Some segments of the trucking industry view driving automation
and the possible quality of life improvement as having the
potential to help address the estimated demand for new truck
drivers in the long-haul trucking segment.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Driving Automation
Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
Potential Workforce Impacts,'' January 2021, page 38, https://bit.ly/
3AKXPHP. Accessed January 24, 2022.
\56\ Transport Topics, ``Truck Driver Shortage Looms over 2022,''
December 22, 2021, available at https://www.ttnews.com/articles/truck-
driver-shortage-looms-over-2022. Accessed January 26, 2022.
\57\ Todd Spencer, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Testimony to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, June
12, 2019, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20190612/109600/HHRG-
116-PW12-Wstate-SpencerT-20190612.pdf. Accessed January 26, 2022.
\58\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Is the U.S. labor market for truck
drivers broken?'', March 2019, https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/
article/is-the-us-labor-market-for-truck-drivers-broken.htm. Accessed
January 26, 2022.
\59\ FreightWaves, ``OOIDA urges Biden administration to bust
driver shortage `myth','' August 2021, https://www.freightwaves.com/
news/ooida-urges-biden-administration-to-bust-driver-shortage-myth.
Accessed January 26, 2022.
\60\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
(transportation.gov) page 39; Three Major Benefits of Autonomous
Trucking : Redwood Logistics. Accessed January 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adoption of automation technologies has historically
been associated with some level of job displacement. Potential
trucking workforce job displacement is unknown at this point
and may vary based on several factors. DOT analysis notes that
displacement would be limited for business models in which a
driver remains in the vehicle, regardless of their onboard
duties.\61\ Increased adoption of low-level automation (e.g.,
levels 1, 2, and 3) is unlikely to bring about driver job
displacement but may lead to improvements in safety and
operations and quality of life.\62\ In the long term, the
adoption of Level 4 or 5 AVs may supplant certain driving tasks
and reduce the need for human drivers, displacing workers and
creating periods of transitional unemployment for some affected
workers.\63\ Within the trucking sector, job displacement may
be experienced first in the long-haul sector due to the long
periods of uninterrupted highway driving (a less complex
driving task to automate).\64\ Researchers have attempted to
estimate the impact of AVs on trucking job displacement. Some
studies show that job displacement estimates may vary from a
low-end of 19 to 25 percent up to 60 to 65 percent of all heavy
truck and tractor-trailer driver jobs; however, these estimates
should be reexamined as they may be limited by the need for new
and additional data.\65\ Other studies contradict the finding
that automation will result in job losses.\66\ Additionally,
certain portions of long haul trucking may be more vulnerable
to displacement because of a less complex operating environment
on highways.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Ibid, page 42.
\62\ Ibid, page 38 and 45.
\63\ Ibid.
\64\ Ibid, page 63.
\65\ Ibid.
\66\ Harvard Business Review, Automation Isn't About to Make
Truckers Obsolete, Maurey Gittleman and Kristen Monaco, September 18,
2019, available at https://hbr.org/2019/09/automation-isnt-about-to-
make-truckers-obsolete. Accessed January 29, 2022.
\67\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
(transportation.gov) page 63; And Three Major Benefits of Autonomous
Trucking : Redwood Logistics. Accessed January 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the more advanced driving automation systems may
spur increased demand for complementary occupations and create
new jobs separate from manual truck driving. For example,
additional, highly skilled mechanics would be required to
maintain and repair the increasingly complex technologies.\68\
In addition, experienced drivers could be employed at trucking
control centers that remotely pilot trucks.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Ibid, page 41.
\69\ Ibid, page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the National Transit Database, there were
approximately 102,000 transit bus drivers in the U.S. in
2020.\70\ However, transit agencies across the nation are
reporting bus driver shortages, which threaten the ability of
transit agencies to resume pre-pandemic operations.\71\
Agencies have had to cut transit service to cope, resulting in
hardships for those that depend on bus transit to get to work,
school, or shopping to access other services \72\ Fully
automating transit operator jobs is likely to be difficult due
to the complexity of the environments in which transit buses
operate. At high levels of automation, transit agencies may
elect to replace bus driver positions with service-oriented
roles such as ``non-driving onboard attendants'' who would be
responsible for tasks that are difficult to automate, such as
collecting fares and securing wheelchairs.\73\ However, these
positions may be lower-skilled and may receive lower pay and
benefits since the driving component and Commercial Driver's
License credential requirement would be eliminated.
Alternatively, AVs may create new job opportunities for transit
workers in the logistics arena, such as control center staff to
provide remote supervision and dispatch services.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ This information was provided to the Committee by the Federal
Transit Administration via email on January 27, 2022.
\71\ National Public Radio, ``A shortage of bus drivers is causing
problems for those who use public transportation'' January 17, 2022.
available at https://www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1073661319/a-shortage-of-
bus-drivers-is-causing-problems-for-those-who-use-public-transport;
https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/transit-union-president-says-nfta-
bus-driver-shortage-
is-wage-not-pandemic-
related#: :text=Transit%20Union%20president%20says%20NFTA%20
bus%20driver%20shortage,benefits%2C%20as%20well%20as%20pension%20and%20p
ost-
retirement%20benefits; https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/12/29/bay-area-
transit-looks-to-woo-new-bus-operators-amid-national-driver-shortage/;
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/09/20/metro-transit-route-
cancellations/; https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/trimet-to-
limit-bus-service-amid-agencys-worst-ever-driver-shortage/; https://
www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/metry-bus-driver-shortage-route-
delays/65-3b47fefb-a065-4a5a-9471-6d45864c388b; https://
www.thecity.nyc/2021/5/24/22452250/mta-bus-driver-shortage-canceled-
trips-and-waits; https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/09/20/metro-
transit-route-cancellations/; Accessed January 25, 2022
\72\ Ibid.
\73\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
(transportation.gov) page 58, available at Driving Automation Systems
in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
Potential Workforce Impacts (transportation.gov). Accessed January 29,
2022.
\74\ Ibid, page 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMICS AND SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS AND BENEFITS
Beyond increased mobility and safety, the broad adoption of
AVs may bring numerous potential benefits to the American
public. For example, the increase in safety could provide
society with significant benefits in avoiding the deaths,
injuries, and other human costs associated with truck and bus
crashes.\75\ While many crash impacts are intangible, trucking
firms and transit agencies could also realize direct cost
savings from reduced repair and maintenance costs, insurance
premiums, and vehicle downtime.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ U.S. Department of Transportation, ``Driving Automation
Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
Potential Workforce Impacts,'' January 2021, page 40, https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-01/
Driving%20Automation%20Systems
%20in%20Long%20Haul%20Trucking%20and%20Bus%20Transit%20Preliminary
%20Analysis%20of%20Potential%20Workforce%20Impacts.pdf. Accessed
January 26, 2022.
\76\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing crashes and their resulting delays will increase
the efficiency of bus and truck operations and increase the
capacity and throughput on our roads.\77\ Traffic optimization,
a potential benefit of AVs if they respond appropriately to
traffic conditions, is likely to reduce commuting times.\78\ In
addition, AVs have the potential to improve fleet utilization.
For example, without a human driver, trucks could potentially
run more continuously, without the need for human drivers to
rest.\79\ Likewise, longitudinal control systems on buses can
increase throughput in congested conditions.\80\ Precision
docking can improve the customer experience, particularly for
passengers with disabilities, while also reducing waiting
times.\81\ AVs could also improve vehicle utilization, as a
potential bidirectional design can eliminate end-of-run
turnaround loops, and there would be no need for operator
breaks.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ IEEE.org, Decision-Making Strategy on Highway for Autonomous
Vehicles Using Deep Reinforcement Learning, Liao, Liu, Tang, September
2020, available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9190040.
Accessed January 29, 2022.
\78\ Science Direct, Will autonomous vehicles change auto
commuters' value of travel time?, Zhong, Li, Burris, available at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/abs/pii/
S1361920919311010#: :text=Autonomous%20vehicles%20could%20reduce%
20commuters%E2%80%99%20value%20of%20travel,communters%2C%20followed%20by
%20their
%20urban%20and%20rural%20counterparts. Accessed January 29, 2022.
\79\ Driving Automation Systems in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus
Transit: Preliminary Analysis of Potential Workforce Impacts
(transportation.gov) page 44, available at Driving Automation Systems
in Long-Haul Trucking and Bus Transit: Preliminary Analysis of
Potential Workforce Impacts (transportation.gov). Accessed January 29,
2022.
\80\ Ibid, page 54.
\81\ Ibid.
\82\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel costs are the second highest cost category for the
trucking industry.\83\ AVs may reduce the amount of fuel
required, thereby significantly reducing fuel costs and
benefitting the environment.\84\ Truck platooning, which uses
automation to allow trucks to follow each other at a set
distance between trucks, allows trucks to travel closer
together and offers potential improvements in overall fuel
economy.\85\ A study shows that platooning with automated
trucks can reduce fuel consumption by 10 to 25 percent and
reduce emissions.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Ibid, page 39.
\84\ Ibid, page 38 and 39.
\85\ Ibid. page 13 and 86.
\86\ Global Trade, ``Vehicle Automation and Carbon Emissions,''
Peter Buxbaum, December 22, 2016. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential increases in productivity resulting from AVs may
result in faster delivery and quicker commuting time.\87\
Productivity increases together with operational savings may
result in lower trucking freight rates that may be passed on to
the consumer \88\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Benefits of Going Driverless with an Autonomous Vehicle--C&D
Logistics (cdlogistics.ca). Accessed January 28, 2022.
\88\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, page 64,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-department-transportation-
releases-preparing-future-transportation-automated; http://
smarttransport.solutions/2018/05/29/freight-transpotation/
#: :text=Automated%20trucks%20
have%20the%20potential%20to%20improve%20efficiency,consumption%2C%20and%
20thus
%20drives%20truck%20freight%20volume%20up. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the potential direct benefits of AVs, researchers
are beginning to investigate the broader societal implications
of AVs. These include the effect of AVs on greenhouse gas
emissions, congestion, urban design, and equity.\89\ Some
research suggests that AVs may not uniformly alleviate
congestion.\90\ Additionally, some studies suggest that AVs may
increase greenhouse gas emissions because they provide easier
access to travel and mobility.\91\ Further research is needed
to conclusively identify the effects of AVs on congestion and
greenhouse gas emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ University of Oregon Urbanism Next, Autonomous Vehicles,
https://www.urbanismnext.org/technologies/autonomous-vehicles. Accessed
January 24, 2022.
\90\ Liam Cummins, et al., ``Simulating the effectiveness of wave
dissipation by FollowerStopper Autonomous Vehicles,'' ResearchGate,
February 2021, page 23. Available at https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/
349100553_Simulating_the_effectiveness_of_wave_
dissipation_by_FollowerStopper_autonomous_vehicles/link/
616e36e2039ba26844664ee2/
download. Accessed January 29, 2022.
\91\ Moneim Massar, et al., ``Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions--Positive or Negative?'', National Library of
Medicine, May 23, 2021. Available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
34071052/. Accessed January 29, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST
The Honorable Martha Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro
Tem and Councilmember, District K (Houston, TX), on behalf of
the National League of Cities
Mr. Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
Mr. John Samuelsen, International President,
Transport Workers Union of America
Ms. Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety
Mr. Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora
Mr. Doug Bloch, Political Director, Teamsters
Joint Council 7
Mr. Nico Larco, Professor and Director of the
Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon
Mr. Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous
Vehicle Industry Association
THE ROAD AHEAD FOR AUTOMATED VEHICLES
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m. in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Ms. Norton, Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Garamendi, Mr. Auchincloss, Ms. Newman, Mr. Rodney Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Perry, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Bost, Mr.
Westerman, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Guest, and Mr. Nehls.
Members present remotely: Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnson
of Georgia, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Ms. Brownley,
Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Stanton, Mr.
Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Delgado, Mr. Lamb, Ms. Bourdeaux, Ms.
Strickland, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Carbajal, Ms.
Davids of Kansas, Mr. Moulton, Ms. Williams of Georgia, Mr.
Cohen, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Massie, Dr. Babin, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr.
Fitzpatrick, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr.
Gimenez, and Mrs. Steel.
Ms. Norton. Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit's hearing on the future of automated
vehicles, known as AVs. I must say, I am particularly
interested in this hearing, fascinated by it, because it gets
us well beyond roads and bridges.
Today we will examine the effects of the adoption and
deployment of AVs on roadway safety, infrastructure, and the
commercial driving workforce. We will also consider this
committee's role and responsibility overseeing AV deployment to
ensure that the highest possible safety standards are met, and
that all Americans have access to high-quality, family-wage
transportation jobs.
Automated vehicles are on the cusp of transforming our
transportation system. AVs, including commercial trucks and
buses, are those in which at least some aspect of safety-
critical control function occurs without direct driver input.
Some can themselves perform all driving tasks and monitor the
driving environment.
This technology presents both opportunities and threats.
Nationwide, we are experiencing a startling rise in fatalities
among drivers and other road users. AVs have the potential to
drastically reduce deaths on our roadways by reducing traffic
crashes caused by human behavior. Still, safety benefits must
be carefully weighed against risks, especially when deploying
commercial and passenger-carrying AVs. We have seen disastrous
consequences when automation technology is deployed
haphazardly.
To maximize the road safety impact of AVs, we must ensure
that these technologies are held to the highest possible safety
standards. Such standards must consider the safety of all road
users who interact with AVs, including pedestrians and cyclists
and those who scoot and use wheelchairs, which is especially
critical in urban areas like my own District of Columbia.
AVs must be integrated into our transportation system in a
manner that respects America's commercial driving workforce.
AVs could significantly improve working conditions for
commercial drivers, and increase on-the-job safety. But
eliminating the need for a human driver could also result in
widespread job displacement if the needs of workers are not
prioritized at the outset. Employer transparency, comprehensive
regulations, and oversight of AV deployment will be required to
create and preserve high-quality, family-wage jobs and good
working conditions for Americans whose livelihoods depend on
driving.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here and
offering your unique and much-needed insights for this
subcommittee. I look forward to a lively discussion and hearing
what our committee can do to maximize the benefits that AVs aim
to deliver.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit's hearing on
the future of automated vehicles, known as AVs. Today, we will examine
the effects of the adoption and deployment of AVs on roadway safety,
infrastructure and the commercial driving workforce. We will also
consider this committee's role and responsibility overseeing AV
deployment to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are met
and that all Americans have access to high-quality, family-wage
transportation jobs.
Automated vehicles are on the cusp of transforming our
transportation system. AVs, including commercial trucks and buses, are
those in which at least some aspect of a safety-critical control
function occurs without direct driver input. Some can themselves
perform all driving tasks and monitor the driving environment. This
technology presents both opportunities and threats.
Nationwide, we are experiencing a startling rise in fatalities
among drivers and other road users. AVs have the potential to
drastically reduce deaths on our roadways by reducing traffic crashes
caused by human behavior. Still, safety benefits must be carefully
weighed against risk, especially when deploying commercial and
passenger-carrying AVs. We have seen disastrous consequences when
automation technology is deployed haphazardly. To maximize the road
safety impact of AVs, we must ensure that these technologies are held
to the highest possible safety standards. Such standards must consider
the safety of all road users who interact with AVs, including
pedestrians and cyclists and those who scoot and use wheelchairs, which
is especially critical in urban areas like the District of Columbia.
AVs must also be integrated into our transportation system in a
manner that respects America's commercial driving workforce. AVs could
significantly improve working conditions for commercial drivers and
increase on-the-job safety. But eliminating the need for a human driver
could also result in widespread job displacement if the needs of
workers are not prioritized at the outset. Employer transparency,
comprehensive regulations and oversight of AV deployment will be
required to create and preserve high-quality, family-wage jobs and good
working conditions for Americans whose livelihoods depend on driving.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today and
offering your unique insights. I look forward to a lively discussion
and hearing what our committee can do to maximize the benefits that AVs
aim to deliver.
Ms. Norton. I ask unanimous consent that the chair be
authorized to declare a recess at any time.
Without objection.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection.
As a reminder, please keep your microphone muted, unless
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
will request that the Member please mute the microphone.
To insert a document into the record, please have your
staff email it to [email protected].
Now I am pleased to recognize my good friend, the ranking
member, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Chair Norton. And
before I begin with my opening comments, can I ask unanimous
consent to insert into the record comments from the National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies?
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tom Karol, General Counsel Federal,
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Rodney Davis of Illinois
February 2, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
2136 Rayburn Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
2079 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representatives,
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) is
pleased to offer comments to the House of Representatives Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit Hearing on ``The Road Ahead for Automated
Vehicles.''
NAMIC membership includes more than 1,500 member companies. The
association supports regional and local mutual insurance companies on
main streets across America and many of the country's largest national
insurers. NAMIC member companies write $323 billion in annual premiums.
Our members account for 67 percent of homeowners, 55 percent of
automobile, and 32 percent of the business insurance markets.
According to the most recent projections from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, an estimated 31,720 people died in motor
vehicle traffic crashes in the first nine months of 2021, up from
28,325 during the same period in 2020, and 26,941 in 2019.\1\ The 2020
number is especially staggering considering the sharp decline in
vehicle miles traveled at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Property and casualty insurers have been at the forefront of safety on
America's roadways for decades and to see these numbers increase at
this rate is tragic and alarming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ US Department of Transportation National Highway Safety
Administration https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/813240
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) may be the most
consequential transportation issue of our time. New technology and
novel service strategies promise faster and better mobility that will
be less expensive and more environmentally friendly. Spring boarding
from existing and widely accepted ``assisted driving'' systems such as
cruise control, ADS developers promise a wider array of functions, from
greater driver assistance to vehicles that will perform every driving
operation without human intervention.
Safety Must Be the Primary and Overriding Focus
The single most important reason to support the development of ADS
is the potential to enhance safety and save lives. While the idea of
working, napping, or watching a movie while the car drives itself may
be enticing to many, enhanced safety must always be the primary focus
of ADS development. ADS that are proven safer than existing drivers
will have innumerable benefits to society. However, the development and
deployment of proven, safe ADS will require significant technological
advances, revisions to the regulatory paradigm, and the active
participation of all stakeholders. Innovation for the sake of
innovation that is not demonstrably connected to enhanced safety merely
serves as a convenient talking point.
Safety must be the primary goal for ADS development, but defining
and proving what ``improved safety'' means for ADS is not simple.
Currently, federal auto safety regulations focus more on the structure
and design of vehicles and less on the driving operations that are
subject to human control. With ADS, the vehicle will assume driving
operations formerly performed by the human driver. Thus, the safety
responsibilities of the vehicle will expand and will continue to expand
until the vehicle assumes all driving operations without any human
control and reduces the frequency of crashes caused by sleeping,
intoxication, distraction, or speeding.
The potential for technology to move the proverbial needle on crash
statistics is extraordinary. However, there will still be crashes,
especially in an environment where automated vehicles continue to share
the road with human drivers. It is important to note that ADS, in and
of themselves, do not fundamentally change the legal theories of
liability associated with motor vehicle crashes. As these ADS crashes
happen and questions of liability arise, insurance will play a crucial
role for ADS manufacturers, suppliers, owners, operators, and
passengers.
According to the NHTSA, fully automated vehicles that can see more
and act faster than human drivers could greatly reduce errors, the
resulting crashes, and their toll. On the other hand, the elimination
of certain human errors does not tell us anything about the
introduction of computer, sensor, or software error. Safe ADS will
require a substantial amount of specialized software, sensors,
controllers, and actuators to collectively perform without error, or at
least as well as those human drivers, the large universe of operations
that human drivers already perform. The bar for performance has been
set high: human drivers since 2017 have averaged approximately 500,000
vehicle miles between crashes, more than one million vehicle miles
between crashes with an injury and nearly 100 million vehicle miles
between fatal crashes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ US Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation
Statistics https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of ADS will require a new way to look at the
fundamental nature of driving, and that development should not be
hindered by requiring outdated safety requirements that do not apply to
new technologies. At the extreme end of the spectrum, the development
of ADS with no driver controls will mean that vehicle features that are
now required for human operation may not be necessary or practical.
Sound policy should include a review of which requirements would no
longer be relevant for a fully autonomous vehicle.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are the U.S.
federal regulations specifying nationwide design, construction,
performance, and durability requirements for auto-safety-related
components, systems, and design features. FMVSS focus mostly on crash
avoidance, crashworthiness, and crash survivability. Existing FMVSS
specify that controls and displays must be located where they are
visible to or within the reach of a person sitting in the driver's
seat. Depending on whether the occupants have ``dual mode'' or no
control of an ADS, there may not be a ``driver's seat'' or the relevant
controls or displays of driving operations may vary with the driving
operations that the human retains. In various iterations of ADS, auto
parts subject to FMVSS, such as rearview mirrors, may or may not be
superfluous for driving operations. Similarly, controls for turn
signals, lights, or wipers may or may not be required and may or may
not be subject to safety standards.
The focus must remain on ensuring that critical safety aspects are
examined and validated, and that any safety assurance gaps that may be
created by the introduction of ADS onto the roads are identified and
addressed. This is far more complicated than it may seem. While many
human-driver focused FMVSS do not make sense for ADS, perhaps ADS-
specific safety tests should accompany broad exemptions. Existing self-
certification should be supplemented by governmentally defined and
publicly disclosed standards and then supplemented by third-party
validation of design and testing. Pre-market approval has many
downsides, but some level of independent ADS safety review could
supplement self-certification.
Defining and Analyzing the Appropriate Safety Data is Critical
Insurers should have access to a robust ADS information and data
framework--including crash accident and incident information and data
for businesses purposes, including underwriting and rating--that is
timely, complete, and useful. It is critically important for Congress
to address these issues when writing any legislation for the
development and deployment of automated vehicles.
For a long time to come, vehicles equipped with ADS will share the
road with vehicles with no automation and these vehicles will
inevitably be involved in crashes. Furthermore, the increased removal
of human driver error through automation introduces new risk factors
that could cause crashes such as sensor, camera, and software errors.
Because of this, determining liability following a crash will
increasingly rely on the data that the vehicle generates prior to and
during a crash. Making a liability determination and addressing claims
will require a more complete understanding of what the vehicle was
designed to do and not do, what the human driver was required to do and
not do, and under what conditions, as well as the proper upkeep of the
vehicle and all relevant traffic and weather conditions. Recent high-
profile examples of fatal automobile crashes where it is in dispute
whether the vehicle was in ``autopilot'' mode tragically highlight the
need to ensure that incident and maintenance data is available to third
parties, especially insurers.
The types of objective and verifiable data that will be required to
provide insurance for ADS--data on crash frequency, crash severity, and
repairs--are the same types of data that can authoritatively validate
safety levels of ADS to the public and regulators. Auto insurance rates
and coverage are established by insurance companies using vast amounts
of historical data and established actuarial science, analyzing years
of relevant data on frequency and severity of incidents. The rates
determined by insurance companies are then frequently subject to a
review by the state insurance regulators to ensure that they are fair
and supported by data.
Valid and understandable data on ADS is critical to safety. The
development and deployment of ADS--particularly the proposed ADS with
no controls for a human driver--is a game changer. It will entail a
fundamental change in transportation, mobility, infrastructure, and
myriad other areas. The adoption of ADS on a wide scale will impact
millions of people and will require adaptation by governments,
industries, and the culture in general. The precondition to this
development is an accepted belief that ADS improve safety, which will
itself require sufficient data and information upon which to validate
that belief. To date, information about ADS development in general and
safety specifically has been limited.
ADS development is still in the early stages and numerous business,
design, technical, and other issues are still only being discussed. In
the competition to bring ADS to market, there should be a requisite
level of confidentiality. Insurance companies understand confidential
information and have a long history of working with auto companies to
obtain and use available data responsibly. Similarly, insurance
companies have deep experience in data security and the wide scope of
data privacy requirements when it comes to both their own products and
the protection of policyholder information.
It would be in the best interests of proponents of safe ADS to
coordinate and consider new and improved alternative means to
communicate on ADS technology and performance. Somewhere between the
extreme poles of ``just trust us'' and reams of federal and state
regulations requiring submission of millions of certified data points
is a system of information and communication that is usable and
comprehensible for the public, governments, and other industries.
Validation of safe ADS development and subsequent public acceptance can
be greatly enhanced by a measurable gauge of ADS safety/risks through
recognized analysis of the most relevant data. Insurers, with their
direct and ongoing contact with drivers and owners, are a most
effective way to enhance that communication.
The Challenge: Defining What Dual Control Automated/Driver Vehicles Can
Do and Cannot Do
Today, and possibly for a long time to come, the full driving
task--SAE Levels 4 and 5--is too complex an activity to be fully
formalized as a sensing-acting robotics system that can be explicitly
solved through model-based and learning-based approaches to achieve
full unconstrained vehicle autonomy.\3\ Car companies--or original
equipment manufacturers, as they are known--are building and offering
cars today in which the dynamic driving tasks of the vehicle can be
controlled at times by the vehicle and at times by the occupant. These
conditional automation/dual-control cars can be as relatively simple as
the widely used automatic braking. Advanced driving assistance features
today specify that they do not substitute for the driver's
responsibility to operate the vehicle in a safe manner; that the driver
should remain attentive to traffic, surroundings, and road conditions
always; and that visibility, weather, and road conditions may affect
feature performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Citing MIT Advanced Vehicle Technology Study: Large-Scale
Naturalistic Driving Study of Driver Behavior and Interaction with
Automation, available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.06976.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to understand the designed capabilities and
limitations of the dual control vehicle and how and when driving
operations were engaged or disengaged leading up to the crash. Robert
Sumwalt, former Chair of the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) has stated, ``As more manufacturers deploy driving automation
systems on their vehicles, to improve system safety, it will be
necessary to develop detailed information about how the active safety
systems performed during, and how drivers responded to, a crash
sequence. Manufacturers, regulators, and crash investigators all need
specific data in the event of a system malfunction or crash.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Testimony of The Honorable Robert L. Sumwalt, III, chairman,
National Transportation Safety Board, before the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, United States Senate hearing ``Highly
Automated Vehicles: Federal Perspectives on the Deployment of Safety
Technology,'' page 9 at https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/
B8EF39B5-DE24-48AA-A870-B6CF8E0D5033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the biggest impediments today is public wariness of
automated vehicles, with public confidence in ``self-driving'' cars
rated as low in recent studies.\5\ Providing more specific information
about what each model is designed to do will enable consumers to better
understand and accept their responsibilities in these vehicles.
Increasing confidence in the technology through access to more and
better information of the specific capabilities and limitations of a
vehicle could enhance the safe operation and prepare consumers for
higher levels of automation in the future. This same information can
greatly assist the further development and implementation for clear
federal and state regulations for the deployment of these vehicles. By
making this information widely available without prescriptive
government regulations, OEMs can provide regulators with the assurances
they need but retain the flexibility to modify disclosures to address
upgrades and revisions. False or misleading information will remain
subject to existing civil and criminal sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A survey sponsored by Partners for Automated Vehicle Education
reported that nearly three in four Americans say AV technology is ``not
ready for primetime.'' 48% of Americans said they ``would never get in
a taxi or ride-share vehicle that was being driven autonomously.'' 58%
think safe AVs will be available in ten years, and 20% believe they
will never be safe. Only 34% of Americans thought ``the advantages of
AVs outweigh any potential disadvantages'' and only 18% of Americans
agree with the statement ``if there was a website to get on a waiting
list for the first AV, I'd put my name down.'' https://
pavecampaign.org/pave-poll-americans-wary-of-avs-but-say-education-and-
experience-with-technology-can-build-trust/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Companies Have the Expertise to Help Assessment of the Safety
Testing of Automated Vehicles
Insurers have long championed auto and highway safety issues and
have helped raise public awareness through the creation and ongoing
support of auto safety research organizations such as the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute. The
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent, nonprofit
scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the
losses--deaths, injuries, and property damage--from motor vehicle
crashes. The Highway Loss Data Institute shares and supports this
mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the
human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of
different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by
vehicle make and model. Insurers have long allied with safety groups to
work together to make America's roads safer.
The critical issues related to passenger safety, liability, and
recovery after a crash require that insurance companies are included in
the development, deployment, regulation, and use of ADS, including any
NHTSA research program. Consumers will continue to look to property/
casualty insurers to embrace and support safety enhancements as this
new frontier of automotive products and services evolves. A JD Power
survey found that consumers have the highest levels of confidence in
insurance companies when it comes to dealing with ADS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Automated Vehicles and Insurance Pulse Survey, https://
www.namic.org/pdf/18memberadvisory/
181008_Automated_Vehicles_JD_Power_NAMIC_Questionnaire.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The business of insurance demands the application of hard data and
actuarial science to assess and mitigate risk. It was more than 30
years ago that coalitions of insurance companies together with consumer
groups first favored state requirements for seat belts and air bags and
opposed the auto makers' reluctance to provide such safety features.
Insurers have a long and proven history of working together with
regulators at all levels of government, and auto manufacturers, to
facilitate developments that save lives and prevent injuries and
damage. The revolutionary replacement of the human driver with ADS will
require auto insurers to understand each vehicle's design and
operation. Ultimately, drivers may not be comfortable with ``dual
mode'' or no control whatsoever, which means that the insurer of that
human driver must fully understand the planned automated driving
operations as well as any possible human operation of the vehicle under
any circumstances.
The insurance industry understands that new and different data will
be needed for insurers to write ADS-related insurance policies. The
extensive history and level of human driving data that insurers have
developed must now be supplemented by increasingly complex data on the
automated driving systems that assist or replace those human drivers.
Insurers have a proven record of assessing driving risks and
communicating to auto owners the methods to mitigate that risk.
Conclusion
The insurance industry has continuously proven its commitment to
supporting the development and deployment of real auto safety benefits
at the earliest time. For ADS, these benefits are dependent, however,
on many daunting technological, logistical, and regulatory revisions
that remain to be designed and successfully implemented. The existing
environment of auto safety regulation evolved with a human-driver focus
and has not fully considered the many nuances of increased assisted and
automated driving systems. As these systems develop and evolve, the
risk of regulatory safety gaps increases and the need for a
comprehensive reassessment of driving operation safety grows
exponentially, starting with the paramount focus on the safety of
vehicle occupants, occupants of other vehicles, and the public.
For the public to understand and accept ADS safety developments
\7\, we must show how we got to the answer; to illustrate the exact
steps taken to achieve specific metrics of safety for ADS. Broad
assurances of overall safety must be bolstered by facts and data on ADS
design and operation. Third party validation of ADS data and safety
testing by insurers will help to develop the requisite public, insurer,
and governmental trust to support further ADS deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A 2019 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that half of U.S. adults think
automated vehicles are more dangerous than traditional vehicles
operated by people, and more than 60 percent of respondents would not
pay more to have a self-driving feature on their vehicle. Americans
still don't trust self-driving cars, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds, at
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving-poll/americans-
still-dont-trust-self-driving-cars-reuters-ipsos-poll-finds-
idUSKCN1RD2QS AAA reported that more than 70 percent of Americans are
afraid to ride in a self-driving car, an increase from 63 percent in
2017. Three in Four Americans Remain Afraid of Fully Self-Driving
Vehicles, at https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/03/americans-fear-self-
driving-cars-survey/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A prerequisite of that trust, particularly for insurers, is the
access to more, better, and timely data on the proposed and adopted
design and operation of ADS, as well as a framework for the access and
analysis of accident information for purposes of establishing
liability. Through their highly regulated development of rates and
coverage, insurers apply many of the objective and independent
validations sought for ADS operational safety. Just as with the
established and active advocacy of seat belts and air bags, auto
insurance companies are committed to working with auto manufacturers
and safety advocates to develop and implement commercial standards that
can save lives.
As an industry that has extensive experience with automobile
technology and safety, we look forward to working with the subcommittee
on this important issue. Thank you for your consideration and we would
welcome the opportunity to discuss further.
Sincerely,
Tom Karol,
General Counsel Federal, National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. Thank you. And we will email
it too, follow those instructions.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing, along with
Chair Norton, on automated vehicles.
AVs offer the opportunity to not only transform the
automotive, trucking, and transit industries, but they will
also transform our Nation as a whole, and solve many of the
challenges that we face.
As you know, this subcommittee has jurisdiction over large
trucks and buses. Employing automated technologies on trucks
and buses will have economic and societal implications that we
believe will benefit every American.
Most importantly, incorporating this new technology will
save lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
estimates that 38,680 people died in motor vehicle accidents in
2020 and expects fatalities to increase in 2021. According to
the Department of Transportation, 94 percent of serious crashes
are due to driver error. Because AVs are expected to anticipate
dangers and mitigate or remove human error from the chain of
events that lead to a crash, AV technology would increase
safety and save lives.
In addition, AVs could revolutionize mobility and make the
transport of goods and people safer, easier, cheaper, more
efficient, and more accessible. AV technology could improve
mobility for vulnerable groups, including the elderly and those
with disabilities, connecting them with jobs and services and
allowing them to live independently. In addition, the resulting
freight transportation efficiencies could reduce the cost of
goods for consumers, and in the longer term, provide solutions
to some of the supply chain bottlenecks that America is
currently experiencing today.
While these benefits are compelling, we must recognize the
potential impacts of AV technology and what they could have on
our workforce, and we need to implement pro-worker policies.
Because AV deployment may lead to fewer professional driving
jobs, we need to incorporate employee development and training
programs to upskill our workforce so that they can take
advantage of new jobs that AVs will create.
Today, transit agencies and trucking companies are
partnering with technology firms to test AVs. Our future
depends on what we do now. We need to have a clear regulatory
structure in place to be able to continue to support AV
innovations and its eventual deployment. We need to take the
steps necessary to ensure that America cements its leadership
in the AV space.
And with that, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us
today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
[Mr. Davis's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
AVs offer the opportunity to not only transform the automotive,
trucking, and transit industries, but it will also transform our Nation
as a whole and solve many of the challenges we face.
As you know, this subcommittee has jurisdiction over large trucks
and buses. Employing automated technologies on trucks and buses will
have economic and societal implications which will benefit every
American.
Most importantly, incorporating this new technology will save
lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates
that 38,680 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2020 and expects
fatalities to increase in 2021. According to the Department of
Transportation, 94 percent of serious crashes are due to driver error.
Because AVs are expected to anticipate dangers and mitigate or remove
human error from the chain of events that lead to a crash, AV
technology would increase safety and save lives.
In addition, AVs could revolutionize mobility and make the
transport of goods and people easier, cheaper, more efficient, and more
accessible. AV technology could improve mobility for vulnerable groups,
including the elderly and those with disabilities, connecting them with
jobs and services and allowing them to live independently. In addition,
the resulting freight transportation efficiencies could reduce the cost
of goods for consumers, and in the longer term, provide solutions to
some of the supply chain bottlenecks we are experiencing today.
While these benefits are compelling, we must recognize the
potential impacts AVs could have on our workforce and implement pro-
worker policies. Because AV deployment may lead to fewer professional
driving jobs, we need to incorporate employee development and training
programs to upskill our workforce so they can take advantage of new
jobs that AVs will create.
Today, transit agencies and trucking companies are partnering with
technology firms to test AVs. Our future depends on what we do now. We
need to have a clear regulatory structure in place to continue to
support AV innovations and deployment. We need to take the steps
necessary to ensure that America cements its leadership in the AV
space.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and
I look forward to hearing their testimony.
Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. And I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I am now pleased to yield
to the chair of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, for any
opening statement he may have.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for holding
this very important hearing, and thanks to all the witnesses.
Since there are so many witnesses, and there is a lot to learn,
I will be very brief.
But the challenges that are proposed--obviously, there is
tremendous promise with AVs; already a number of aspects of
those promises have been mentioned by the two preceding
speakers. I won't repeat those.
But it is also a tremendous challenge to regulators to
regulate a rapidly evolving technology. To be certain that all
public interests are included in the development, deployment,
and operation of these vehicles is going to be an extraordinary
challenge for the Federal regulators. It shouldn't be done
State by State. We need some reasonable guidelines, federally,
and we have got to get it right.
You know, unregulated--we saw what happened with Boeing and
the MAX, and we don't want that to happen with AVs. I just read
a report today, and I think it was the Washington Post, that
there were 34 unexpected and unnecessary severe braking
incidents in Teslas last month. It didn't lead to any major
accidents yet, but it certainly could. So, there are potential
downsides to this technology, as it is being deployed and
developed, and we have to stay on top of that.
It also presents a challenge to our infrastructure that
these AVs use different ways of, basically, centering
themselves on the road. If you don't have good striping, if you
don't have fog lines, and if you don't have regular signage, it
is going to be much more problematic of deployment and rollout,
ultimately.
So, we have got to get it right. We have got to realize the
promise. We can mitigate congestion, certainly mitigate deaths,
and be a more efficient Nation in terms of fuel consumption.
There is a whole host of benefits just waiting out there. We've
just got to get it right as we move toward them.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing on
automated vehicles.
To some, AVs are a new, far-fetched technology. To a degree, this
is true. But in more and more cases, AVs are already here. A company
called TuSimple reported that they just completed the first automated
truck run on public roads without a human in the vehicle and without
human intervention. Waymo has been operating a robotaxi service in
Phoenix since October 2020. According to DOT, there are over 1,400
automated vehicles currently in testing by more than 80 companies
across 36 states. I had the privilege to ride in an automated Waymo
vehicle in California a few years ago.
AVs have the potential to bring significant benefits to the
traveling public and reduce deaths on our roadways.
In 2019, an astounding 36,096 people were killed in motor vehicle
traffic crashes on U.S. roadways. And traffic deaths have risen even
higher during the pandemic. According to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), 20,160 people died in traffic crashes
during the first half of 2021--that's the highest number of fatalities
in that time period since 2006. Bicyclist and pedestrian deaths have
increased by 50 percent since 2009. So not only are our roads
dangerous, but they are getting worse for our most vulnerable road
users.
In order to reap the safety benefits of AVs, regulators must do
their part to hold industry accountable in this process and ensure that
AVs deliver on their promise of safer roads. We know what can happen
when regulators let industry go unchecked. The 737 MAX tragedy was the
result of Boeing's corporate greed and a lax safety culture within the
FAA.
We cannot make the same mistakes with automated vehicles. Safety--
for all road users--should be our number one priority. We cannot cut
corners in the name of expediency or convenience.
The deployment of AVs also stands to have tremendous impacts on the
surface transportation workforce. As we begin to craft AV policy, labor
must have a seat at the table to ensure that transportation workers can
do their jobs safely, particularly as truck drivers and transit
operators share the road with AVs.
As regulators work to hold automated trucks and buses to the
highest safety standards, they must rely on the expertise of the men
and women who operate these vehicles today. Professional commercial
drivers have a deep well of knowledge on operating conditions on our
roads, and must be part of the safe transition to advanced
technologies.
The workforce implications to commercial drivers is another reason
Congress should give special consideration to commercial AV policy,
separate from ongoing work on passenger AVs.
I have fought for years to enact policy changes that make the job
of a commercial truck driver safer and more sustainable. As automated
commercial truck and bus deployment becomes closer to reality, Congress
needs to consider policies to support these hard-working men and women
and ensure that trucking remains a good career option.
Too often, American workers have been left behind when technologies
evolve and corporate interests are left in charge of the way forward.
Regulators and innovators need to work together to make safe automated
vehicles and a stable, well-paid transportation workforce a reality in
the future.
I thank each of the witnesses assembled here today, and I look
forward to this important discussion.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. I would like to
now welcome today's witnesses on our panel: The Honorable
Martha Castex-Tatum, vice mayor pro tem and city councilmember
for Houston, Texas, testifying on behalf of the National League
of Cities; Mr. Scott Marler, director, Iowa Department of
Transportation, testifying on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; Mr.
John Samuelsen, international president, Transport Workers
Union of America; Ms. Catherine Chase, president, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety; Mr. Nat Beuse, vice president of
safety, Aurora; Mr. Doug Bloch, political director, Teamsters
Joint Council 7; Mr. Nico Larco, director and professor of
Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon; and Mr. Ariel Wolf,
general counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association.
Thank you for being here today, I look forward to your
testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Since your testimony has been made a part of the record,
the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral testimony to
5 minutes.
First, Ms. Castex-Tatum, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MARTHA CASTEX-TATUM, VICE MAYOR PRO TEMPORE,
HOUSTON, TX, AND COUNCILMEMBER, DISTRICT K, HOUSTON, TX, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; SCOTT MARLER,
DIRECTOR, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
OFFICIALS; JOHN SAMUELSEN, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, TRANSPORT
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT,
ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; NAT BEUSE, VICE
PRESIDENT OF SAFETY, AURORA; DOUG BLOCH, POLITICAL DIRECTOR,
JOINT COUNCIL 7, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; NICO
LARCO, AIA, DIRECTOR AND PROFESSOR, URBANISM NEXT CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; AND ARIEL WOLF, ESQ., GENERAL COUNSEL,
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Ms. Castex-Tatum. Good morning, Chair Norton, Chair
DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Davis, and
members of the subcommittee. I am Houston's vice mayor pro tem,
representing District K, on the southwest side of Houston. I am
here today on behalf of the National League of Cities to
discuss our experiences with piloting autonomous vehicles.
Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on America's
roads. Today we are losing far too many of our residents to
dangerous roads in Houston and across this country, and efforts
to reduce fatalities must include every possible strategy,
including autonomous vehicles.
Cities handle most aspects of public transportation, and
that experience and authority equips us to see both the
opportunities and challenges to these new types of
transportation. We are aiming to create the right environment
of shared, safe, connected AV transportation options that will
better serve our residents and meet our goals as a city.
In Houston, piloting the testing of AV started with our
METRO transit agency and their self-driving shuttle at Texas
Southern University on their Tiger Walk across campus. They are
now expanding their pilots to on-road options between two
universities, AV buses, and researching better paratransit
options.
My district was one of the first three areas in Houston
where Nuro launched zero-occupant AVs for commercial service
delivery using lower speeds and smaller, lightweight vehicles.
These AVs pull right up to your home and deliver groceries,
prescriptions, or hot food from Kroger, Domino's, CVS, and the
Houston Food Bank, which has been extremely helpful during
COVID, when we needed to social distance, but also needed our
daily necessities.
When Nuro first came to District K, we made arrangements
with our local police officers to allow them to see the
vehicle, understand how to access it in an emergency, and to
ask questions. As with all AVs, these vehicles must be designed
to operate on the roads, as they exist today, and to interact
in the real-world situations.
Today the National League of Cities is providing three
recommendations for Federal action.
Number one, invest in piloting with local governments.
Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation can support
a Federal pilot for local AV testing, in partnership with
communities, and with strong safety guidelines. The scaling and
spread of piloting to different areas of the country and
different climates can encourage the data exchange that will
allow for Federal safety regulators to move the entire
autonomous industry forward.
Number two, invest in ensuring a skilled, trained
workforce. In Houston, we want to ensure residents have access
to quality jobs that have even higher earning potential. We are
encouraged by companies like Nuro starting new upskilling
training programs with community colleges. But investments in
our Nation's workforce need to happen at scale. We know we need
workers for infrastructure rebuilding and for growing
technology industries like AVs. If we do not invest in worker
training now, NLC's latest study shows the U.S. will struggle
to fill at least 4.5 million jobs. Any moving legislation, like
the Build Back Better Act, must invest in workforce training.
Number three, raise planning and technology sharing in
regions. Anticipating, adapting, and accommodating for changes
is the basis for good transportation planning. New technology
is changing transportation, and investment and planning for the
future will serve us in more sustainable and practical ways.
In closing, we firmly believe Congress and America's
cities, towns, and villages are crucial to the safe adoption of
AVs into our existing transportation networks. I am proud of
the work that we have done in Houston, and we look forward to
working with each of you as we advance our shared goals in
transportation safely together.
Thank you.
[Ms. Castex-Tatum's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Martha Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore,
Houston, TX, and Councilmember, District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of
the National League of Cities
Good morning, Chair Norton, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Members Graves
and Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am Vice Mayor Pro Tempore Martha Castex-Tatum from Houston,
Texas, and the council member of District K, a growing area on the
southwest side of Houston. There is a unique level of responsibility
when you are the council member representing your mom and dad, your
ninth-grade science teacher, eighth grade basketball coach, and so many
others in the community where you were raised. I am honored to serve
and impact city government which in turn impacts the quality of life of
our shared constituencies. Houston must be a safe and thriving city for
them to live, work and play.
I am here today on behalf of the National League of Cities (NLC)--
the nation's oldest and largest network of cities, towns and villages
across America. I would like to share with you our city's experience
with piloting autonomous vehicles (AVs) and to share the collective
wisdom of our city leaders who are both leading the way for AV testing
programs and calling for safer streets, sidewalks, and vehicles. Today
we are losing far too many of our residents to dangerous roads,
driving, and vehicles.
Last week, NLC applauded the USDOT releasing their National Roadway
Safety Strategy, a roadmap for addressing the national crisis in
roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and we thank Congress for
including a new local Safer Streets and Roads for All program in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We must change the current
transportation status quo which is no longer serving us well. Houston
has set the goal of zero fatalities on our roads. We have lost over 200
lives on Houston's roads plus more than 1,000 serious injuries every
year since 2014. Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on
America's roads. We want you to know that city leaders are committed to
eliminating these fatalities and serious injuries by 2030, through our
city efforts like Houston's Vision Zero program as well as our
collective efforts at the NLC like the ``Safety First Challenge for
Safer Streets'' and through participation in the Road to Zero
coalition. We look forward to being able to access the safety funds and
other programs in the bipartisan infrastructure law new programs once
Congress has passed their annual budget which is overdue. Some of the
benefits of the bipartisan infrastructure law are being unnecessarily
delayed due to Congress' failure to pass the fiscal year 2022
appropriations legislation--this includes programs like the new
competitive bridge program even while we saw the horrific photos of a
bridge failure last week. At the local level, we are willing to make
every effort to reduce fatalities using every possible strategy,
including AVs, but we need Congress to complete their fundamental
duties here in Washington so we can move the benefits of the bipartisan
infrastructure bill forward.
Cities are proud of our reputation as leaders in transportation and
innovation. We know we are the ideal laboratories where new mobility
models are gravitating to pilot today as many more companies move from
test tracks to real streets. From transportation network companies, to
bus rapid transit, to micromobility, to shared cars and AV shuttles and
buses, the transportation of the future is shared and connected--and it
is here today.
Solutions like shared AV rides are important because we cannot just
replace a regular gasoline car with an autonomous one. Congestion today
demands that we leverage as many shared and connected options as
possible. Cities are aiming to create the right environment of shared,
safe, connected, and autonomous transportation options that will better
serve our residents and meet our goals. While these are significant
ambitions, local governments orchestrate most aspects of public
transportation in their areas, and our experience and authority equips
us to understand both the opportunities and challenges of new entrants
to city streets including AVs which we're here to focus on today.
Houston's AV Pilots
Piloting and testing of AVs is happening today on our streets in
Houston, across Texas, and in many other states where they are actively
passing legislation. As our industry is being shaped, Congress remains
a critical leader to:
1) ensure safe operations,
2) prepare our workforce for the great jobs ahead, and
3) invest in foundational transportation planning and technology
that will serve us in more sustainable and practical ways.
Autonomous Transit Pilot
Houston METRO, our transit agency, was the first entity in our city
to start piloting a self-driving shuttle at Texas Southern University
in 2019. It operated on Tiger Walk and served students moving around
campus. The Operational Plan laid out some of the infrastructure
preparations made to ensure a safe pilot for a new technology,
including:
An emergency operator was on board;
Emergency procedures were created with TSU's Department
of Safety;
Post-Accident Testing Decision Maker and Notification
Testing Form was developed;
Signage for pedestrians (not for AVs to read) was
implemented on the Walk;
Guests and METRO personnel were required to complete a
consent form before boarding the shuttle; and
Surveys were conducted at the end of rides.
While the METRO EasyMile shuttle pilot has ended, METRO is starting
Phase II to provide first and last mile service between Texas Southern
University and the University of Houston in 2022-2024. This ``Shuttle
of the Future'' will be an electric shuttle with Level 4 autonomous
self-driving and leverage the Federal Transit Administration's
Accelerating Innovative Mobility Grant as an Autonomous Vehicle Proving
Ground. METRO will continue its involvement in the Automated Bus
Consortium, a national collection of transit agencies and departments
of transportation to facilitate development of a full-size electric
automated bus. Transit continues to be where so much of the value of
automation can be realized.
Autonomous Zero-Occupant Delivery
Houston is also one of the first cities to see AVs conducting
commercial delivery service, with the deployment of Nuro's zero-
occupant, electric AVs, and I am glad that my own District K was one of
the first three zip codes where service launched. These vehicles are
offering our residents more zero-emission options with lower speeds and
smaller, lightweight vehicles. Since 2019, Nuro has delivered
groceries, prescriptions, and hot food in partnership with Kroger's,
Domino's, CVS, and the Houston Food Bank, which has been helpful during
a time when we needed to social distance but also required necessities
such as groceries and medicine. They also just completed a year-long
research pilot with Houston METRO, exploring the benefits of autonomous
delivery service for paratransit customers.
When Nuro first came to District K, we made arrangements with our
local police officers to allow them to see the vehicle, understand how
to access it in an emergency, and ask questions. Nuro's Law Enforcement
Interaction Plan provides the procedures, instructions, and vehicle
information necessary to support first responders in the event of an
emergency or other issue. They also validated the technical
capabilities of their software through perception testing with the
Houston Police Department to ensure their AVs detect and respond to
emergency vehicles. Prior to testing, and throughout deployment, we saw
outreach to our local communities and regular engagement with first
responders and city staff to ensure Nuro's vehicles are safely moving
into our neighborhoods.
As a mother raising an infant, the promise of an autonomous vehicle
delivery dropping off necessities would have been a welcome option from
having to pack a diaper bag, then a child into a car seat and go
through the motions of parking, unloading, sanitizing the cart, check
out, reloading, arriving, unloading my child and the bags, and finally
getting settled in, back at home. The time saved, anxiety and
elimination of a potential incident on the road are clear reasons to
see these opportunities and change it for the better. Sometimes we do
not realize the hurdles we create because of the inherited design and
land use previous generations made that impact our daily lives.
AV Infrastructure Needs
As autonomous vehicle companies have said before in front of
Congress, these vehicles are designed to operate on the roads as they
exist today. While most have to extensively map, learn, and grow their
testing areas, AVs do not require any new infrastructure improvements
specific to autonomous vehicles. However, they do benefit from roads in
good shape like any car or driver. If we had to redesign the roads or
chip every asset as some suggested to allow AVs on our roads, the cost
for local governments who own and maintain the majority of the nation's
roads, streets and sidewalks would be untenable. Design of our roads is
a critical issue for cities like Houston, and we welcome the
opportunity to work with Congress to ensure that guides, like the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, evolve into the modern and
technology-forward tools we need that reflect the budgets we must be
realistic about.
The nation's city leaders see that AV technology is here so it
cannot be ignored or left in a regulatory limbo while it operates on
our streets. In my role as a Councilmember, my job is to ensure that if
the technology is here, then we must prepare to use it well and be
willing to speak up when challenges exceed our local reach. Today, NLC
is providing three recommendations for federal action that will promote
safe AV testing if done correctly and also grow job opportunities in
the U.S. as well as urge you to pass the fiscal year 2022
appropriations legislation so the America's infrastructure work is not
further delayed.
1. Invest in Piloting With Local Governments
America's cities are open to piloting more technology safely that
can make our residents' lives better, and Congress and the U.S.
Department of Transportation can support localized piloting in a new
effort with strong federal safety guidelines. We need to move forward
on piloting this technology, particularly for shared uses and in areas
of the country that feel left behind, and USDOT has the authority to
act on this today. While large hub cities naturally have technology
partners interested in testing, thousands more cities and rural towns
are interested in what an AV shuttle, like METRO's, or even just one
delivery AV, like Nuro, could mean for their community. NLC believes
that we can see clearly from our current landscape that simply allowing
exemptions and opening up wide areas for testing alone is not going to
meet the transportation needs of our country especially in rural and
suburban communities. The intentional scaling and spread of piloting to
different areas and climates, data exchange, and transportation
planning can fundamentally impact our transportation rides as a country
and allow for federal safety regulators to have the necessary data to
move the whole autonomous industry forward out of its current limbo and
exemptions process. A national pilot under USDOT's careful safety watch
could also:
ensure the type of local safety preparations that we used
in Houston are followed as standard practices;
support clear standardization of necessary connectivity
infrastructure;
ensure cybersecurity practices;
share operations data that planners need to assess
operations in context and NHTSA needs in order to adapt car safety
standards to AVs;
support shared ride practices with equity in mind in
urban, suburban and rural markets as well as places with snow and
climate challenges; and
bring piloting forward without setting safety aside.
2. Invest in Ensuring a Skilled, Trained Workforce
Investment in workforce needs to happen at scale and today. In
cities, towns, and villages across America, we know that we cannot
carry out today's road, bridge, water and broadband projects funded
through the bipartisan infrastructure law without trained, skilled
workers--to say nothing of the future demand for new skills sparked by
new technologies such as autonomous vehicles.
In Houston, we want to ensure that we are building up high quality
jobs that have even higher earning potential. Locally in Houston, to
fill the jobs of the near future at Nuro requires a new focus on
upscaling our technical training. Nuro employs 120 people in Houston
and continues to actively hire more. These are full-time jobs with full
benefits across skill levels ranging from high school graduates to
PhDs. There are several dire and rosy estimates on the impact of AV
jobs, but we must consider the quality of jobs in the discussion and
recognize that a delivery job may not pay the rent, but a technician
position might. That job leap is made possible with workforce training.
In 2021, Nuro launched a first-of-its-kind National Upskilling
Initiative that establishes partnerships with community colleges in
their operating areas to create education and training opportunities
for workers looking to transition to jobs working on autonomous,
electric vehicles. Nuro is working with San Jacinto College to
establish a certificate program for a variety of roles, many of which
do not require four-year degrees, including Fleet Technicians, Junior
Fleet Technicians, and Fleet Technician Supervisors. Students qualify
for paid internships or part-time work opportunities at Nuro while
completing the pathway. They also have preference in applying to full-
time positions at the company after completing the initial coursework.
New programs will build on learnings from Nuro's current partnership
with De Anza College in California, which also includes a tuition-free
option.
We also know municipal governments and transit agencies like METRO
are equally in need of the right skills to work on more electric and
computer-driven vehicles. How Hard-to-Fill Infrastructure Jobs Impact
Building Our Future, a recent report on infrastructure jobs by the
National League of Cities, found that the median infrastructure job
takes 20% more time to fill than a non-infrastructure job. To put that
in perspective, if we do nothing to improve labor market outcomes for
infrastructure-related jobs, we can anticipate that we will struggle to
fill at least 4.5 million jobs nationally, which would close the door
to opportunity and economic well-being for too many families,
businesses and communities.
To meet our own workforce needs, Houston has focused on STEM
careers, particularly for youth. The City's Hire Houston Youth program
has helped connect more than 30,000 Houston youth to careers, including
those in new technologies. In addition, to ensure well-paying
infrastructure job opportunities extend to all, we have established
Houston's first reengagement center, so that Opportunity Youth ages 16
to 24 can finish school and progress into training. We are glad to be
working with NLC and other leading cities on increasing tech-driven
workforce opportunities for youth.
Even with our investments as a city, the worker gaps are widely
seen and acknowledged by businesses and workers alike as a problem. As
Congress moves forward with consideration of the Build Back Better Act,
ensuring that we act quickly on workforce funding is paramount to
making the most of our federal investment in infrastructure as well as
bringing new workers into key sectors to meet employer demand. Without
this investment, projects will take longer, cost more and slow our
ability to meet employer needs.
3. Raise Planning and Technology Sharing in Regions
America's transportation foundations shifted underneath our feet
during COVID--including travel patterns, land use, freight movement,
and more. While some changes are temporary like a pandemic travel
reduction, the shifts from technology in transportation such as
transportation network companies changes long-term dynamics.
Additionally, larger external business trends like e-commerce remain
steadily growing. Anticipating, adapting, and accommodating
transportation for these trends is the basis of good transportation
planning from our metropolitan planning organizations remains
underappreciated in federal programming. Investing in foundational
transportation planning, logistics, and technology at the metropolitan
and regional levels will serve us in more sustainable and practical
ways. Whether it was the arrival of scooters or the coming take-off of
advanced aviation, the planning of America's transportation is an
investment in the future.
Safe AV Testing Takes All Levels of Government
In conclusion, we firmly believe local governments are crucial to
the safe adoption of AVs into our existing transportation networks with
other transportation modes and users. Ultimately, implementation of a
successful AV policy requires finding the appropriate balance between
cooperating and delineating the respective state, local and federal
responsibilities and ensuring that appropriate funding and incentives
are in place for the desired outcomes. We must approach these issues in
a systematic and pragmatic manner to ensure that safety on our nation's
roadways and streets is paramount. America's cities, towns and villages
look forward to working with each of you to advance our shared goals in
transportation.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. Thank you.
And now we would move to Mr. Scott Marler, director, Iowa
Department of Transportation.
Mr. Marler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marler. Chair Norton, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member
Davis, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the subcommittee,
good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear today
and speak to the important topic of automated transportation.
It is my honor to testify on behalf of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the Iowa
Department of Transportation.
My main message is to share the critical importance that
connected and automated vehicles, or CAVs, will have on
improving the safety, equity, and sustainability of the
Nation's transportation system. State DOTs are preparing for a
future with CAVs, and are absolutely dedicated to supporting
the safe deployment of a connected, automated, and cooperative
vehicle roadway ecosystem, where benefits extend across modes
and throughout all States.
One of the key reasons State DOTs are so interested in CAVs
is to improve roadway safety. We have learned that the first 9
months of 2021 were deadly on our Nation's roads, where more
than 31,700 people died in traffic crashes. In Iowa alone, we
lost 354 people to traffic crashes last year. This is entirely
unacceptable, as each life lost is one too many.
USDOT recently announced the National Roadway Safety
Strategy, which includes actions for safer roads and safer
vehicles. CAVs hold tremendous potential to reduce crashes and
save lives, and I believe that CAV technologies must be an
integral part of these strategies in order to fully realize the
safety promise they hold.
In Iowa, our vision for deploying automated transportation
has taken a two-pronged approach, focused on the drivers of
today and the CAVs of tomorrow. We have several strategies that
promote readiness for a more connected and automated
transportation future, including the following: defining our
vision and plan, extensive stakeholder engagement through our
Automated Transportation Council, new policies and legislation
that now enable and support driverless vehicles, and
infrastructure improvements that work for human drivers today
and the CAVs of tomorrow.
Iowa's experience is not unique among the State DOTs. In
October 2021, AASHTO adopted 10 CAV policy principles we
believe are fundamental to the safe and effective deployment of
CAVs across our States and Nation. I would like to quickly
highlight two for you now.
First, to fully realize the benefits of automated
transportation, AASHTO member States believe that vehicles must
be more than automated; they must also be connected. Connected
vehicle technology is key to ensuring automated vehicles have
the enhanced safety features in place to fully advance our
goals of a safe, mobile, equitable, and efficient
transportation system. This is a key reason why we continue to
strongly support the preservation of the 5.9 gigahertz
spectrum.
Second, AASHTO believes there is an urgent need for a
coordinated national strategy, which includes a vision and
roadmap for CAV readiness and deployment. The vision and
strategy must be developed collaboratively, with active input
from infrastructure owner-operators, industry, communities, and
all levels of Government. Because the safety and mobility
benefits are potentially enormous, fully realizing them
requires clear strategic direction to focus and align our
programs and tactics.
These are only two of our CAV policy principles at AASHTO,
and I encourage you to review all 10 in more detail.
I would like to conclude my remarks this morning by
bringing emphasis to three critical actions that we believe
will lead to the successful deployment of CAV technologies.
Number one, develop a national strategy and vision.
Congress can foster progress by calling on USDOT and the
transportation community at large to articulate a clear vision
and national strategy for automated transportation.
Number two, continue to foster collaboration and
partnerships. USDOT needs to continue fostering partnerships
and cross-sector dialogue, because collaboration is our
competitive advantage.
Number three, preserve the needed communication spectrum.
Congress can provide much-needed certainty by working within
their authority to reserve the safety spectrum for
transportation.
Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify
today on behalf of AASHTO and the Iowa DOT. I will be happy to
answer any followup questions. Thank you.
[Mr. Marler's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Marler, Director, Iowa Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials
Introduction
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and speak
to the important topic of automated transportation and what lies ahead
with these critical technologies.
My name is Scott Marler, and I serve as the Director of the Iowa
Department of Transportation, chair of the AASHTO Committee on
Transportation System Operations, and tri-chair of the Cooperative
Automated Transportation (CAT) Coalition, a partnership between the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America),
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Today, it is my honor to testify on behalf of
the State of Iowa and AASHTO, which represents the state departments of
transportation (DOTs) of all 50 states, Washington, DC, and Puerto
Rico.
I firmly believe, as do the other state DOTs, that the deployment
of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) will greatly improve the
safety, equity, and sustainability of the nation's transportation
system. CAVs represent an important part of a multimodal transportation
ecosystem, which we broadly refer to as cooperative automated
transportation, with a focus on integrating connected and automated
vehicle technologies for all existing and emerging modes of surface
transportation. AASHTO considers the best safety and mobility benefits
are achieved when automated vehicles are integrated with key
transportation infrastructure assets that state DOTs own and operate.
Iowa, like all state DOTs, are infrastructure owners and operators
(IOOs) \1\ that play a fundamental role in advancing, operating, and
maintaining the physical and digital infrastructure necessary to
support intelligent transportation systems. The state DOTs have been
focused on preparing for a more automated future, a term we call
`readiness', by focusing on interoperable, reliable, and consistent
infrastructure (both physical and digital), a cohesive vision,
collaborative partnerships, funding, and clear policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Infrastructure Owners and Operators (IOO) are defined as the
entity responsible for day-to-day operation and maintenance of the
transportation assets and the long-term planning and investment
required to manage the transportation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the key reasons state DOTs are so interested in CAVs is
because of safety. An estimated 38,680 people died in motor vehicle
crashes in 2020. In the first half of 2021, an estimated 20,160 people
died, up 18.4 percent compared to the first six months of 2020 \2\.
This is entirely unacceptable, as each life lost is one too many. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that
safety applications enabled by CAV technologies could eliminate or
mitigate the severity of up to 80 percent of non-impaired crashes,
including crashes at intersections or while changing lanes \3\. Iowa
DOT and every other transportation departments at the state and local
levels are committed to improving the safety of the transportation
system, with CAV technologies being another vital tool in our toolbox.
Given the harsh realities on our nation's roads, we need to actively
develop, test, and deploy these technologies for all users as quickly
and safely as we can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Transportation. National Roadway Safety
Strategy. January 2022. Available at https://www.transportation.gov/
NRSS. Accessed January 28, 2022.
\3\ https://one.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/
ci.nhtsa_v2v_proposed_rule_
12132016.print. Accessed January 28, 2022. More information available
here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the potential benefits CAV technologies may provide, there
have been challenges in broadly deploying these technologies. The
pathway and timeline to deployment remains unclear. Higher levels of
vehicle automation, such as Levels 4 and 5 \4\, appear costly to
develop and it may be years before those vehicles are commercially
available. Also, state DOTs are uncertain of the physical and digital
infrastructure needed to support higher levels of automation. It is
reported that the public remains unfamiliar and skeptical of the
technologies and the potential for shared ownership models. There has
also been much uncertainty surrounding the 5.9 Gigahertz (GHz) safety
spectrum for transportation. And the CAV industry continues to evolve,
consolidate, and change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Level 4 and 5 refer to the SAE Levels of Driving Automation.
More information is available here: https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-
update. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With challenge also comes opportunity. In Iowa, my vision for
deploying automated transportation technologies has taken a two-pronged
approach focused on the drivers of today and the automated vehicles of
tomorrow. In supporting the drivers of conventional vehicles including
those with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in production
today, and the more fully automated driving systems of tomorrow, Iowa
has several strategies to promote readiness for automated
transportation and the deployment and integration of connected and
automated vehicles and devices. These include:
1. Planning & Visioning--We have developed a common vision and
plan to guide, support, and inform the Iowa DOT and our partners as
emerging technologies are being developed and deployed on Iowa's public
roads \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://iowadrivingav.org/pdf/ATC-Vision.pdf. Accessed January
28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Stakeholder Engagement--We created the Iowa Advisory Council on
Automated Transportation (AT Council) \6\ to engage a broad cross
section of Iowa stakeholders on the development and deployment of
emerging technologies. Iowa's AT Council works to keep stakeholders
informed, capture recommendations, and align initiatives for automated
transportation in our state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://iowadrivingav.org/. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Policy & Legislation--Iowa has enacted state laws that support
the adoption of CAV technologies such as a vehicle title and
registration framework, an automated driving systems framework,
personal delivery devices, and enabling statutes for automated truck
platooning \7\. It is currently legal in Iowa for ``driverless''
vehicles to operate on Iowa's roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/
BillBook?ga=88&ba=HF%20387. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Research, Development, and Testing--In Iowa, research is a
critically important element of our success, which is why we foster
strong collaboration with our academic partners at the Iowa State
University (ISU), Institute for Transportation (Intrans) and the
University of Iowa (UI), National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS).
Iowa's experience is not unique among the state DOTs. In October
2021, AASHTO adopted ten CAV Policy Principles \8\ we believe are
fundamental to the safe and effective deployment of connected,
automated, and cooperative \9\ vehicle technologies across our states
and nation. Today, I would like to focus my testimony on five of these
ten principles which are under the purview of this subcommittee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Offices (AASHTO). AASHTO Connected and Automated Vehicle Policy
Principles. October 2021. Available at https://cav.transportation.org/
wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2021/11/CAV-Policy-Principles-v4-press.pdf.
Accessed January 28, 2022.
\9\ There is no consistent and agreed to definition of connected,
automated, and cooperative vehicle technologies. AASHTO uses the
following as general definitions:
Connected Vehicle (CV)--Technologies that enable two or
more vehicles and/or roadway infrastructure elements to communicate
with each other.
Automated Vehicle (AV)--Vehicle-based technologies that
enable automation of traditional drive operational functions to occur
as defined by SAE J3016 Levels of Driving Automation.
Cooperative Vehicle--The integration of CV, AV, and other
technologies that enable users of the transportation system (vehicles,
pedestrian, bicyclists, etc.) to cooperatively operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A national strategy and vision are needed.
2. Advance equity, access, and quality of life for everyone.
3. The future is connected and automated.
4. Leadership is crucial to foster industry collaboration and
community engagement.
5. Promote innovative Federal infrastructure investment.
1. A National Strategy and Vision Are Needed
AASHTO believes there is an urgent need for a coordinated national
strategy which includes a vision and roadmap for CAV deployment and
integration into our nation's roadways. The vision and strategy must be
developed collaboratively, with active input from Federal agencies,
IOOs, industry, communities, local governments, and other
transportation stakeholders, representing the populations their
respective transportation systems serve.
Connected and automated vehicles technologies will be disruptive to
our society and surface transportation system, and it is accelerating.
Because the safety and mobility benefits are potentially enormous,
realizing those benefits requires clear strategic direction, sustained
programs, ongoing cross-sector dialogue, and focused activities. In
Iowa, this begins with visioning and planning to assess needs, make
informed decisions, and focus investments while considering broad
perspectives from key stakeholders and the public.
For example, the Iowa DOT has developed the Iowa AT Vision \10\ and
the Iowa DOT Cooperative Automated Transportation plan \11\ which
includes a variety of tactical activities such as the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://iowadrivingav.org/pdf/ATC-Vision.pdf. Accessed January
28, 2022.
\11\ https://iowadot.gov/tsmo/service-layer-plans. Accessed January
28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Preparing our communities and infrastructure by making pavement
markings wider and brighter to improve visibility for humans and
automated systems.
2. Working with local agencies to develop planning guidance for
CAV technology in comprehensive plans and zoning guidelines, as well as
working to address environmental justice concerns by ensuring equitable
access to transportation services.
3. Monitoring industry trends and advancements to identify how
they might impact CAV usage on public roads, including the growing
automation of farm equipment.
4. Engaging with economic and education leaders to assess how the
future labor market may need to adjust in response to greater
automation in vehicles for both passenger and freight movements.
5. Working with law enforcement, first responders, driver/vehicle
licensing staff and other roadway safety community leaders to learn
more about the impacts of the technologies on existing systems and
processes such as our crash reporting procedures.
In similar fashion to the Iowa AT Vision and IOWA DOT CAT Plan, it
is imperative that we develop a vision and strategy at the national
level so that the entire transportation community knows what we are all
striving for. Domestic and international models have shown how
independent, collaborative non-governmental organizations can help lead
these efforts. In addition, AASHTO and the state DOTs remain committed
to working with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
and others in this area to help frame the enabling policies and
regulatory environment necessary for CAV technologies to integrate
seamlessly across jurisdictions and modes.
2. Advance Equity, Access, and Quality of Life for Everyone
CAV technologies have the potential to improve mobility, access,
and equity and help engage disadvantaged and marginalized communities.
IOOs and their partners recognize the role transportation plays broadly
in society, its ability to connect communities, as well as the historic
inequities from the 20th century when building out the nation's
transportation system.
In the United States, CAV technologies need to benefit all users of
the transportation system regardless of their income levels or
geographic location. We are addressing this head-on in Iowa where our
research partners at the University of Iowa National Advanced Driving
Simulator were awarded one of the eight Automated Driving System (ADS)
demonstration grants from USDOT \12\. While 19 percent of Americans
live in rural areas, 68 percent of our nation's total lane miles are in
rural areas, and 45 percent of all traffic related fatalities occur on
rural roadways \13\. Iowa's population is aging, and it remains
paramount that older individuals have the ability to get to the
important services they need, such as healthcare which is being
regionalized. The ADS for Rural America project is a demonstration
project that involves a highly automated shuttle bus with advanced
sensors. This automated vehicle is now being driven on all types of
rural roads in Iowa including gravel roads and paved unmarked roadways.
The goal is to understand the unique challenges that rural roadways
present for automated vehicles as well as identifying opportunities for
advancing automation so that it improves safety and mobility for
everyone, especially the mobility challenged populations in rural
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.transportation.gov/av/grants. Accessed January 28,
2022.
\13\ https://www.bts.gov/rural. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we are learning a lot, this project is one example of
where further research and understanding is needed. Future projects
need to focus on supporting equitable investments, policies, and
engagement strategies such that CAV technology investments advance
community-driven needs and increase access to desirable mobility
options. It is my hope that projects such as this one in rural Iowa,
and others like it throughout the United States, will lead to the
promotion of best practices and approaches for the deployment of CAVs
that are equitable, with the benefits widely available to all members
of our society.
3. The Future Is Connected and Automated
To fully realize the benefits of automated transportation, AASHTO
member states believe that vehicles must be more than automated, they
must also be connected. Connected vehicle technology is key to ensuring
automated vehicles have the redundant safety measures in place to
advance AASHTO's goals of a safe, mobile, equitable and efficient
transportation system. AASHTO continues to strongly support the
preservation of the 5.9 GHz spectrum to advance safety and realize the
benefits of connected vehicle technologies. From our interactions with
other nations across the globe, we are aware that others have set aside
bandwidth in the 5.9 GHz spectrum. We are also aware that some nations
appear to be further along with respect to readiness and integration of
advanced technologies into the roadway environment. These developments
have the potential to put the United States at a competitive
disadvantage, a harsh reality that can be remedied with bold action.
In Iowa we strongly support strategies that connect vehicles to the
infrastructure and one another. While the industry as a whole addresses
the technical and engineering aspects of making connected vehicle
technology a reality, we are focused on two key areas that will enable
a connected vehicle future:
1. Digital Infrastructure and Data--Iowa DOT continues to deploy
fiber optic cable and wireless communications with our partners at the
Iowa Communications Network and the private sector, and extend our
communications network to inform the travelling public through
connected infrastructure. We are also working with Iowa State
University to study advanced wireless communications that hold the
potential to take Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communications to the
next level. We are also data centric and are implementing new data
streams, like connected vehicle hard braking and hard acceleration
data, that reveal real-time operations and flag potential safety
issues. We are carefully evaluating our approach towards the design and
operation of Iowa's transportation system to accommodate human mistakes
and injury tolerances to avoid fatal and serious injuries.
2. Work Zones & Maintenance Operations--The management and
maintenance of our surface transportation system is constant, and work
zones and maintenance operations are occurring nearly 24/7 in our
state. These operations can be a challenge not only for human operators
but especially for vehicle systems that support drivers or those that
are automated. In response to this, we are focused on improving our
work zones through improved data, awareness, motorists' feedback, and
performance analytics. In fact, we are providing more information to
connected vehicles through adoption of the USDOT work zone data
exchange and through data feeds that private companies (e.g., Waze) are
using to produce visual and audible warnings like ``work zone ahead''
or ``snowplow ahead''. Standardized data streams like the work zone
data exchange are anticipated to help commercial drivers avoid
bottlenecks and improve operations, while assisting passenger vehicles
with real time information about the driving environment ahead.
While vehicle connectivity is ideal, vehicle-to-infrastructure
(V2I) and V2X technology poses challenges. AASHTO has recognized these
challenges and has served as a leader to address them and bring the
industry to consensus. It is critical that we continue to develop the
needed connected vehicle technologies and supporting infrastructure
because I believe, as well as many of the other state DOTs, that we
cannot fully realize the benefits of automated vehicle technologies
without vehicles being connected and cooperating with each other.
4. Leadership Is Crucial To Foster Industry Collaboration and Community
Engagement
Strong Federal leadership is critical to convening industry, the
public sector (including IOOs, local governments, and planning
organizations), and other stakeholders and partners to ensure strong
coordination and collaboration and ensure the public and private
sectors work together to safely deploy technologies that meet community
needs. We need to engage across government, industry, academia,
regions, and communities to ensure our efforts are interoperable and
aligned. It is critical that we build off previous national dialogues,
continue to collaborate, convene, and share information among IOOs,
local governments, industry, researchers, communities, planning
organizations and other stakeholders. We must inform and engage
communities to build trust and awareness of CAVs.
Leadership is critical at all levels of government and in both the
public and private sectors. At the state level, Iowa is taking a
leadership role to collaborate with other states and the federal
government in national and regional efforts to prepare for and support
the deployment of CAV technology. The Iowa DOT is one of several state
DOTs that is also responsible for driver licensing, driver education
and vehicle title and registration. We have been active with the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to work
across state lines on matters of driver education, vehicle
registration, and law enforcement. Iowa is one of the first states in
the nation to update our title and registration system to identify the
ADS capabilities of a vehicle and tie that to the official vehicle
record.
At the regional level, I co-sponsor an effort for the Mid-America
Association of State Transportation Officials (MAASTO), which includes
10 states of the upper Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin) which has
developed a ten-year regional strategy for CAV deployment and
integration. The CAV Committee for this group works to support the
regional strategy and has focused their tactical approaches on
organizational readiness, data sharing, planning, coordination, and
policy issues. Regionally, midwestern states are interested in leading
the nation with advanced transportation technologies to help move our
products to market faster and cheaper while ensuring our travelers are
safe.
Finally, at the national level, I am a tri-chair of the Cooperative
Automated Transportation Coalition, a partnership between AASHTO, ITS
America, ITE, and FHWA. The CAT Coalition brings together the private
sector, IOOs, and government agencies (federal/state/local) with the
aim of coordinating our efforts to safely and efficiently deploy
connected and automated transportation technologies \14\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ More information about these efforts are document at the CAT
Coalition website: https://transportationops.org/CATCoalition. Accessed
January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is vitally important that the federal government and
specifically the USDOT continue to join in supporting these national,
regional, state, and local efforts. The federal government and the
USDOT are uniquely positioned to facilitate and sustain a technically
informed and objective collaboration effort. Federal leadership can
ensure national consistency in systems engineering and architecture to
guarantee interoperability and standardized levels of safety across
state lines. We value the participation of the USDOT agencies and will
move forward as needed within states and local communities, because the
technology continues to move ahead.
5. Promote Innovative Federal Infrastructure Investment
AASHTO supports more flexible and dedicated funding to advance CAV
technologies. We need to fund both the digital and physical
infrastructure that enhances safety while also supporting technologies
that advance CAVs. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
provides a significant investment in the deployment of broadband
technologies which could be used to support a CAV ecosystem throughout
the United States. And, other parts of the law enable state DOTs to
spend federal funding on CAV technologies. However, as states begin or
continue to pursue connected infrastructure initiatives, it is
important that federal infrastructure and transportation funding
continue to give states the flexibility to invest in planning and
improvements to support CAV deployment, whether through the new
provisions in the IIJA or through traditional federal transportation
programs.
Federal funding for advanced transportation technologies are
frequently dispensed through discretionary grants. As the technologies
become more widespread and as all states seek to invest in their
physical and digital infrastructure, the federal funding mechanisms
will need to be reexamined. The national focus on electric vehicles and
the needed vehicle charging infrastructure in the IIJA is
representative of the level and focus of investment necessary to
advance CAV technologies. Smart, efficient investment in these
technologies will help save lives and will have a dramatic effect on
the economic prosperity of our communities and our nation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I want to emphasize some key messages that are the
foundation of my testimony. First, state DOTs are preparing for a
future with connected and automated vehicles, but there is a lot of
uncertainty of what the future will ultimately be. The path and
timeline to deployment is unclear for many different reasons with the
CAV industry continuing to evolve, consolidate, and change on an almost
daily basis. Steadfast to these uncertainties is the fact that state
DOTs, as critical surface transportation IOOs, are absolutely dedicated
to supporting the safe deployment of a connected, automated, and
cooperative vehicle ecosystem where benefits are seen across all of the
states and throughout the population.
Second, safety is absolutely paramount. CAV technologies must be
deployed so that they improve the safety of our roadway system and the
users of it. On January 27, 2022 USDOT announced the National Roadway
Safety Strategy which outlines the Department's comprehensive approach
to significantly reducing serious injuries and deaths on our Nation's
highways \15\. Two important aspects to achieving success of the
strategy are Safer Roads and Safer Vehicles. I believe that CAV
technologies must be an integral part of this effort and can be another
tool for our industry to achieve success in improving the safety of our
transportation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-01/
USDOT_National_Roadway_
Safety_Strategy_0.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, numerous challenges remain that range from technological to
economic to political. These are significant challenges, but ones that
we can overcome as an industry if we all work together. Thus, we need
the federal government as an integral partner. We need the technology
developers, vehicle manufacturers, and IOOs collaborating with each
other to get the safety technology deployed. We need the IOOs at the
state and local level to ensure equity in how the technology get used.
Finally, we need to work together to determine how deployment will be
funded.
Finally, I want to end my testimony with three actions the federal
government can initiate today to uniquely assist all state DOTs and
other IOOs in the successful deployment of connected and automated
vehicle technologies:
1. Continue to Foster Collaboration and Partnerships--The federal
government plays a crucial role to ensuring the safe and efficient
deployment of these technologies. AASHTO, ITE and ITS America are right
now actively examining how a coalition organized around automation and
emerging technologies could function. It is critical that USDOT
continues to support such an effort.
2. Develop a National Strategy and Vision--Engage the public,
private, and academic sectors to develop a vision for CAV and a
national strategy for achieving that vision. Congress can foster
progress by calling/directing USDOT to facilitate activities which lead
to this vision and strategy, and fund programs to support these
purposes, including gap closing research, development, and technology.
AASHTO's CAV Policy Principles include recommendations on this topic
and we stand ready to work with this committee to achieve this action.
3. Preserve the Needed Communication Spectrum--AASHTO continues to
advocate for reserving the entirety of the 5.9 GHz safety spectrum for
transportation use. Congress could provide much needed certainty by
working within their authority to continue to reserve the safety
spectrum to ensure the deployment of life-saving connected vehicle
technologies. Reserving this spectrum for consistent use would put our
country on par with what is happening in Europe and Asia so that we can
continue to lead in this critical space.
In Iowa we will continue to grow our leadership in this space and
continue our strong collaborations around the United States and the
world so that we will have the safest vehicles and roads for all
transportation users. Nationally, AASHTO will continue to engage key
public and private stakeholders towards development of a vision for CAV
and a national strategy for realizing such a vision.
Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today on
behalf of AASHTO and the Iowa DOT, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you, Mr. Marler.
We would now move to John Samuelsen, international
president, Transport Workers Union of America.
John, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Samuelsen. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, Chair DeFazio, and Ranking Member Graves, for providing
us this opportunity to present our views on autonomous vehicle
technology.
As president of the Transport Workers Union of America, I
am here representing more than 150,000 working people who are
on the front lines of our passenger and freight transportation
systems. These members include schoolbus workers, transit
operators, mechanics, and other workers serving communities
across the country. Our members are the ones most at risk of
job loss and displacement if automated vehicles are deployed
without a clear Federal framework, or in ways that undermine
workers and jobs.
This committee's leadership in crafting AV legislation is
absolutely essential for the House to advance an AV proposal
centered on the safety and economic security of all road users.
Ensuring safety, protecting transport workers' jobs and rights,
and prioritizing investment in our transportation network are
all core to this committee's work.
Let me be clear: the TWU fully supports pro-worker, pro-
safety technology, innovation, and policy. We frequently spend
our own capital at the bargaining table to force our employees
to install automatic braking, blind spot detection, and other
safety and driver assist innovations. We would strongly endorse
legislation that regulates AV technology, holds new
technologies to our existing safety standards, and ensures that
this industry creates and sustains good union jobs in America.
Innovation and automation are not new to our union or our
members. The New York City subway ran a fully automated train
across Manhattan from 1962 to 1964, a train maintained and
overseen by the Transport Workers Union. This system and others
like it gave rise to Federal transit worker protections.
Standards like these ensure that workers are treated fairly,
have access to necessary training, and can transition as jobs
change due to technology. And they have made our transportation
sector a major hub for the solid, blue-collar jobs that power
strong communities and our economy.
While the specific features or equipment may be different
in 2022 than in 1964, this approach has empowered workers for
generations, and should not change. The same is true of our
safety policies. The DOT has successfully integrated tens of
thousands of new pieces of equipment, vehicles, and processes
into our transportation systems across every mode. TWU members
have worked with regulators to transition from rotor blades to
jet engines, to Positive Train Control, and most recently,
toward zero-emission buses.
As a country, we have always fought to ensure that these
innovations not only meet, but exceed our existing safety
standards. AVs must be held to this same level of
accountability. AV operators and manufacturers must demonstrate
their ability to improve safety, and our regulations must hold
them accountable to any promised safety improvements.
As automated technology has been integrated into other
modes, focus has been centered on safety requirements around
qualified, licensed, trained professionals to operate
commercial vehicles. Airline pilots, railroad engineers, and
ship captains already work with automation, and regularly
assume control as the situation demands. Bus, subway, and truck
operators play an equivalent role in surface transportation,
and our Federal AV policy must declare these onboard workers as
the essential element for safe roads and transit operations. No
level of vehicle automation should ever replace them.
My written testimony provides specific recommendations on
several issues that AV legislation should address, including
elevating workers' voices in developing and implementing new
technologies, ensuring any transition to AVs creates and
sustains good union jobs across the entire spectrum, and
reforming DOT to create a unified approach to regulating
automation across all of its modal agencies to ensure workers
are supported as new technologies arrive.
TWU members and all transportation workers are counting on
our elected leaders to fight for our jobs and our safety. This
committee has an opportunity now to lead the way as we
integrate the next generation of transportation technology.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address these
issues here today, and we look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Samuelsen's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Samuelsen, International President,
Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair DeFazio, and
Ranking Member Graves for providing us this opportunity to present our
views on the future of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology. The
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) represents more than 150,000
working people who are on the frontlines of our passenger and freight
transportation systems. These members include bus operators, mechanics,
and other transit workers serving both large and small urban areas
across the country. In New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco,
Houston, Miami, Columbus, Ann Arbor and many other areas, our members
are the ones most at risk of job loss and displacement if automated
vehicles are deployed haphazardly or in ways that undermine workers'
interests. As this committee considers legislation that addresses how
and if AVs are integrated into our transportation system, the decisions
you make will have profound effects on the frontline employees,
passengers and motorists, and on the future of mobility across America.
At the start, let me be clear: the TWU fully supports pro-
worker,\1\ pro-safety \2\ technology. We frequently spend our own
capital in bargaining to force our employers to install automatic
braking, blind-spot monitoring, and other key technologies that empower
workers to perform their jobs safely and efficiently. We would strongly
endorse legislation that regulates the AV industry, holds new
technologies to our existing or higher safety standards, and ensures
that this industry creates and sustains good, union jobs in the United
States. We look forward to working with this committee and others to
advance new technology that improves the quality of life for
transportation workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://ttd.org/policy/letters-to-congress/labor-principles-
for-autonomous-vehicle-legislation/
\2\ TWU has endorsed the Autonomous Vehicle Tenets, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, November 30, 2020, a comprehensive AV safety
blueprint: https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AV-Tenets-
11-24-20-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To that end, we must acknowledge that today's transportation sector
is at a critical moment as new technologies, including automation
features, mature and prepare for wide scale deployment. This
development necessitates active involvement and oversight from the
DOT--a shift from the Department's recent laissez faire approach to
emerging technologies.\3\ Just as with past transportation
technological advancements, building coherent, consistent regulations
now will ensure that AVs are deployed safely and integrated into our
system in a way that preserves workers' rights and creates good, union
jobs. Without a strong regulatory structure, in contrast, this
technology poses an immediate threat to the safety and stability of
transit and freight systems across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See TWU comments regarding Ensuring America's Leadership in
Automated Vehicles Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0. DOT-OST-2019-
0179-0028; https://downloads.regulations.
gov/DOT-OST-2019-0179-0028/attachment_1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovation and automation are not new to our union or our members.
The New York City subway system ran a fully-automated train across
Manhattan from 1962-1964, a train maintained and overseen by TWU
members. Our mechanics are, right now, transitioning to electric
buses--a completely different system than we've used for the past
century. We have experienced thousands of technological changes, big
and small, and have always provided the experience necessary to keep
our systems safe and operating at maximum capacity. We've done this
through representation, collective bargaining, and government action to
develop our workforce, require the highest safety standards, insist on
equity and inclusion, and demand a just transition to the next
generation transportation technologies. 21st-century technologies,
including AVs, should be no different. The DOT and all of our
transportation systems have a set of standards and practices that work
for these transitionary moments and do not come at the expense of
transportation safety, affordable and accessible public transit, or
good, union jobs. We should adapt and apply this system to regulate AVs
on our roads and in our transit systems.
This sincere belief--that we can build and maintain a pro-worker
innovation policy as a country--leads us to reject several arguments
that have been made by some tech advocates and others. First among
these is the ``with us or against us'' mentality that seeks to force a
conflict between innovation and workers. Our members work with
technology every day--they rely on it to do their jobs and to keep them
safe. Any and all technologies that facilitate their work is, by
definition, pro-worker and our members fight, on a daily basis, to
deploy more of this kind of technology into our systems. However, new
ideas are not synonymous with good ideas. AV technologies that haven't
been properly evaluated and scrutinized by independent federal safety
regulators, technologies that attempt to cut corners to address their
own limitations, and technologies that are intentionally designed to
displace workers should all be suspect. Moreover, we have serious
concerns that, without strong federal regulation, we face a
transportation future that is strictly at odds with the hundreds of
billions of federal dollars that this committee has invested into
safety, congestion mitigation, air quality improvement, and equitable
access to safe and reliable public transit through the surface
transportation program.
Our future transportation systems should be built for the users--
whether they be in vehicles or sharing the road with them--and
frontline transportation workers, not companies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ John Samuelsen, The Future of Transit Should Be Determined by
the People, Not Big Tech, September 2, 2020, Morning Consult: https://
morningconsult.com/opinions/the-future-of-transit-should-be-determined-
by-the-people-not-big-tech/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TWU also rejects arguments of those who claim that any
limitation on innovation somehow creates a global competitive
disadvantage for our nation. We know that auto manufacturers,
technology companies, and startups, buoyed by significant federal
investments, are pouring billions into autonomous vehicles. General
Motors and Ford alone have said they'll spend a combined $65 billion on
autonomous and electric vehicles through 2025. These and other
investments by large companies such as Google AV spinoff Waymo have led
to significant advancements that are already on our roads and highways.
Clearly, we are in no danger of falling behind on idea generation. We
are at risk, however, of losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing
and frontline transportation jobs if Congress fails to act decisively
and the AV industry is left completely unregulated. The public interest
in AVs is in the number of good, union jobs the industry creates in
America and the safety benefits the technology ultimately delivers.
Tellingly, we have seen no plan from the most vocal proponents of AV
deployment that would condition federal support or non-intervention on
requirements to produce jobs or meet promises on safety.
As Congress considers AV legislation, we will be advocating,
together with the other transportation unions and our allies, for a
robust title from this committee. This title must establish clear
benchmarks for safety regulation, retention and creation of good jobs,
data collection and transparency, and ensure that a strong worker voice
is present--early and throughout the innovation process--as AV's are
developed and implemented.
With this backdrop, the TWU offers the following recommendations
for a federal response to the future of AV deployment.
A Worker- and Safety-Centric Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee Title Must be a Part of any House AV Legislation
The TWU and other unions have actively made the case that AV
legislation must uphold and boost safety standards and create good,
union jobs. Neither of these goals are possible without a comprehensive
title written by this committee.
Already our transportation network is dotted with AV experiments
that have placed numerous, unproven autonomous passenger and freight
vehicles of various sizes and configurations on our roads. It is
critical that this committee meet the moment as we see a deluge of
accidents from these vehicles while suffering through a significant
lack of transparency and available data for proper analysis. AV
operations need federal regulation and oversight. There are 9.1 self-
driving car accidents per million miles driven versus 4.1 per million
miles among regular vehicles.\5\ These are not just statistics to be
analyzed and debated; they are a warning sign to lawmakers and
regulators that rigorous, enforceable regulations are needed before we
unleash millions of AVs onto our roads and into our transit systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Dangers of Driverless Cars, May 5, 2021, The National Law
Review: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/dangers-driverless-cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT's Transportation Innovation Principles Provide a Strong Foundation
Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg has recently unveiled a
new set of principles around transportation innovation.\6\ These
principles serve as a powerful backdrop for how the federal government
can use its authority and resources to ensure shared prosperity and a
``seat at the table'' for frontline workers as new transportation
innovations, including AV applications, are developed and implemented.
We believe this vision represents a necessary turning of the page by
the DOT from the previous Administration's ill-advised, hands-off
approach to AV oversight by putting workers and job creation at the
center of the innovation development process. Core elements of these
principles include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ US DOT Innovation Principles, as released in January 2022:
https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/innovation/us-dot-innovation-
principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating high quality jobs and increasing opportunity for
all Americans.
``Empowering workers'' by expanding access to skills,
training and the ``choice of a union'' as well as giving workers a
``seat at the table in shaping innovation.''
Allowing for experimentation but requiring open data and
transparency to ensure we learn from both successful and failed
deployments.
Forging partnerships with the private sector while
protecting the ``interests of the public, workers, and communities''
and remaining ``technology neutral.''
The TWU has publicly praised this approach \7\ and believes a
government-wide philosophy that mirrors these principles will begin to
change the trajectory of emerging technology and how it affects workers
and jobs. In particular, the DOT's new principles are consistent with
the objective and values that our union has emphasized as we continue
to make the case for worker-centered AV policies. We urge this
committee to embrace the Administration's new principles as you craft
AV legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ TWU President John Samuelsen statement in response to the US
DOT innovation principles: https://www.twu.org/twu-president-samuelsen-
dot-innovation-principles-will-ensure-transportation-workers-have-a-
seat-at-the-table/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Qualified Human Operator Must Be On-Board All Passenger Buses and
Other Commercial Use Vehicles Regardless of Level of Automation
Our nation's public transit sector is a centerpiece of Americans'
mobility needs. These services have always been about providing access
and opportunity for everyone. They connect people to their jobs,
communities, and our national economy. Without these services, millions
of Americans will suffer severe social and economic consequences. At
the core of these services are the essential workers who safely operate
our vehicles, provide customer service, report issues to law
enforcement, enable accessibility features, and otherwise aid riders in
the journeys. These workers perform all of these duties simultaneously
and professionally; they manage the unexpected and the dangerous
operations in large and small ways under often difficult circumstances.
Just as in aviation and rail, these workers serve a critical safety
role that cannot be replaced by automation.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has already noted
the perils of overreliance on automation in its report on the Boeing
737-MAX crashes. The report highlights that the malfunctioning system
which caused these crashes overruled commands from the pilots that
would have saved hundreds of lives. Other pilots who faced the
identical malfunction ultimately survived by simply turning off the
failing system.\8\ Automated systems must have this human oversight in
order to truly be safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
2020.09.15%20FINAL%20737%20MAX
%20Report%20for%20Public%20Release.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a few miles from the Capitol building, 9 people, including the
train operator, were killed 52 injured in 2009 due to WMATA's
overreliance on automation. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) found that ``the Metrorail automatic train control system
stopped detecting the presence of [a stopped train] . . . and allowed
speed commands to be issued to [the following train which struck the
back of the stopped train].'' The record of the investigation shows
that the operator of the striking train saw the stuck train ahead of
her and attempted to stop her train but was overruled by the automated
systems.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NTSB/RAR-10/02; https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/
AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1002.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already, we are seeing certain interests use terms like ``monitor''
to describe the workers who remain on-board during AV pilots. Our
members and all transit workers are not monitors; they are safety
professionals and sometimes first-responders who keep riders safe.
While a bus or van may one day achieve Level 4 or 5 automation, that
technological capability does not eliminate the need for a qualified
operator on-board every vehicle, any more than the autopilot features
in commercial aircraft at 35,000 feet should ever replace two skilled
pilots in the cockpit.
Transportation Labor's AV Principles
TWU has joined 34 other unions to develop the ``Labor Principles
for Autonomous Vehicle Legislation.'' \10\ This is an important
resource for the committee as you write AV legislation as it provides
specific recommendations. These principles provide a sensible approach
to AV's focused on:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, TWU and other
affiliated unions, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Labor Principles for Autonomous Vehicle Legislation: https://ttd.org/
policy/letters-to-congress/labor-principles-for-autonomous-vehicle-
legislation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ensuring Congress and the DOT establish and enforce
vigorous safety standards;
treating commercial applications of AV's differently to
reflect the safety-sensitive work performed by commercial operators of
buses, trucks and smaller vehicles such as vans, delivery bots and
other alternative design vehicles;
ensuring there is a workforce plan that advances together
with any AV bill;
explicitly protecting consumer rights, equity and
accessibility,
and committing to clear policies that ensure the AV
manufacturing sector creates US union jobs across the entire supply
chain through strong Buy American policies and incentives to buy
American- and union-made vehicles.
AV Technology Requires Clear Safety Standards and Transparency
TWU is deeply concerned that, in the absence of federal leadership
and regulation, there will be too many companies that believe they are
free to test or even implement their ``driverless'' technology whether
or not it is safe to do so. We have witnessed the ongoing, public
dispute between the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and
Tesla over the company's testing of ``full self-driving'' systems in
its cars.\11\ Let us be clear: the use of the term testing implies
there are laboratory conditions. Actually, the laboratory is our roads
and the NTSB is calling out Tesla for failing to respond to the
agency's recommendations about ``design shortcomings'' in the wake of
crashes involving Tesla automated features. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy
spoke clearly about this concern \12\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NTSB Chair criticizes Tesla over vehicle self-driving feature
testing, Reuters, October 25, 2021: https://www.reuters.com/business/
autos-transportation/tesla-submits-partial-response-us-auto-safety-
probe-memo-2021-10-25/.
\12\ NSTB Chair interview regarding Tesla's improper testing of
``full self-driving'' technology, CNBC, October 26, 2021: https://
www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/ntsb-head-criticizes-teslas-self-driving-
features-calls-them-misleading.html.
It's clear that if you're marketing something as full self-
driving and it is not full self-driving, and people are
misusing the vehicles and the technology, you have a design
flaw and you have to prevent that misuse . . . And part of that
is how you talk about your technology. It is not full self-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
driving . . . It's misleading.''
This dispute should alarm the country and regulators. It
underscores why Congress and the Biden Administration must act and gain
control over the way this industry rolls out driverless technologies.
There must be clear policy:
Requiring any company to be held accountable for how it
markets and tests AV technology;
Mandates transparency and open data collection and
reporting;
Ensures crash and safety incident data are available in
real-time and that the NTSB has the authority it needs to act
forcefully;
Scrutinizes how driverless technologies are sold and
marketed to transit agencies, and
Ensures the DOT regulates how transit agencies test these
technologies given the safety implications for passengers \13\ that
participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Self-driving shuttle company ordered to stop carrying
passengers after injury, The Verge, February 26, 2020: https://
www.theverge.com/2020/2/26/21154532/easymile-columbus-ohio-nhtsa-
suspension-injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers Must Have a Seat at Every Table as New Technologies Emerge
Workers must have, as Secretary Buttigieg has said repeatedly, a
``seat at the table'' throughout the innovation process. This means
requiring, for example, transit agencies to work and negotiate with
their unions in the decisions around testing and implementing new
technology-enabled innovations, including AV vehicles.
Congress recognized the centrality of this issue as part of the
recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.\14\ As a
condition of federal aid for electric buses, transit agencies must
conduct a review of their worker training needs and build a workforce
training plan to ensure that mechanics, drivers, and others are
learning to use new equipment rather than face displacement. The bill
also allocates 5% of each federal grant for electric bus procurement
towards implementing these plans. This Committee passed a version of
this plan which would have also applied to AVs and other new
technologies in transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ P.L. 117-58 Section 30018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the policies and investments we advance are to create public
good, they must center workers at every stage of the innovation
process. Wherever AV's and other technologies are being developed and
considered for adoption, the frontline people who will be directly
affected should be at the table with a strong voice. Unions should be
involved, as a matter of explicit policy, upstream in federal research
and development programs. TWU has offered a set of common sense reforms
that mainstream worker voice in the agency's R&D programs.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Transport Workers Union, comments to the Department of
Transportation regarding the agency's R&D programs, January 31, 2022.
DOT-OST-2021-0160-001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These principles can be achieved if they are anchored in strong
policies and in the longstanding collective bargaining mechanisms that
have been a cornerstone of how America prepares its workforce for
advancements in transportation innovation. Transportation Secretary
Pete Buttigieg shares our views, as reflected in an opinion article he
wrote recently about the agency's newly released innovation principles
\16\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, in TechCrunch,
Steering innovation toward the public good, January 6, 2022: https://
techcrunch.com/2022/01/06/steering-innovation-toward-the-public-good/
?utm_medium=TCnewsletter&tpcc=TCtransportationnewsletter.
Our innovation strategy must support workers, knowing that our
choices will help to define whether any given technological
development meets its potential to create economic benefits for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
all.
Experience teaches us that collective bargaining provides a proven
platform for considering new technologies, addressing job threats and
workforce transition and preparedness issues, and developing
appropriate safety and training protocols. None of this will occur
unless Congress advances sensible legislation and the Administration
issues clear regulations that live up to the values of a truly worker-
centered approach to AV development and adaptation.
Unified Oversight and Coordinating Mechanism Needed Inside the US DOT
While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has been the most active modal agency working on AVs recently, its
mandate is limited and the technology is already being applied to
larger, commercial vehicles outside of NHTSA's purview. AVs in transit,
trucking, and elsewhere (as well as aviation drones, autonomous
maritime shipping, and other modes) require oversight and regulation by
the department. It is essential that the Department not only act
immediately to regulate the entire scope of the industry, but that the
actions taken by each of the DOT's constituent agencies are coordinated
to support a unified approach to scrutinizing how or if these
technologies are implemented.
The newly authorized Nontraditional and Emerging Transportation
Technology (NETT) Council \17\ would serve well as the body responsible
for this kind of work. The Council consists of the Administrators of
the relevant agencies, as well as the Secretary's office. It is
specifically charged with ``coordinat[ing] the response of the
Department of Transportation to nontraditional and emerging
technologies.'' With some clear direction from Congress and additional
authority specific to AVs, this group would be well suited to ensuring
each of the modal agencies can move in tandem to preserve the public
interest as autonomous technology increases its presence in our
transportation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ P.L. 117-58 Section 25008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has set the
standards for our transportation systems since the very first Congress.
Your leadership--which directed the development of clipper ships,
railroads, diesel engines, and hyperloops--is urgently needed as the
DOT addresses emergent AV technologies. It is imperative that AV
legislation is comprehensive, addresses gaping holes in our safety and
cybersecurity regulations, directs the DOT and its modal agencies to
close those holes, places limits on the use of waivers and exemptions
from federal vehicle safety requirements, requires a qualified operator
on-board in any commercial operations, mandates workforce involvement
in development, testing and eventual deployment of AV's, normalizes
transparency for planning and data collection and reporting, and
ensures that the AV industry is an American industry employing US
workers across the entire supply chain.
Thank you for giving the Transport Workers Union an opportunity to
express our views and concerns regarding the future of AV technology
deployment. We look forward to working with the committee to ensure the
federal government steps up to this moment with a robust policy plan to
properly regulate this emerging industry and protect the workers who
are on the frontlines of our transportation system.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuelsen.
I would like to recognize Ms. Chase. Ms. Chase is president
of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
Ms. Chase, you are recognized.
Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chair Norton, Chair DeFazio,
Ranking Member Davis, and subcommittee members. I am Cathy
Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
known as Advocates.
Thank you for holding today's hearing at a critical time,
with motor vehicle crash fatalities skyrocketing to historic
highs, despite a drop in vehicle-miles traveled since the onset
of the pandemic. Fatal truck crashes also have been on the
rise, increasing by 45 percent since 2009.
Automated, or driverless technology, including cars,
trucks, and buses, is being offered as a potential way to
reduce this mounting death and injury toll. However, it has yet
to be fully developed, and its safety and numerous other
impacts are currently unknown. In the short term, many safety
solutions are available.
Since our inception in 1989, Advocates has strongly
supported proven lifesaving technologies as standard equipment
in all vehicles. These include airbags, seatbelts, electronic
stability control to prevent rollovers, and rearview cameras.
Advocates is deeply concerned about the rush to deploy
undertested, unproven, and unsafe automated or autonomous
vehicles, AVs, including trucks and buses, while overlooking
the need to advance current lifesaving solutions now.
The public also shares this concern about AVs. We
commissioned a national public opinion poll last week. It
revealed that 80 percent are concerned about sharing the roads
with driverless cars.
[Slide shown.] \\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ The slides shown during Ms. Chase's oral testimony are
retained in committee files and are available online at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20220202/114362/HHRG-117-PW12-Wstate-
ChaseC-20220202-SD001.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This distress is evenly expressed throughout the country.
An even greater concern of 85 percent was found for
driverless trucks, and again, throughout the country.
[Slide shown.] \\
Yet, when asked if their concerns about driverless cars
would be addressed if required to meet minimum Government
standards, 60 percent responded yes.
[Slide shown.] \\
Since Congress held its first hearing on AVs nearly a
decade ago, we have been urging adoption of standards. If the
auto, truck, and tech industries can figure out how to build
AVs, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or DOT, can figure
out how to develop standards. Last month, DOT Secretary
Buttigieg responded to a question on AVs during an interview,
stating ``We need to make sure that people who are weighing how
to navigate a world of automated vehicles know that there is
some baseline of safety that's been established by
regulation.'' We share that view.
Without regulations, Government oversight, consumer
information, and industry accountability, the safety of all
road users is in peril. These inadequacies are contributing to
a great deal of confusion about the capabilities of driverless
vehicles versus cars with convenience features like adaptive
cruise control with lane-keep assist. In turn, this has led to
drivers misusing and over-relying on some technologies, which
have resulted in fatalities and injuries.
Also, yesterday Tesla recalled 54,000 cars which were
programmed to roll through stop signs.
The DOT clearly needs to step in and step up its oversight
and regulatory responsibilities. This includes NHTSA
immediately releasing the information it has been collecting
since last June from automakers about cars with advanced
technologies involved in crashes.
Advocates commends this subcommittee and the full committee
for their Invest in America bill, which included numerous
safety advances, some of which were included in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, IIJA. Two critical
truck safety measures are the mandated rule on automatic
emergency braking, AEB, for large trucks within 2 years, and a
mandated upgraded standard within 1 year for rear guards to
prevent horrific truck underride crashes. These and other
directives must be a floor, not ceiling, by DOT.
The issuance of minimum standards for verified advanced
driver assistance systems like AEB for all new vehicles must
occur with expediency. These systems significantly reduce or
mitigate crashes caused by many factors, including impaired,
distracted, or drowsy driving. Moreover, they are the building
blocks for the possibility of future driverless cars and
trucks.
Upgrading infrastructure is also critical to advancing
safety. The tragic bridge collapse in Pittsburgh last week is a
stark example of this need. Adoption of a safe system approach,
which includes infrastructure improvements and vehicle safety
advances, was included in the IIJA, and quick implementation
throughout the Nation is vital.
Additionally, research and data on the impacts of AVs on
accessibility, workforce, transit, the environment, and other
issues in this study directed by the IIJA must be completed to
inform future policies.
In closing, we support rigorous testing, Government
oversight, and industry accountability with the future goal of
safe deployment of AVs, including autonomous trucks and buses.
In 2020, Advocates was joined by 60 groups representing
labor, disability rights, emergency responders, law
enforcement, bicyclists, pedestrians, smart growth, and others
in developing the AV tenets. We urge the subcommittee to
continue its safety leadership role by advancing these and
other needed protections to improve the safety of all road
users and our Nation's infrastructure. Thank you.
[Ms. Chase's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety
Overview of Testimony
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates)
believes automated technology has the potential to be transformative in
reducing our nation's mounting roadway death and injury toll. However,
we are deeply concerned about the future of automated, or autonomous,
vehicles (AVs) including trucks and buses. The lack of comprehensive
federal performance standards, strong government oversight, adequate
consumer information, and effective industry accountability imperils
all road users who are currently unknowing and unwitting participants
in the testing of experimental autonomous technology on public
roadways.
These inadequacies also have led to a great deal of
confusion about AVs, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and
partial automation convenience features. In turn, the confusion has led
to misuse and over-reliance on some technologies which have resulted in
preventable fatalities and injuries. NHTSA issued Standing General
Order 2021-01 to collect information from automakers about what is
happening now with cars with ADAS and automated driving systems (ADS).
It is incumbent upon NHTSA to release all this information to the
public immediately.
The issuance of minimum performance standards for
verified ADAS technologies must occur with expediency. These systems
have been proven to significantly reduce or mitigate crashes caused by
many factors including impaired, distracted and drowsy driving. We
cannot and must not wait for the future of AVs to reduce crashes,
deaths and injuries.
Advocates commends this Subcommittee and the full
Committee for including safety advances in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) including issuance of a final rule for
automatic emergency braking (AEB) for large trucks within two years and
a final rule for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) rear guards to prevent
underride within two years. These and other directives must be a floor,
not a ceiling, for what the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
issues.
The tragic bridge collapse in Pittsburgh last week is the
most immediate example of why our infrastructure must be maintained,
improved and upgraded. Adoption of a Safe System Approach, which
includes road safety infrastructure upgrades, reducing speeds, post-
crash management, and vehicle safety advances, was included in the IIJA
and must be implemented throughout the nation.
To ensure the safe development and deployment of AVs,
including autonomous CMVs (ACMVs), commonsense protections and
regulations must be put in place, including Advocates' AV Tenets.
Additional safeguards are needed for ACMVs (starting on p. 13). We urge
this Subcommittee to continue its safety leadership role by considering
and advancing these recommendations to improve the safety of all road
users and the integrity of our nation's surface infrastructure.
Introduction
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of
public health, safety, law enforcement and consumer organizations,
insurers and insurance agents that promotes highway and auto safety
through the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and
regulations. Advocates is unique both in its board composition and its
mission of advancing safer vehicles, safer motorists and road users,
and safer infrastructure. We are deeply concerned about the future of
automated, or autonomous, vehicles (AVs). Currently there are no
federal performance standards for AVs, advanced driver assistance
systems (ADAS), or partial automation convenience features.
Understandably, there is a great deal of confusion among the public
about these different categories. In an actual AV, the car is taking
over the entire driving task, unlike ADAS and convenience features
where a driver always must be engaged in the driving task. There are no
AVs available to consumers at this time. ADAS include safety features
presently offered in some vehicles such as automatic emergency braking
(AEB), lane departure warning (LDW) and blind spot detection (BSD). The
highly respected Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has
found real-world significant crash rate reductions in vehicles with
these technologies. Conversely, partial automation convenience
features, such as adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane centering used
together, have not been proven to improve vehicle safety. According to
IIHS President David Harkey, ``[T]here is no evidence that [partial
automation systems] make driving safer . . . In fact, the opposite may
be the case if systems lack adequate safeguards.'' \1\ Misuse of and
overreliance on some technologies already have led to numerous fatal
crashes.\2\ The lack of strong government oversight, effective
regulations, and industry accountability must change. Automated
technology has the potential to be transformative in reducing our
nation's mounting highway death and injury toll. This Subcommittee and
Congress can lead the way to accomplish this goal with targeted
legislative directives requiring regulatory and industry actions to
address identified problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
(Jan. 20, 2022).
\2\ Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by Developmental Automated
Driving System and Pedestrian Tempe, Arizona, March 18, 2018, Accident
Report NTSB/HAR-19/03 (Nov. 19, 2019); NHTSA Office of Defects
Investigation Preliminary Evaluation PE21-020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Vehicle Crashes are a Public Health Crisis which Demand Immediate
Action
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), 38,680 people were killed in 2020 \3\ and an estimated 2.74
million more were injured in traffic crashes in 2019.\4\ Recent data
shows a deadly upward trend in traffic fatalities with projected
increases in 2020 and the first half of 2021, despite a decrease in
vehicle miles traveled during that period.\5\ It is anticipated that
figures for the rest of 2021, which the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) is expected to release soon, will show additional
increases.\6\ NHTSA currently values each life lost in a crash at $11.6
million.\7\ Crashes, injuries, and fatalities occurring each year
impose a financial burden of $1 trillion in total costs to society in
2021 when adjusted for inflation--$292 billion of which are direct
economic costs.\8\ This amounts to a ``crash tax'' on every person
living in the U.S. of nearly $900.\9\ In 2018, crashes alone cost
employers $72.2 billion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, May). Early
estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in 2020 (Crash Stats Brief
Statistical Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813 115). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\4\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, August).
Traffic safety facts 2019: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data
(Report No. DOT HS 813 141). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\5\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First half (January-June) of 2021,
NHTSA, Oct. 2021, DOT HS 813 199.
\6\ U.S. DOT, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg
Announces Comprehensive National Roadway Safety Strategy (Jan. 27,
2022).
\7\ John Putnam, US DOT Deputy General Counsel, Guidance on the
Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S.
Department of Transportation Analyses--2021 Update.
\8\ Economic costs include lost productivity, medical costs, legal
and court costs, emergency service costs, insurance administration
costs, congestion costs, property damage, and workplace losses.
\9\ As of January 2021, when costs are adjusted for inflation only
and population estimates are brought current. See: ``The Economic and
Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010,'' NHTSA (2015).
\10\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019, Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatal truck crashes contribute to this preventable toll and occur
at an alarmingly high rate. In 2020, nearly 5,000 people were killed in
crashes involving a large truck.\11\ Since 2009, the number of
fatalities in large truck crashes has increased by 45 percent.\12\
Additionally, 159,000 people were injured in crashes involving a large
truck in 2019, and injuries of large truck occupants increased by 18
percent since 2018.\13\ The cost to society from crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was estimated to be $143 billion in
2018, the latest year for which data is available.\14\ When adjusted
solely for inflation, this figure amounts to over $150 billion.\15\
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, truck driving is one of the
most dangerous occupations in the United States.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020,
NHTSA, Jun. 2021, DOT HS 813 118.
\12\ Id. and Traffic Safety Facts 2018: A Compilations of Motor
Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Nov. 2020, DOT HS 812 981. Note, the 45
percent figure represents the overall change in the number of
fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2020. However,
between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data collection at U.S. DOT
that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 2015 the number of
fatalities in truck involved crashes increased by 21 percent and
between 2016 to 2020, it increased by 5 percent.
\13\ Traffic Safety Facts: Research Note; Overview of Motor Vehicle
Crashes in 2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2020, DOT HS 813 060.
\14\ 2020 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
Oct. 2020, RRA-20-004.
\15\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
\16\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, National
Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2020, USDL-21-2145 (Dec. 16,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Potential Path to AVs, Proven Vehicle Safety Technologies Save
Lives
Before the pandemic, the motor vehicle crash death and injury toll
already was extremely high, averaging 36,739 fatalities and 2.7 million
injuries over the five-year span of 2015 to 2019.\17\ The recent uptick
has brought a renewed national focus on these preventable tragedies.
Fortunately, inexpensive and lifesaving solutions are readily
available. What is lacking is implementation. This includes the U.S.
DOT issuing minimum performance standards for proven and available
safety technologies with urgency. The NHTSA has estimated that between
1960 and 2012, over 600,000 lives were saved by motor vehicle safety
technologies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, August).
Traffic safety facts 2019: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data
(Report No. DOT HS 813 141). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\18\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069
(NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5
endnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates always has championed proven vehicle safety technologies
to save lives. Advocates led the coalition that supported enactment of
the bipartisan Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
of 1991 \19\ which included a mandate for front seat airbags as
standard equipment. As a result, by 1997, every new car sold in the
United States was equipped with this technology and the lives saved
have been significant. Airbags have saved an estimated 50,457 lives
from 1987 to 2017, according to NHTSA.\20\ Advocates continued to
support proven lifesaving technologies as standard equipment in new
vehicles in other federal legislation and regulatory proposals. These
efforts include: tire pressure monitoring systems; \21\ rear outboard
3-point safety belts; \22\ electronic stability control; \23\ rear
safety belt reminder systems; \24\ brake transmission interlocks; \25\
safety belts on motorcoaches; \26\ rear-view cameras; \27\ ADAS; \28\
impaired driving prevention technology; \29\ enhanced vehicle hood and
bumpers to better protect vulnerable road users; \30\ and, advanced
head lamps.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
\20\ Traffic Safety Facts 2018, A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data, DOT HS 812 981, NHTSA (Nov. 2020).
\21\ Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. L. 106-414 (Nov. 1, 2000).
\22\ Anton's Law, Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002).
\23\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act,
Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
\27\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007,
Pub. L. 110-189 (Feb. 28, 2008).
\28\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov.
15, 2021).
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Advocates has relentlessly championed technology to
improve CMV safety and address persistent problems such as truck driver
fatigue, a well-known and well-documented problem in the motor carrier
industry. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
repeatedly has cited fatigue as a major contributor to truck
crashes.\32\ Advocates sought the installation of electronic logging
devices (ELDs) to record drivers' hours of service (HOS) to increase
compliance and thereby reduce driver fatigue and fatigue related
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ National Transportation Safety Board, 2016 Most Wanted List,
accessed at ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Documents/MWL2016_Brochure_web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Actions Must be Undertaken to Prevent Crashes and Save Lives
It is a transformational time in surface transportation innovation
with the availability of new safety technologies, known as ADAS, to
prevent or mitigate crashes caused by numerous factors including
distracted, impaired and drowsy driving, and protect drivers, vehicle
occupants and other road users. These safety systems, such as AEB and
LDW, stand in stark contrast to some partial automation driver
convenience features, such as adaptative cruise control and lane
centering used together which allow operators to remove their hands
from the steering wheel or other dangerous actions. While AV technology
continues to be developed, ADAS are available to immediately improve
public safety. As NHTSA has stated, ``[t]he prevalence of automotive
crashes in the United States underscores the urgency to develop and
deploy lifesaving technologies that can dramatically decrease the
number of fatalities and injuries on our Nation's roadways.'' \33\ The
NTSB has included increasing implementation of collision avoidance
technologies in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety
Improvements since 2016.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 85 FR 39976 (Jul. 2, 2020).
\34\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIHS has found that:
AEB can decrease front-to-rear crashes with injuries by
56 percent;
LDW can reduce single-vehicle, sideswipe and head-on
injury crashes by over 20 percent;
BSD can diminish injury crashes involving lane changes by
23 percent;
Rear AEB can reduce backing crashes by 78 percent when
combined with rearview camera and parking sensors;
Rear cross-traffic alert can reduce backing crashes by 22
percent; and,\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ IIHS, Real world benefits of crash avoidance technologies,
available at: https://www.iihs.org/media/259e5bbd-f859-42a7-bd54-
3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/ADVANCED%20DRIVER
%20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipping large trucks with forward collision warning and
AEB could eliminate more than two out of five crashes in which a large
truck rear-ends another vehicle.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large
trucks too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-
front-crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too
However, the widespread use of these technologies and realizing
their significant lifesaving benefits are hampered by their limited
availability to consumers. Often AEB is sold as part of an additional,
expensive trim package along with other non-safety features, or
included as standard equipment in high end models or vehicles. This
practice hinders mass dissemination and safety equity by providing
access only to those who can afford an upcharge of thousands of
dollars. Additionally, segments of the trucking industry have opposed
requiring AEB in small to medium-sized trucks.
Moreover, there are currently no minimum safety standards to ensure
the technologies perform as expected and needed. When consumers walk
into auto showrooms to purchase a vehicle, a major expenditure for most
families, they expect the assurances of minimum safety standards to
protect them, as has been the case since the first federal vehicle
safety regulation issued in 1966.\37\ Also, consumers are keeping cars
longer. In 2021, the average of age of vehicles operated on roads in
the U.S. was 12 years.\38\ As such, without federal regulations
requiring ADAS as standard equipment, it will take far longer for these
safety systems to be prevalent on our roadways. The current void of
regulations for ADAS renders all road users vulnerable to needless
dangers, including bicyclists, pedestrians and others.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L.
89-563 (Sep. 1966).
\38\ Robert Ferris, Cars on American roads keep getting older, CNBC
(Sep. 28, 2021).
\39\ Note some ADAS may not be appropriate for certain CMV
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates commends this Subcommittee and the full Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for including numerous provisions in
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law last
November, that will improve safety and strengthen our nation's
infrastructure. The law requires the U.S. DOT to issue a final rule
within two years for AEB in large CMVs and the issuance of a Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) to require drivers use AEB.\40\
We urge the U.S. DOT to meet the statutory deadline for this standard
and not delay regulatory action. However, this directive must be
expanded to include all CMVs. Based on new truck sales data, limiting
the installation of AEB to Class 7 and 8 trucks will potentially
exclude over half a million Class 3-6 trucks every year. These vehicles
travel on local streets and through neighborhoods everyday making
millions of deliveries. Equipping these trucks with AEB will make
neighborhood streets safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, children, older
adults, people in wheelchairs and other vulnerable road users.
Advocates also has consistently supported the use of speed limiting
devices for CMVs because high speed crashes involving large trucks have
the potential to be far deadlier than those that occur at lower
speeds.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
\41\ Docket: FMCSA-2014-0083, Comment ID: FMCSA-2014-0083-4459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also commend the Subcommittee and full Committee for the
inclusion of upgrading the performance standard for rear underride
guards.\42\ This is long overdue as testing by IIHS has found that the
largest trailer manufacturers far exceed the current federal
standard.\43\ Moreover technology is currently available that can
prevent a passenger vehicle from traveling underneath the rear or side
of a trailer and significantly increase the chances of survival. The
NTSB has recommended rear, side, and front underride protection.\44\ In
2017, IIHS performed its first tests of a side underride guard designed
for an automobile.\45\ The device bent but did not allow the car to go
underneath the trailer, enabling the car's airbags and safety belt to
properly restrain the test dummy in the driver seat. As such, U.S. DOT
should require the installation of comprehensive underride protection
(side and front) for the entire CMV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Pub.L. 117-58 (2021). A list of all such provisions is
attached as Appendix A.
\43\ IIHS, Topics. Large Trucks, Underride.
\44\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-10-12, H-10-13, H-14-03, H-14-
02, H-14-04.
\45\ IIHS, Side guard on semitrailer prevents underride in 40 mph
test (Aug. 29, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the legislation provides funding opportunities for
states and localities to implement a Safe System Approach that seeks to
prevent traffic fatalities by minimizing roadway conflicts and reducing
crash forces when they do occur. This is accomplished through measures
such as reducing speeds, road safety infrastructure improvements and
better post-crash management. Additional provisions in the IIJA that
will improve public safety include requiring the establishment of a
safe routes to school program for children, research focusing on
vulnerable road users (VRUs), and measures to address multiple
substance-impaired driving. Lastly, the IIJA includes directives to the
U.S. DOT to conduct research on the impacts of automated, connected and
platooned vehicles on infrastructure including wear on roadway
pavements as well as a report to Congress on the existing and future
impacts of AVs to transportation infrastructure, mobility, the
environment, and safety. This information will be critical in
determining future policies for this developmental technology.
In the short term, there are immediate surface infrastructure
vulnerabilities which demand immediate attention. Just last week, at
least ten people were injured when a well-travelled 52-year-old bridge
collapsed in Pittsburgh. The most recent inspection report for the
bridge noted that it was in ``poor'' condition.\46\ This was not the
first time a major artery has failed in a major city in the U.S. In
2007, a bridge in Minneapolis collapsed killing 13 and injuring 145
travelers after the span had been deemed ``structurally deficient.''
\47\ Overweight trucks disproportionately damage America's crumbling
infrastructure and threaten public safety. Yet, certain special
interests continue to advocate for weakening federal limits on the
weight and size of CMVs. Often these provisions are tucked into must
pass spending bills evading public debate and the jurisdiction of this
committee. Federal weight and size limits are essential to protecting
truck drivers, the traveling public, and our nation's roads and
bridges. According to the 2021 Infrastructure Report Card from the
American Society of Civil Engineers, America's roads receive a grade of
``D'' and our bridges were given a ``C.'' \48\ Nearly 40 percent of our
615,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory are 50 years or older,
and one out of 11 is structurally deficient.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Campbell Robertson and Amanda Holpuch, Pittsburgh Bridge
Collapses Hours Before Biden Infrastructure Visit, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28,
2022).
\47\ David Schaper, 10 Years After Bridge Collapse, America Is
Still Crumbling, National Public Radio (Aug. 1, 2017).
\48\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
\49\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge the U.S. DOT to move swiftly to implement the IIJA,
including issuing the mandated standards immediately, and to view the
safety requirements as a ``floor'' rather than a ``ceiling'' for what
must be achieved. Critical to the success of the National Roadway
Safety Strategy (NRSS), released by the U.S. DOT last week, will be
swift implementation of Congressional mandates and other identified
solutions which have been proven to prevent crashes and save lives.
Experimental Autonomous Technology Remains Unproven
While the benefits of ADAS, like AEB, are clear, the same is not so
for several partial automation technologies for both cars and trucks
which are lacking independent supportive evidence or data. Moreover,
several fatal crashes involving cars equipped with automated driving
systems (ADS) or varying levels of driving automation have been subject
to investigation by the NTSB and NHTSA.\50\ These investigations have
and will continue to identify safety deficiencies, determine
contributing causes, and recommend government and industry actions to
prevent future deadly incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The list of crashes and failures involving vehicles equipped
with autonomous driving systems identified by Advocates is attached as
Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates urges this Subcommittee to consider critical information
from our nation's preeminent crash investigators to inform any policies
related to AVs. Further, since January 2018, NHTSA's Office of Defects
Investigation has identified at least eleven crashes in which a Tesla
vehicle operating under its ``Autopilot System'' or Traffic Aware
Cruise Control collided with vehicles at crash scenes where first
responder vehicles lights and other control measures such as flares and
cones were in place. This investigation must be a priority for NHTSA
because of the serious safety implications associated with these
troubling and recurring incidents. Findings from all these
investigations should be publicly released and incorporated as
applicable into any future legislation or regulation pertaining to AVs.
It is encouraging that NHTSA has recently taken several essential
steps to address the substantial safety concerns associated with
vehicles equipped with ADAS and ADS. Advocates supports NHTSA obtaining
invaluable data involving vehicles equipped with Level 2 ADAS and ADS
through Standing General Order 2021-01 (General Order) and the agency's
recent announcement that it intends to expand the General Order to
include additional crashes including those involving VRUs.\51\ The
agency indicates that it believes the frequency of crashes equipped
with these systems will increase.\52\ The General Order will assist
NHTSA in properly assessing the on-road performance and safety of these
technologies. This unique information can help the agency identify
common problems or systematic issues with certain vehicles and/or
equipment.\53\ Moreover, the reporting requirements of the General
Order are properly tailored so that the agency can collect the
appropriate data necessary as they are limited to crashes involving
fatalities, injuries requiring transportation to a hospital,
substantial damage to the vehicle, airbag deployment or an incident
involving a vulnerable road user. The agency recently indicated that it
has received four months of data from manufacturers.\54\ During his
nomination hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation in December 2021, Dr. Steven Cliff, nominee for
NHTSA Administrator, affirmed the agency's intent to make the data
public in the very near future.\55\ We urge NHTSA to release all the
data obtained from the General Order to the public in an understandable
format as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 86 FR 54287, 54288; 87 FR 4099 (Jan. 26, 2022).
\52\ Id.
\53\ Id.
\54\ Jessica Wehrman, Highway safety nominee faces grilling over
driverless vehicles, Roll Call (Dec. 16, 2021).
\55\ Nominations Hearing, Before U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, 117 Cong (Dec. 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIHS also has performed invaluable research on the Level 2 ADAS
marketed as a convenience feature intended for highway driving for
passenger motor vehicles. They have determined that if a manufacturer
does place partial automation convenience systems in a vehicle, it
should have essential safeguards to help prevent misuse that can result
in dangerous situations such as failure to pay attention to the driving
task.\56\ These include driver monitoring systems to help ensure driver
engagement with alerts to the driver that rapidly escalate in urgency
and timing. In addition, emergency interventions such as slowing or
stopping the vehicle are needed when driver disengagement with the
driving task is detected, and the driver fails to respond
appropriately. Additional safety protocols prohibiting a driver from
using the system while unbuckled or when crash avoidance systems are
disabled are critical. Consumer Reports (CR) has announced it will be
awarding points for partially automated driving systems, but only if
they have adequate driver monitoring systems.\57\ This year IIHS
expects to be issuing ratings on the performance of the safeguards that
partial automation employs to help drivers stay focused on the roads
including escalating alerts and appropriate emergency procedures.\58\
CR plans to factor in the IIHS ratings once available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
(Jan. 20, 2022).
\57\ Keith Barry, Driver Monitoring Systems by Ford and GM Are Only
Ones to Earn Points in CR's Tests, Consumer Reports (Jan. 20, 2022).
\58\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
(Jan. 20, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring the Safe Development of Autonomous Technology
Development of AVs must be undertaken without jeopardizing public
safety. The following commonsense safeguards are necessary to ensure
those in and around AVs are protected. This also will help bolster
consumer confidence in the technology.
Adoption of Basic AV Tenets Will Guarantee Safety and Public Acceptance
Advocates spearheaded the compilation of the ``AV Tenets,'' policy
positions which should be a foundational part of any AV policy.\59\
This comprehensive approach is based on expert analysis, real world
experience, and public opinion and is supported by 60 stakeholders
representing safety, consumer, public health, labor, bicyclists,
pedestrians, individuals with disabilities, smart growth, and others.
It has four main, commonsense categories including: 1) prioritizing
safety of all road users; 2) guaranteeing accessibility and equity for
all individuals including those with disabilities; 3) preserving
consumer and worker rights; and, 4) ensuring local control and
sustainable transportation. Many promises have been touted about AVs
bringing reductions in motor vehicle crashes and resultant deaths and
injuries, lowering traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, expanding
mobility and accessibility, improving efficiency, and creating more
equitable transportation options and opportunities. As Secretary
Buttigieg recently acknowledged, these outcomes are far from
certain.\60\ The AV Tenets will be necessary to help realize these
goals as well as mitigate potential negative consequences. Among the
numerous recommendations in the AV Tenets, requiring that AVs meet
minimum standards, including for cybersecurity, and that operations are
subject to adequate oversight, including a comprehensive database
accessible by vehicle identification number (VIN) with basic safety
information, will be critical to putting safety first with regards to
this burgeoning technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ A summary of the AV Tenets is attached as Appendix C.
\60\ Nilay Patel and Andrew J. Hawkins, Pete Buttigieg is Racing to
Keep Up with Self Driving Cars. The Verge (Jan. 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vigilant Oversight of Autonomous Commercial Motor Vehicles (ACMVs) is
Essential
The emergence of experimental ACMVs and their interactions with
conventional motor vehicles, trucks and buses and all road users for
the foreseeable future demand an enhanced level of federal and state
oversight to ensure public safety. It is imperative that CMVs,
including those with ADS, be regulated by U.S. DOT with enforceable
safety standards and subject to adequate oversight. The potential for
an 80,000 pound truck equipped with unregulated and inadequately tested
technology on public roads is a very real and dangerous scenario if
these vehicles are only subject to voluntary guidelines. In addition,
automated passenger carrying CMVs which have the potential to carry as
many as 53 passengers will need additional comprehensive federal rules
specific to this mode of travel.
At a minimum, ACMVs must be subject to the following essential
provisions:
In the near term, rulemakings must be promulgated for
elements of ACMVs that require performance standards including but not
limited to the ADS, human machine interface, sensors, privacy, software
and cybersecurity. ACMVs must also be subject to a ``vision test'' to
guarantee they properly detect and respond to other vehicles, all
people and objects in the operating environment. Also, a standard to
ensure ACMVs do not go outside of their operational design domain (ODD)
should be issued. Standards for ACMVs must be required to be issued by
specific deadlines, with a compliance date, set by Congress before
deployment.
Drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional
endorsement or equivalent certification on their commercial driver's
license (CDL) to ensure they have been properly trained to monitor and
understand the ODD of the vehicle and, if need be, to operate an ACMV.
This training must include a minimum number of hours of behind-the-
wheel training.
Each manufacturer of an ACMV must be required to submit a
safety assessment report that details the safety performance of
automated driving systems and automated vehicles. Manufacturers must be
required to promptly report to NHTSA all crashes involving ACMVs
causing fatalities, injuries and property damage.
ACMVs that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) must not be introduced into commerce nor be
subject to large-scale exemptions from such.
Any safety defect involving the ACMV must be remedied
before the ACMV is permitted to return to operation. The potential for
defects to infect an entire fleet of vehicles is heightened because of
the connected nature of AV technology. Therefore, manufacturers must be
required to promptly determine if a defect affects an entire fleet.
Those defects which are fleet-wide must result in notice to all such
owners and an immediate suspension of operation of the entire fleet
until the defect is remedied.
The U.S. DOT Secretary must be required to establish a
database for ACMVs that includes such information as the vehicle's
identification number; manufacturer, make, model and trim information;
the level of automation of each automated driving system with which the
vehicle is equipped; the ODD of each automated driving system; and the
FMVSS, if any, from which the vehicle has been exempted.
For the foreseeable future, regardless of their level of
automation, ACMVs must have an operator with a valid CDL in the vehicle
at all times. Drivers will need to be alert to oversee not only the
standard operations of the truck but also the ADS. Therefore, the
Secretary must issue a mandatory safety standard for driver engagement.
In addition, critical safety regulations administered by FMCSA such as
those that apply to driver HOS, licensing requirements, entry level
training and medical qualifications must not be weakened.
Motor carriers using ACMVs must be required to apply for
additional operating authority.
FMCSA must consider the additional measures that will be
needed to ensure that ACMVs respond to state and local law enforcement
authorities and requirements, and what measures must be taken to
properly evaluate an ACMV during roadside inspections. In particular,
the safety impacts on passenger vehicle traffic of several large ACMVs
platooning on bridges, roads and highways must be assessed.
NHTSA must be given imminent hazard authority to protect
against potentially widespread catastrophic defects with ACMVs, and
criminal penalties to ensure manufacturers do not willfully and
knowingly put defective ACMVs into the marketplace.
NHTSA and FMCSA must be given additional resources,
funding and personnel, in order to meet demands being placed on the
agency due to the advent of AV technology.
Without these necessary safety protections, mandated by Congress to
assure they are adopted with prescribed deadlines, commercial drivers
and those with whom they share the road are at risk. Allowing
technology to be deployed without rigorous testing, vigilant oversight,
and comprehensive safety standards is a direct and unacceptable threat
to the motoring public which is exacerbated by the sheer size and
weights of large CMVs.
ACMVs Will Impact our Nation's Infrastructure
The Need for Improved Roadway Design: The design of our roads--from
the asphalt, to the signage, to the lighting, to the speed limit--is
largely based on the history of human performance behind the wheel and
the capability of the vehicles. The introduction of AVs including ACMVs
stands to essentially require a re-write of many of these guidelines
for road design and use in the future. However, in the near term, there
will need to be an evaluation of how standards for design can be
enhanced to accommodate both human and machine ``drivers.'' Both human
and machine ``drivers'' would benefit from improved lane marking as
well as establishing standards for pavement resurfacing to ensure that
repair seams and color differences do not confuse AV systems.
Establishing uniform standards for signage color, lighting, contrast,
letter size, and other roadway features will likely benefit the
performance of AVs and will also reap similar advantages for human
drivers in the interim. Many of the current manuals' guidelines and
recommendations are almost always open to engineering interpretation.
With the advent of ACMVs, more emphasis must be placed on consistency,
and consideration must be given to the effects variations can have on
autonomous driving technology. While a human driver can see a unique
situation and interpret those circumstances fairly well, an ACMV may
not be able to do the same. Research has already shown that minor
distortion of a sign can cause havoc for AVs, causing stop signs to be
interpreted as speed limit signs, a confusion which can have serious,
and potentially fatal, results.\61\ Clearly, new rules are required if
ACMVs are allowed on our roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Evtimov, Ivan & Eykholt, Kevin & Fernandes, Earlence & Kohno,
Tadayoshi & Li, Bo & Prakash, Atul & Rahmati, Amir & Song, Dawn.
(2017). Robust Physical-World Attacks on Machine Learning Models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway deterioration and delayed repair, which are common
occurrences on existing infrastructure, will have a negative impact on
AV operation. In addition, how ACMVs utilize and navigate weigh
stations, roadside inspections and truck stops must be considered.
Every driver has experienced road signs or markings that have been
damaged, intentionally altered or blocked by objects. This could lead
to misinterpretation of roadway and highway cues and result in stopped
or misdirected ACMVs that will present additional hazards. These
findings and similar research illustrate that not only standards for
roadway design can be critical to performance, but also that road
design improvements alone may not suffice to ensure the safe operation
of AVs. Combining standards for design with infrastructure improvements
like vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technology, backed by standards
for such, would provide additional awareness for human drivers and
unambiguous inputs for machine ``drivers.''
Industry Hype v. Reality: The AV industry often has claimed that
the introduction of these vehicles will reduce congestion, improve
environmental quality, and advance transportation efficiency.\62\
However, many of these claims may amount to nothing more than
aspirational goals. Instead, AVs may bring about so-called ``hyper-
commuters'' who work from their vehicles on long commutes to enable
living further from offices and/or city centers. Significant
consideration must be given to how AV driving could change wear
patterns on roadways. Heavy trucks already are accelerating the damage
on our roads and highways. The lower variance of an AV's, including
ACMVs, position within a lane could lead to accelerated wear in lanes,
and condensed convoys of automated trucks, commonly known as
platooning, could place further strain on roads and bridges. All these
concerns must be evaluated to consider operational constraints for AVs
before further damage is inflicted upon our nation's roads and bridges
which are already weakened and in dire need of fortification and
updating, as mentioned above. For example, the spacing between ACMVs in
a platoon could have wide-ranging implications. If these large vehicles
travel too closely together, their combined weight load could place
severe stress on a bridge. In addition, lengthy platoons which consist
of many ACMVs could be difficult to pass and affect merging and exiting
from roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Self-Driving Coalition For Safe Streets, FAQs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking into consideration the long-term ramifications, the
budgetary constraints, and the necessary coordination among a diverse
group of stakeholders when it comes to planning and implementing
infrastructure projects at any level, research is needed now more than
ever on the impact of AVs on our roads. In addition, further research
is also required to examine the differing infrastructure upgrades that
will be required for urban, suburban and rural regions. More analysis
and deliberation must be given to this complex issue before AVs,
particularly ACMVs, can be deployed.
Voluntary Agreements are Inadequate, Ineffective and Impossible to
Enforce
To date, the approach of pursuing voluntary industry agreements,
sometimes with government agency involvement, consistently has been
demonstrated to be insufficient to ensure public safety. For example,
the first edition of the AV Guidelines issued by U.S. DOT in 2016
encouraged the submission of voluntary safety self-assessment (VSSA)
reports and the subsequent three editions have not altered this
process.\63\ Despite the fact that approximately 80 entities are
testing AV technology,\64\ just under 30 reports have been filed with
U.S. DOT since the first voluntary guidelines were released in
2016.\65\ Thus far, the U.S. DOT has failed to implement standard
requirements for the information to be provided in the VSSA.
Consequently, manufacturers are submitting incomplete, uninformative
and sometimes outdated glossy, marketing-style brochures with little,
if any, substantive or relevant information from which to ascertain
critical and reliable information about safety and performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ U.S. DOT, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (Sept. 2016);
Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for Safety 2.0 (Sep. 12, 2017);
Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0
(Oct. 4, 2018); Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle
Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0 (Jan. 8, 2020).
\64\ Brookings Institution, Autonomous cars: Science, technology,
and policy (Jul. 25, 2019).
\65\ NHTSA, Safety Self-Assessments, available at: https://
www.nhtsa.gov/automated-driving-systems/voluntary-safety-self-
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2020, the U.S. DOT announced a new voluntary plan, the
Automated Vehicle Transparency and Engagement for Safe Testing (AV
TEST) Initiative.\66\ It also focuses on the voluntary submission of
information from AV manufacturers and operators, as well as state and
local authorities. Similar to the VSSAs, the lack of a mandate and
standard for submissions provides little if any value to assist in
seriously evaluating or comparing the AV testing taking place across
the country.\67\ This initiative is an oversight mirage leaving all
road consumers uninformed and at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 85 FR 39975 (Jul. 2, 2020).
\67\ Docket No.: NHTSA-2020-0070, Comment: NHTSA-2020-0070-0016
(Aug. 31, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of the ineffectiveness and failures of voluntary
agreements is the March 2016 agreement among 20 automakers to install
AEB in most new light vehicles as standard equipment by 2023. As of
December 2021, two manufacturers, which account for nearly a third of
the U.S. auto market, demonstrate this lackluster response to the
detriment of public safety. Only 58 percent of General Motors vehicles
and 43 percent of Fiat Chrysler vehicles were sold with AEB between
September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021. Moreover, the performance
requirements in the agreement are exceptionally weak and consequently
can result in these systems not performing as needed. This underscores
the urgency for the U.S. DOT to issue a minimum performance standard
for AEB in all new vehicles, and it undermines the public confidence in
the potential of these promising safety systems to prevent death and
injury on the highway.
The latest example of ineffectual voluntary agreements is the
September 2019 announcement by the auto industry to equip cars with
inadequate technology to prevent hot car deaths of children by 2025.
Once again, this type of a pact unnecessarily prolongs the timeline to
get equipment into new cars and fails to ensure the system meets a
minimum performance standard.\68\ In fact, General Motors announced it
would equip its new cars with technology that ``can detect motion as
subtle as the breathing of an infant sleeping in a rear-facing child
safety seat'' in 2001 with the intent to begin rollout in 2004.\69\
Yet, this technology was never installed. Meanwhile, children continue
to needlessly die or tragically sustain serious injuries in hot cars.
The IIJA took a step forward by directing the U.S. DOT to issue a rule
on reminder technology within two years, but it is imperative that the
final rule require the system detect the presence of an occupant in the
entire passenger compartment. If not, ineffective systems, which are
currently on the market, will give a false promise of preventing child
deaths, but in reality not solve this tragic problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Members of Congress, Safety Advocates and Grieving Parents
Call for Technology Solutions to End Hot Car Tragedies as Fatalities
Continue, Jul. 28, 2020, available at https://conta.cc/30Sdt2w.
\69\ General Motors News Release, ``General Motors Announces
Important New Technology to Help Save Children Trapped in Hot Cars,''
(April 26, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The common thread among all these voluntary initiatives is that at
any time, any or all automakers can decide to no longer comply with the
agreement or partially comply in whatever capacity they desire without
any ramifications, underscoring the importance and benefit of
regulatory action by U.S. DOT. They also allow auto manufacturers to
continue upcharging, sometimes far in excess of the cost to the auto
manufacturers who benefit financially from keeping systems voluntary
rather than mandatory.
Dispelling Misleading Claims about AVs
Some proponents of ACMVs claim that they will relieve supply chain
issues by addressing the so called ``driver shortage'' within the
trucking industry by eliminating the need for human drivers and
allowing for the more efficient movement of goods through the constant
operation of trucks. However, harsh and unsafe working conditions for
interstate truck drivers have created a retention crisis, not a driver
shortage. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor has determined that
``the labor market for truck drivers works about as well as the labor
markets for other blue-collar occupations'' and ``a deeper look [at the
truck industry labor market] does not find evidence of a secular
shortage.'' \70\ According to industry data, driver turnover at some
carriers is near 90 percent.\71\ In addition, states issue more than
450,000 new CDLs each year, demonstrating that there are candidates to
fill vacancies.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
\71\ American Trucking Associations, Fourth Quarter Truck Driver
Turnover Rate Shows Muddled Picture (Mar. 12, 2021).
\72\ Greg Rosalsky, Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage?,
National Public Radio (May 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The supply chain issues currently facing the nation are complex and
will not be solved by the introduction of ACMVs, which will not be
ready for prime time in the near future. This technology still faces
significant operational challenges such as responding to all
participants in the transportation ecosystem including traffic control
officers and vulnerable road users as well as differing weather
conditions. In fact, much of the testing of AVs is taking place in warm
areas of the country that do not experience varied weather conditions
including those that occur during treacherous winters. Moreover, the
constant operation of trucks raises serious questions as to the ability
to properly service vehicles continuously in use. Even without this
potential new regime, 21 percent of CMVs were placed out of service in
2021 for maintenance issues.\73\ In addition, many of the issues with
the physical condition of the truck that would be identified by a human
driver during a pre- or post-trip inspection as well problems during a
trip such as the shift of a load or other emergencies noted by a human
driver may not be identified or corrected under this type of use.
Furthermore, adding an autonomous driving system into passenger
carrying vehicles such as buses does not negate the need for a driver.
Human interaction remains essential. Beyond the operational task, these
professional drivers have a myriad of other responsibilities including
assisting individuals with disabilities on and off the bus safely,
managing emergency situations and the delivery of medical care, and
coordinating safe transportation for all people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)
data snapshot as of 12/31/2021. Available at: https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/
SafetyProgram/RoadsideInspections.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of ACMVs also contend that placing autonomous systems in
a CMV is not as daunting a task as with passenger vehicles because CMVs
operate largely on highways, an easier environment for the technology
to master. Operating a CMV on a congested highway at a high rate of
speed is a complicated task in a dangerous environment as evidenced by
the fact that a quarter of fatal crashes involving CMVs occur on
highways.\74\ Lastly, supporters of ACMVs also claim that the
technology will eliminate most crashes citing a statistic accredited to
NHTSA which indicates that 94 percent of crashes are due to human error
or the fault of the driver.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ U.S. DOT, Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2019, Table 5,
Report FMCSA-RRA-20-055 (Oct. 2021).
\75\ Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes
investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
(Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 115).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the agency has noted in the same report which includes
this data point that ``[t]he critical reason is the immediate reason
for the critical pre-crash event and is often the last failure in the
causal chain of events leading up to the crash. Although the critical
reason is an important part of the description of events leading up to
the crash, it is not intended to be interpreted as the cause of the
crash nor as the assignment of the fault to the driver, vehicle, or
environment'' (emphasis added).\76\ This statistic was recently rebuked
by NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy who stated, ``At the same time it
relieves everybody else of responsibility they have for improving
safety, including DOT . . . You can't simultaneously say we're focused
on a `safe system' approach--making sure everybody who shares
responsibility for road safety is taking action to eliminate fatalities
and serious injuries . . .--and have a 94% number out there, which is
not accurate.'' \77\ There are often multiple causes of a crash and
replacing human error in the operation of a vehicle, when it does
occur, with unproven technology is not a sensible solution to reducing
the death toll on our nation's roads. The fact remains that there is
scant independently verifiable data that ACMVs can operate safely on
any road or help to address any of the nation's longstanding supply
chain issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Id.
\77\ Hope Yen and Tom Krisher, NTSB chief to fed agency: Stop using
misleading statistics, Associated Press (Jan. 18, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some proponents of advancing the deployment of AVs contend the U.S.
is at risk of falling behind other nations unless it takes steps to
merely promote rather than regulate ACMVs. However, this fear-inducing
claim is inaccurate In fact, the United States is ranked fourth in the
KPMG 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index while Japan is ranked
11th, Germany is 14th and China is 20th.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ KPMG, 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other countries in fact are taking a more calculated, careful and
cautious approach.
Germany requires a human to be behind the wheel of a
driverless car in order to take back control and has other important
elements including requirements for vehicle data recording.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Dentons, Global Guide to Autonomous Vehicles 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the United Kingdom, testing has largely been limited
to a handful of cities, and the government has proposed and published a
detailed code of practice for testing AVs.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Canada, several provinces prohibit certain types of
AVs from being sold to the public.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Asia, Japan has allowed on-road testing with a driver
behind the wheel and is currently working on regulatory and legal
schemes for controlling the commercial introduction of AVs, but even so
has not begun to address the highest levels of automation.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Kyodo, JiJi, Cabinet paves way for self-driving vehicles on
Japan's roads next year with new rules, The Japan Times (Sep. 20,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In China, all AV operations remain experimental.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Dentons, Global Guide to Autonomous Vehicles 2020.
In sum, no country is selling fully automated vehicles to the
public and by many accounts, none will be for a significant time in the
future.\84\ The U.S. is not behind other countries in allowing them to
go to market, but we are behind in establishing and enforcing
comprehensive safeguards to ensure that this process happens without
jeopardizing or diminishing public safety. Congress can change this
predicament by directing the U.S. DOT to issue minimum performance
standards and exercise sufficient oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Lawrence Ulrich, Driverless Still a Long Way From Humanless,
N.Y. Times (Jun. 20, 2019); Level 5 possible but ``way in the future'',
says VW-Ford AV boss, Motoring (Jun. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Since our founding in 1989, Advocates has supported and worked to
advance in federal legislation and government rulemaking the safe and
equitable development and requirements for proven technologies to
reduce crashes and save lives on our nation's roads. AVs may, in the
distant future, as many renown industry and public officials have
explained, bring about meaningful societal benefits and improvements to
public safety but it will require implementing and enforcing mandatory
comprehensive safeguards to ensure AV technology is developed without
putting the public at risk. Until the time that is demonstrated and
supported by minimum government standards to ensure ongoing safe
performance and reliability, adequate consumer information, and
deterrents to industry transgressions, public officials should focus on
requiring the installation of available, advanced safety technologies
in all new vehicles and improving our compromised infrastructure to
successfully mitigate and reduce the ongoing crisis of fatalities and
injuries on our roads.
Appendix A
Vehicle Safety Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(Senate Amendment to H.R. 3684)
november 2021
Crash Avoidance Technology
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to issue final rules on minimum performance
standards and requirements for proven crash avoidance technologies
including forward collision warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking
(AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), and lane keeping assist (LKA) for
all new passenger motor vehicles. Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a final
rule within two years for AEB in new large trucks and requires the
issuance of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) to
require drivers use AEB. Requires research two years after enactment on
equipping medium sized commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) with the
technology.
Safety Stalled: No date certain for rulemaking and compliance
for crash avoidance technology for passenger vehicles. No compliance
date for AEB requirement on large trucks. Fails to ensure crash
avoidance technology will respond to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
vulnerable road users. Omits Class 3-6 trucks from AEB requirement
despite the fact that some trucks are already equipped with them.
Impaired Driving Prevention Technology
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
final rule within three years requiring passenger motor vehicles be
equipped with impaired driving prevention technology, further provides
for three years from issuance of the final rule for compliance and a
potential three additional years at the discretion of the Secretary.
Safety Stalled: Opens the door to potential delay in
rulemaking by allowing a report to Congress if a final rule isn't
issued within ten years of enactment. The systems must be set at .08
percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC), as opposed to state legal
limits which may be lower.
Vehicular Heatstroke (Hot Cars) Prevention Technology
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
final rule within two years requiring all new passenger motor vehicles
weighing less than 10,000 pounds to be equipped with a system to alert
the operator to check rear-designated seating positions after the
vehicle engine or motor is deactivated by the operator. Provides an
additional two years for compliance.
Safety Stalled: Fails to require hot cars prevention
technology that detects the presence of unattended children who may
have entered independently or been left intentionally or
unintentionally. The alert system is limited only to the rear seat
although children have died or been injured in the front seat area.
Distracted Driving
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to conduct
research on driver monitoring systems within three years and report to
Congress. The Secretary then must determine if one or more rulemakings
is required. Adds new grant opportunity for states that ban distracted
viewing. Improves transparency in grant determination process.
Safety Stalled: No date certain for rulemaking and compliance
for distracted driving prevention systems.
Seat Back Standard
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on whether to improve
the seat back safety standard within two years of enactment. If the
Secretary decides to issue a final rule, requires compliance within two
years of issuance of the rule.
Safety Stalled: The Secretary has complete discretion for
action. If s/he determines an update is needed, only requires an ANPRM,
not a final rule. Therefore, there is no actual requirement that the
seat back standard be updated.
Headlamps
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
final rule updating the headlamp standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) 108) and permitting adaptive headlamps within two
years.
Safety Stalled: No compliance date for improvements to
headlamps.
Hood and Bumper Standards
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
notice for review and comment as well as a report on potential updates
to hood and bumper standards within two years of enactment.
Safety Stalled: No date certain for rulemaking and compliance
for hood and bumper updates.
Keyless Ignitions
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to issue a
final rule within two years to mandate an automatic shutoff for
vehicles with keyless ignition and combustion engines within a period
as determined by the Secretary which, absent good cause to delay
implementation, takes effect one year after final rule. The U.S. DOT is
further directed to conduct a study on vehicle rollaways.
Safety Stalled: Does not adequately address risks associated
with keyless ignitions by failing to require a rulemaking on rollaway.
U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to complete the
update of NCAP that was initiated in 2015 as well as publish a notice
for public comment on consumer information on advanced crash avoidance
technologies and vulnerable road user safety within one year. Requires
U.S. DOT to issue a ``roadmap'' every four years on plans to update
U.S. NCAP to keep pace with vehicle technology, subject to public
comment and annual stakeholder engagement.
Safety Stalled: Fails to ensure U.S. NCAP is comprehensively
updated and addresses the safety of vulnerable road users.
Consumer Protections
Steps Forward for Safety: Establishes a grant program for
states to inform consumers of vehicle safety recalls within two years
of enactment. Requires original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to
report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on
recall completion rates as well as directs the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct studies related to recalls
within two years of enactment. Requires U.S. DOT to conduct a study
within 18 months to evaluate Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data and
identify any improvements to enhance safety and report to Congress
describing results including any recommendations for regulatory or
legislative action.
Safety Stalled: Fails to include deadline for U.S. DOT action
to update EWR data.
Underride Protection
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to update the
rear guard standard to meet the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) crash protocols and be subject to annual inspection, as well as
research side underride guards. Establishes an advisory committee on
underride protection.
Safety Stalled: Does not require side and front underride
guards.
Limousine Safety
Steps Forward for Safety: Requires limousines to be equipped
with safety belts and be subject to standards for seat strength and
integrity. Directs the U.S. DOT to conduct research on FMVSS for side
impact protection, roof crush resistance, and air bag systems within
four years of enactment, followed by rulemaking within two years of
completion of the research. Requires U.S. DOT to conduct research on
evacuation, followed by rulemaking within two years of completion of
the research. Requires consumer information on most recent inspection
to be prominently disclosed including on the website of the operator.
School Bus Safety
Steps Forward for Safety: Directs the U.S. DOT to review laws,
safety measures, and technologies relating to school buses.
Safety Stalled: Does not require vital improvements to school
bus safety including requirements for seat belts, automatic emergency
braking, fire suppression, and to curb school bus driver fatigue.
Funding Provisions
Steps Forward for Safety: Includes several provisions to
enhance public roadway safety such as an incentive grant for a Safe
System approach to roadway design and building to minimize conflicts
between road users, especially between vehicles and vulnerable road
users, to prevent fatalities. Allows federal funding to be used for
automated enforcement systems in work and school zones. Improves
transparency in determinations for the highway safety grant program
awards to states to help combat dangerous behaviors such as impaired
and distracted driving.
Safety Stalled: Other changes to highway safety grant program
requirements for distracted driving may weaken incentivization for
state action to upgrade their traffic safety law.
Steps Backward for Safety--
Teen Truck Drivers: Permits teen and young drivers under
age 21 to drive in interstate commerce through a three-year pilot
apprentice program that permits 3,000 participants at a time--amounting
to potentially more than 25,000 per year. Requires U.S. DOT to report
to Congress on data collected during the pilot program and conduct a
driver compensation study.
Hours of Service (HOS) for Truck Drivers: Provides HOS
exemption for livestock haulers within 150 air miles of the destination
(current law already allows for such exemption within 150 air miles of
the source). Requires U.S. DOT to analyze cost and effectiveness of
electronic logging devices (ELDs) which have already been shown to
reduce driver violations of HOS rules, as well as report on processes
used by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to
review logs and allow carriers to challenge violations relating to an
ELD.
Truck Size and Weight: Permits overweight trucks, which
disproportionately damage infrastructure and threaten public safety, to
operate on certain roadways in Kentucky, North Carolina and Oklahoma.
Allows these states to retain operational laws that exceed federal
weight limits after these roads become part of Interstate System.
Appendix B
Crashes and Failures Involving Vehicles Equipped with Autonomous
Driving Systems: Public Roads Serving as Proving Grounds and
Endangering All Road Users
August 28, 2021, Orlando, FL, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla crashed into a
parked police car and a Mercedes SUV. The patrol car's emergency lights
were flashing, and the Tesla driver told police that ``autopilot'' was
engaged at the time of the crash. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is investigating the crash.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Florida Highway Patrol
May 15, 2021, Lake Stevens, WA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla ran into a
Sheriff's patrol SUV that was parked on the side of a road with
emergency lights flashing responding to previous crash. ``Autopilot''
was reportedly engaged at the time of the crash.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Snohomish County Sheriff's Office
May 5, 2021, Fontana CA, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla struck a previously
overturned truck which was blocking two lanes on the highway. According
to the California Highway Patrol, ``Autopilot'' was engaged at the time
of the crash. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is investigating the crash.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: New York Daily News
April 17, 2021, The Woodlands, TX, Tesla Model S: A Tesla
travelling at a ``high rate of speed'' around a curve went off the road
about 100 feet and hit a tree. NHTSA and the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) are investigating the crash.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Reuters
March 17, 2021, Eaton County, MI, Tesla Model Y: A Tesla ran into a
state patrol car parked on the side of the highway. The patrol car had
emergency lights activated at the time. Michigan State Police said the
driver was using ``Autopilot'' at the time of the crash. NHTSA is
investigating.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Michigan State Police
August 26, 2020, Zebulon, NC, Tesla Model S: A Tesla ran into a
police cruiser parked on the side of the highway, causing the cruiser
to collide with a state trooper's vehicle. According to media reports,
police said the driver was watching a movie on his phone and that
``Autopilot'' was engaged when the crash happened.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: WRAL-TV
December 29, 2019, Cloverdale, IN, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla collided
with a firetruck killing the passenger in the Tesla. The use of
``Autopilot'' has not been determined. NHTSA is investigating.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Indiana State Police
December 29, 2019, Gardena, CA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla ran a red
light and struck another vehicle killing the two occupants in the other
vehicle. The use of ``Autopilot'' has not been determined. NHTSA is
investigating.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Loudlabs
December 7, 2019, Norwalk, CT, Tesla Model 3: A Tesla slammed into
a parked police cruiser and another vehicle. Media reports that the
``Autopilot'' was engaged at the time of the crash. NHTSA is
investigating.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Connecticut State Police
March 1, 2019, Delray Beach, FL, Tesla Model 3: The driver was
killed when his vehicle, operating on ``Autopilot,'' crashed into the
side of a truck tractor combination, traveling underneath the trailer.
(NTSB Investigation HWY19FH008, brief completed)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: NTSB
May 29, 2018, Laguna Beach, CA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla reportedly
on ``Autopilot'' crashed into a parked Laguna Beach Police Department
Vehicle. The driver suffered minor injuries.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: LA Times
March 23, 2018, Mountain View, CA, Tesla Model X: While on
``Autopilot'', a Tesla struck a safety barrier, causing the death of
the driver. (NTSB Investigation HWY18FH011, report completed)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Forbes
March 18, 2018, Tempe, AZ, Uber Self-Driving Test Vehicle: The Uber
vehicle, which was operating on ``self-driving mode,'' struck and
killed a pedestrian walking a bicycle. (NTSB Investigation HWY18MH010,
report completed)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: NBC News
January 22, 2018, Culver City, CA, Tesla Model S: A Tesla,
reportedly on ``Autopilot,'' was traveling at 65mph when it crashed
into the back of a parked firetruck that was responding to the scene of
a separate crash. (NTSB Investigation HWY18FH004, brief issued)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Culver City Firefighters
November 8, 2017, Las Vegas, NV, Driverless Shuttle Bus: A
driverless shuttle was involved in a crash during its first day of
service. There were no deaths or injuries. (NTSB Investigation
HWY18FH001, brief issued)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: Fox5 Vegas
May 7, 2016, Williston, FL, Tesla Model S: The driver was killed
when his vehicle, operating on ``Autopilot,'' crashed into the side of
a truck tractor combination, traveling underneath the trailer. (NTSB
Investigation HWY16FH018, report completed)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo Source: NTSB
Appendix C
Introduction to Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets
By Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
november 30, 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In 2019, more than 36,000 people were killed and millions more were
injured in motor vehicle crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) currently values each life lost in a crash at
$9.6 million. Annually crashes impose a financial toll of over $800
billion in total costs to society and $242 billion in direct economic
costs, equivalent to a ``crash tax'' of $784 on every American.
Additionally, crashes cost employers $47.4 billion in direct crash-
related expenses annually, based on 2013 data (Network of Employers for
Traffic Safety (NETS)).
Many promises have been made about autonomous vehicles (AVs)
bringing meaningful and lasting reductions in motor vehicle crashes and
resulting deaths and injuries, traffic congestion and vehicle
emissions. Additionally, claims have been made that AVs will expand
mobility and accessibility, improve efficiency, and create more
equitable transportation options and opportunities. However, these
potentials remain far from a near-term certainty or reality. Without
commonsense safeguards the possibilities are imperiled at best and
could be doomed at worst. Additionally, the absence of protections
could result in adverse effects including safety risks for all people
and vehicles on and around the roads, job displacement, degradation of
current mobility options, infrastructure and environmental problems,
marginalization of certain users, and others. Requiring that AVs meet
minimum standards and that operations are subject to adequate oversight
throughout development and deployment will save lives as well as costs
for both the consumer and the manufacturer.
Moreover, on the path to AVs, proven solutions are currently
available that can prevent or mitigate the exorbitant death and injury
toll now while laying the foundation for AVs in the future. Available
vehicle technologies, also known as advanced driver assistance systems
(ADAS), should be standard equipment with minimum performance
standards. Research performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) has found that these systems can help to prevent and
lessen the severity of crashes. For example, IIHS has determined that
automatic emergency braking (AEB) can decrease front-to-rear crashes
with injuries by 56 percent. In addition, the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) has included increasing implementation of collision
avoidance technologies in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation
Safety Improvements since 2016.
It is a transformational time in transportation history. Yet,
Benjamin Franklin's infamous quote from 1736, ``An ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure,'' aptly applies. We urge our Nation's leaders
to use this document as the ``GPS,'' the way to ``guarantee public
safety,'' as AV development and deployment moves forward.
Summary of Tenets of Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Legislation \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These tenets are limited to vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less unless otherwise noted;
however, it is imperative that automated delivery vehicles (including
those used on sidewalks and other non-roadways) and commercial motor
vehicles be subject to comprehensive regulations, including rules
regarding the presence of a licensed, qualified driver behind the
wheel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
prioritizing safety of all road users
Safety Rulemakings: All levels of automated vehicles \2\ must be
subject to comprehensive and strong federal standards ensuring they are
safe and save lives. The rulemakings must address known and foreseeable
safety issues, many of which have been identified by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and others, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Partially automated vehicles (SAE International Level 2) and
conditional/highly automated vehicles (SAE International Levels 3, 4,
5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revising Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Any
actions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA,
Agency) to revise or repeal existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) must be through a public rulemaking. Any revision
must meet the safety need provided by current standards.
Collision Avoidance Systems: Certain advanced safety
technologies, which may be foundational technologies for AVs, already
have proven to be effective at preventing and mitigating crashes across
all on-road modes of transportation and must be standard equipment with
federal minimum performance requirements. These include automatic
emergency braking with pedestrian and cyclist detection, lane departure
warning, and blind spot warning, among others.
``Vision Test'' for AVs: AVs must be subject to a
``vision test'' to guarantee it will operate on all roads and weather
conditions as well as properly detect and respond to all vehicles,
people and objects in the operating environment.
Human-Machine Interface (HMI) for Driver Engagement: AVs
must provide adequate alerts to capture the attention of the human
driver with sufficient time to respond and assume the dynamic driving
task for any level of vehicle automation that may require human
intervention.
Cybersecurity Standard: Vehicles must be subject to
cybersecurity requirements to prevent hacking and to ensure mitigation
and remediation of cybersecurity events.
Electronics and Software Safety Standard: Vehicles must
be subject to minimum performance requirements for the vehicle
electronics and software that power and operate vehicle safety and
driving automation systems individually and as interdependent
components.
Operational Design Domain (ODD): The NHTSA must issue
federal standards to ensure safeguards for driving automation systems
to limit their operation to the ODD in which they are capable of
functioning safely.
Functional Safety Standard: Requires a manufacturer to
ensure the design, development, verification and validation of safety-
related electronics or software demonstrates to NHTSA that an AV will
perform reliably and safely under the conditions the vehicle is
designed to encounter.
Safe Fallback: Every driving automation system must be
able to detect a malfunction, degraded state, or operation outside of
ODD and safely transition to a condition which reduces the risk of a
crash or physical injury.
Crash Procedures Standard: Requires manufacturers to have
procedures in place for when an AV is involved in a crash to ensure the
safety of all occupants of the AV, other road users and emergency
responders.
Standard for Over-the-Air (OTA) Updates: Requires
consumers be given timely and appropriate information on the details of
the OTA update and ensures any needed training or tutorials are
provided.
Safety and Performance Data: With the increasing number of vehicles
with different automated technologies being tested and some being sold
to the public, standardized data elements, recording, and access to
safety event data are necessary for the proper oversight and analysis
of the performance of the driving automation systems. Safety and
performance data should be made available to relevant stakeholders with
appropriate privacy protections.
Manufacturer Submissions to NHTSA: Any submission to NHTSA by AV
manufacturers or developers must be mandatory, publicly available and
include thorough and adequate data and documentation. Additionally,
NHTSA must be directed to review and evaluate all submissions to assess
whether an approach to automated driving system (ADS) development and
testing includes appropriate safeguards for operation on public roads.
Proper Oversight of Testing: AV testing is already underway in many
localities. Fundamental and commonsense safeguards must be instituted
for testing on public roads including the establishment of independent
institutional review boards (IRBs) to certify the safety of the
protocols and procedures for testing of AVs on public roads.
Additional Resources and Enforcement Authorities for NHTSA: Ensuring
NHTSA has adequate resources, funds, staff, and enforcement authority
is essential for the Agency to successfully carry out its statutory
mission and address the multiple challenges presented by the testing
and deployment of self-driving technologies.
guaranteeing accessibility for all
Access for Individuals with Disabilities and Older Adults: Autonomous
driving technology has the potential to increase access and mobility
for everyone including older adults and individuals with disabilities,
including those with sensory, cognitive, and physical disabilities,
wheelchair users, and people with neurological conditions, who have
varying needs as well as traditionally underserved communities. This
goal must be realized with appropriate federal action.
Access for Underbanked Populations: Access to on-demand transport
services is often predicated on the ability to make digital payments.
AV-based transport services must consider a variety of ways in which
payment for service can be made to ensure that this technology supports
equitable access and the inclusion of all.
Equity: As new modes of transportation continue to grow and evolve,
investment and development must include a process where all people can
safely participate.
Accessibility, Passenger Safety, and Transportation Services: There
must be clear plans to ensure the safe transportation for all people,
in particular for those who currently require assistance to do so or
are part of marginalized communities, in the implementation of these
transportation services.
preserving consumer and worker rights
Consumer Information: Consumer information regarding AVs should be
available at the point of sale, in the owner's manual, and in any OTA
updates. The vehicle identification number (VIN) should be updated to
reflect whether certain features were built into the vehicle, either as
standard or optional equipment. NHTSA must establish a website
accessible by VIN with basic safety information about the AV level,
safety exemptions, and limitations and capabilities of the AV.
Privacy: All manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles, including AVs,
should be required to comply with robust data privacy safeguards and
policies. The ability of NHTSA, the NTSB, and local law enforcement to
access critical safety performance data, while preserving the integrity
of personal, private or identifying data, in a timely manner for
research, crash investigation and other governmental purposes must be
preserved.
Workforce Protections: Absent strong leadership, AV technology risks
worsening severe inequalities already inherent in our society,
predominantly for blue collar workers. Existing and foreseeable issues
which stand to be greatly exacerbated by this technology must be
addressed before this technology is broadly deployed on our roads.
Similarly, unforeseeable issues throughout deployment will need to be
resolved with input from stakeholders.
Whistleblower Protections: Employees or contractors who want to report
safety defects to NHTSA should not be prevented from doing so as the
result of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
Consumer and Worker Rights \3\: The well-established rights of
consumers to seek accountability in a court of law for injuries
suffered as a result of AVs must be preserved. Moreover, exploitative
independent contractor relationships that shield AV companies from
liability and deny workers basic workplace rights should be explicitly
prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety does not take a position
on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ensuring local control and sustainable transportation
Local, State and Federal Regulatory Roles: In keeping with existing law
and practice, the federal government should prescribe regulations for
the performance of these vehicles, leaving regulation of the operation
of these vehicles to the states.
In-Depth Study of AV Impacts on Transportation Systems and Environment:
DOT must undertake a comprehensive study to inform policymakers and the
public about how these vehicles will impact our existing transportation
systems and ensure effective mitigation of problems identified.
NOTE: The AV Tenets outlined in this document do not constitute the
entirety of each supporting organization's policy priorities related to
AVs.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Chase.
Before our next witness provides testimony, I would like to
recognize Representative Lamb to say a few words of
introduction about the next witness.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am excited to introduce
my constituent, Nat Beuse, who lives here, in the 17th
Congressional District of Pennsylvania, and works for Aurora.
One sentence about Aurora: They are an incredible, far-
seeing company that is going to be with us for a long time,
coming from executives and innovators out of Uber and Tesla and
Waymo. They have partnered with companies like Toyota and Volvo
to really take the lead in self-driving and automation
technology, both for cars and trucking. You can see their cars
on the road in the city of Pittsburgh almost any time, and they
really have been an honor to have in our community as one of
their main headquarters.
Nat is the vice president of safety, 1 of 900 Aurora
employees that we have in western Pennsylvania. He leads the
development of their approach to safety every single day. He
works with groups on industry standards and regulatory bodies
to offer guidance about how we are going to make rules for this
industry of the future. He was with Uber before Aurora, but,
probably most relevant for us, before working in the private
sector, Nat oversaw the entire Nation's motor vehicle safety
research program, including automated vehicles, as the
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research at NHTSA.
He also serves on the board of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
So, this is somebody coming to us today who not only has
significant industry experience and can help us understand the
day-to-day, but has worked on behalf of the entire public
before, and still continues some of that work in the----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Beuse, you are recognized.
Mr. Beuse. Good morning, Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton,
Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Nat Beuse, and I am the vice president
of safety at Aurora. Thank you for the invitation to testify
before you today on the subject of autonomous vehicle
technology, and thank you to Representative Lamb for the very
kind introduction.
Aurora's mission is to deliver the benefits of self-driving
technology safely, quickly, and broadly. We are building the
Aurora Driver: the hardware, software, and data services that
can be used to power any vehicle to move people or goods
safely. Aurora was founded in 2017 by experts in the AV field:
Chris Urmson, Sterling Anderson, and Drew Bagnell. And the
company has grown to over 1,600 employees across 8 offices in 7
States, including Pennsylvania, California, Montana, Texas,
Washington, Colorado, and Michigan.
I lead the team responsible for developing and implementing
Aurora's holistic approach to safety. Our programs cover all
aspects of our operations, organization, and the engineering of
our product. We also work with industry standards groups,
regulatory bodies to develop best practices and safety
standards, and to share our safety approach because
transparency is critical for the success of this technology.
My entire professional career has been focused on making
our roads safer. It is a deeply personal connection for me and
for so many Americans. It is not acceptable that we lose 40,000
Americans every year, and that millions are injured in crashes.
The unbelievable part is this trend has been going on in
the wrong direction for far too long. NHTSA released new data
yesterday showing that traffic fatalities continue to rise at a
record pace. I believe deeply in the work that we do at Aurora
every day, and that it is going to be a part of the solution to
improve safety on our roads.
First, it is important to note for this subcommittee that
Aurora is a regulated company at all levels of Government. Our
technology is subject to NHTSA's motor vehicle safety
requirements, and our motor carrier operations are subject to
FMCSA's safety regulations.
In addition, each State in which we operate has its own
approach to permitting and regulating our AV operations. While
USDOT's jurisdictions over AV is clear and in full force, there
are several open rulemakings about the safe deployment of AVs
that we would like to see move forward as we continue to build
our internal safety programs in parallel.
So, where does my role as VP of safety at Aurora fit into
this regulatory system?
There is one thing we know from decades of learning across
safety-critical industries: failures in safety are rarely
caused by a single person, but instead by organizations that
fail to prevent multiple mistakes from turning into a disaster.
At Aurora, we are building on these lessons.
Two of our strategies for our approach are as follows: one,
all of our employees are empowered to request halting of
operations if they believe there is a safety concern, and this
is part of our larger approach for managing safety risks. Teams
across Aurora are held responsible for completing our safety
case framework, providing evidence that our AVs are acceptably
safe to operate on public roads.
How we develop the Aurora Driver and prepare for public
road operations also matters. An incredible amount of work goes
into mapping a route, collecting real-world data for our
virtual testing suite, and strategically using on-road testing
to validate our simulations. With our virtual testing suite,
Aurora runs millions of simulations every day. This allows us
to train and evaluate the Aurora Driver software across a vast
range of scenarios well before that software is loaded onto
vehicles or onto public roads.
We do not build technology for its own sake, or as a silver
bullet. We are building the Aurora Driver to improve safety and
support our partners. A key example is our pilot with FedEx. We
are running commercial loads today for FedEx on I-45 between
Dallas and Houston while in autonomy. This pilot is critical
for us to learn, while testing safely on public roads.
In my remaining time, I will highlight two ways Aurora
believes Congress and USDOT can support the safe development of
AVs.
First, we ask Congress and the administration to ensure
that laws and regulations for AVs are technology and business-
model neutral.
Second, we ask Congress to ensure that any commissioned
research about the job-related impacts of AVs be driven by
actual industry experience with the technology, and that job
quality be central to any policy and industry conversation.
Aurora is committed to continuing to tackle these important
issues together with Congress, USDOT, our State regulators,
cities, law enforcement, safety advocates, labor, and many
other stakeholders to support safety, innovation, and jobs here
in the United States.
I want to thank Ms. Tatum and Mr. Marler for their
leadership on AV issues in their communities and their
testimony today.
Chairman DeFazio, thank you for your work on AV trucking
issues this past Congress. The process you led demonstrates how
impactful leadership from Congress can be.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Beuse's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety, Aurora
Chair DeFazio, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member
Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Thank
you for the invitation to provide testimony for the hearing ``The Road
Ahead for Automated Vehicles.''
My name is Nat Beuse and I am the Vice President of Safety at
Aurora. Aurora's mission is to deliver the benefits of self-driving
technology safely, quickly, and broadly. We are building the Aurora
Driver: a platform that brings together software, hardware, and data
services, to autonomously operate any vehicle without the need for a
human operator in the vehicle. Aurora has offices across 8 cities in 7
states, including our headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and
employs 1,600 employees ranging from hardware and software engineers to
commercial drivers and operations specialists.
At Aurora, I lead the team developing and implementing Aurora's
rigorous and comprehensive approach to safety. We oversee operational,
organizational, and product engineering safety, and work with industry
standards groups and regulatory bodies to offer guidance and to define
and support the development of best practices and safety standards.
Prior to Aurora, I led the safety team at Uber Advanced Technologies
Group (ATG) where I further developed their approach to safety. Before
working in the private sector, I spent nearly twenty years serving the
American public in several capacities including leading the New Car
Assessment Program, serving as Director for the Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, and finally as Associate Administrator for the
Office of Vehicle Safety Research at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). In that last role, I oversaw the
nation's motor vehicle safety research program, including automated
vehicles and cybersecurity. Today, I also serve on the board of two
roadway safety advocacy non-profit organizations, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving and Lifesavers, and live in Pittsburgh with my family.
About Aurora
Aurora is delivering the benefits of self-driving technology
safely, quickly, and broadly. Founded in 2017 by experts in the
autonomous vehicle (AV) industry, Chris Urmson, Sterling Anderson, and
Drew Bagnell, Aurora is revolutionizing transportation--making it
safer, increasingly accessible, and more reliable and efficient than
ever before. Our flagship product, the Aurora Driver, is a platform
that brings together software, hardware, and data services, to
autonomously operate passenger vehicles, light commercial vehicles, and
heavy-duty trucks. Aurora is partnered with industry leaders across the
transportation ecosystem including Toyota, Uber, Volvo Trucks, FedEx,
and PACCAR. Aurora tests its vehicles in the Bay Area, Pittsburgh, and
Texas, and has offices in those areas as well as in Bozeman, Montana;
Seattle, Washington; Louisville, Colorado; and Wixom, Michigan.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We have a diverse and talented team with a multitude of backgrounds
and perspectives, focused on creating a transformative business for the
long-term and realizing our mission. We also leverage expertise from
external groups including our Industry Advisory Council \1\ and Safety
Advisory Board \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aurora, ``Introducing the Aurora Industry Advisory Council,''
https://aurora.tech/blog/introducing-the-aurora-industry-advisory-
council.
\2\ Aurora, ``Our Updated Safety Report and First-Ever Safety
Advisory Board,'' https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-shares-safety-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal at Aurora is to transform transportation--to make it more
democratic, more productive, more dependable, and--crucially--much
safer than it is today. The teams we create, the work that we do, and
the partnerships we build all serve this mission: To deliver the
benefits of self-driving technology safely, quickly, and broadly.
We see incredible opportunities for the Aurora Driver to positively
impact transportation. We can save lives while also increasing safety
and efficiency on our roads. We can make the movement of people and
goods both less expensive and more accessible. We can serve communities
and industries in mutually beneficial and transformative ways.
However, unlike other types of vehicle technologies, delivering the
full potential of all these opportunities depends on one concept:
trust. Our technology needs to be trustworthy. Our company and our
engineering work need to be trustworthy. And so our task is to build
trust, one step at a time, by making safety the foundation of
everything we do from the beginning.
Building Safety for Scale
Safety is at the core of everything we do at Aurora. It shapes who
we hire, how we work, and how we develop our products. Everyone at
Aurora is empowered to speak up and say something when they see
something. We've also built layers of redundancies into every part of
the Aurora Driver. We collaborate regularly with the industry to
develop industry best practices and voluntary standards, and we openly
share our progress in the communities where we are operating. We hold
ourselves to rigorous internal safety standards that cover our
engineering, operations, and organization.
It is worth noting how far the industry has come in the last decade
in the development of standards for AVs. In 2017, USDOT published AV
2.0, which lists exactly 3 standards (SAE J3016, ISO 26262, and MIL-
STD-882E) that should be considered by automated driving system (ADS)
developers. Fast forward to 2021, and USDOT's comprehensive plan lists
20 different standards that ADS developers should consider. And based
on Aurora's involvement in industry standards development, we know
there are over a dozen more standards and best practices currently
under development across the various standards organizations.
I am pleased to share just a few examples of where we have
developed industry leading approaches to safety that have been openly
shared with our fellow industry partners, the public, regulators, and
other safety stakeholders.
Managing Safety Risks
As we like to say at Aurora, ``Safety is a team sport.'' We take a
holistic view of safety, focusing on creating a strong safety culture
that permeates every part of our company, including how we do business.
A key part of that approach to safety is implementing our own Safety
Management System, commonly referred to as SMS. This is an
organizational approach--employed by safety-critical industries like
aviation, maritime shipping, and rail--that standardizes how safety is
managed at a company. SMS is a rigorous, internationally accepted
framework that is mandated for other modes of transportation and
provides a reproducible and auditable record of safety management
within a company. SMS starts at the top, with our CEO being our
Accountable Executive for the safety of operations, instilling safety
into every aspect of the company.
A SMS ensures that safety information is presented to the right
person, at the right time, and that there is accountability and
transparency for every safety action taken across the company. This
approach ensures that safety is prioritized as we make decisions, with
features such as a Safety Review Board for safety risk management
decisions and a clear and easy-to-use Safety Concern Reporting process
for all employees. It also enables us to measure our safety performance
over time to work for constant improvement in our policies, processes,
systems, and controls.
At Aurora, we are building our SMS on four key components--a
detailed Safety Risk Management structure, a robust Safety Assurance
program, disciplined Safety Policy documentation, and an engaging
Safety Culture that includes safety education and events. Our SMS helps
us proactively identify safety issues, resolve them as early as
possible, and institutionalize the learning for future application. It
also ensures our entire company values safety, understands our safety
procedures, uses a common language to talk about risk, and is
appropriately empowered to take action on safety.
Safety Advisory Board
Building a team with depth and breadth of safety expertise is a key
part of our safety approach. Inside Aurora, we have multi-disciplinary
experts with decades of experience in autonomous and automotive safety.
And to ensure we're always testing our assumptions and raising our
safety standards, we also leverage the expertise of safety leaders
outside of Aurora. We created the Safety Advisory Board to gain
hundreds of years' collective experience in safety, offering the
company an external perspective on Aurora's overall approach to safety,
as well as other broader industry topics, like how we engage with
regulators and the public. The Board also offers feedback on
systematically managing, controlling, and mitigating safety risks.
This Board is made of experts from fields including aviation
safety, insurance, emergency/trauma medicine, automotive safety, and
academia:
Shailen Bhatt, Senior Vice President for Global
Transportation Innovation, AECOM
Dave Carbaugh, Former Chief Pilot Flight Operations, The
Boeing Company
Dr. Adrian Lund, Managing Member of HITCH42, LLC and
former President of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Dr. Victoria Chibuogu Nneji, Lead Engineer & Innovation
Strategist at Edge Case Research
Karen Rasmussen, Executive Director of the Independent
Carrier Safety Association (ICSA) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Aurora Welcomes Trucking and Freight Expert to Company's
Safety Advisory Board,'' Business Wire, https://www.businesswire.com/
news/home/20211015005433/en/Aurora-Welcomes-Trucking-and-Freight-
Expert-to-Company%E2%80%99s-Safety-Advisory-Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jeff Runge, President of Biologue, Inc. and former
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
George Snyder, President and CEO of GHS Aviation Group
Safety Case Framework
How do we know if an AV is safe enough to drive on public roads?
It's a question that has been asked since society first started talking
about the potential for AVs to grace our roads. At Aurora, we are using
a safety case-based approach, a defined way to evaluate when our
vehicles are acceptably safe to operate on public roads and to assess
that they are not creating an unreasonable risk to roadway safety.
In August 2021, we publicly released Aurora's Safety Case
Framework--the first AV Safety Case Framework that applies to both
autonomous trucks and passenger vehicles. We believe that a Safety Case
Framework is the most effective and efficient path to safely removing
the vehicle operator and it is an imperative component for any company
looking to operate without a vehicle operator and safely deliver
commercial-ready AVs at scale. The Aurora Safety Case Framework
assesses the entire development lifecycle of our vehicles, allowing us
to accelerate our path to deployment and determine when AVs are
acceptably safe for public roads. We are the only AV company currently
operating in our industry to publicly share its Safety Case Framework.
We believe the only viable way to validate that an AV is safe
enough to drive on the road is to develop a structured argument, using
a framework of claims and the evidence to support those claims.
Building a Safety Case Framework allows us to demonstrate exactly how
we are approaching safety and the many factors we are taking into
consideration--a stark contrast to simply reporting on miles driven or
disengagements, which do not necessarily provide support for the fact
that a vehicle is safe for any specific context or environment. This
structured approach is the only way Aurora believes we can safely
commercialize our AVs.
No single piece of evidence captures the totality of safety. There
are complex interactions and relationships between the many elements
that go into an AV. Ultimately, evidence without a claim is simply
trivia and, conversely, a claim without evidence is baseless. A safety
case-based approach brings these two essential concepts together in a
logical manner to effectively show the work that we are doing to
determine our vehicles are safe to operate on public roads. Along with
delivering a safe product, being transparent with our approach is an
important part of developing autonomous technology.
Our top-level claim, that the Aurora Driver is acceptably safe to
operate on public roads, is broken down into the following five safety
principles:
Proficient
Fail-safe
Continuously improving
Resilient
Trustworthy
1. Proficient--An AV cannot be considered safe to operate on
public roads unless it is suitably proficient. Proficiency includes the
design, engineering, and testing necessary to develop a product. This
safety principle contains the engineering requirements for nominal
operations and performance.
2. Fail-Safe--The fail-safe principle addresses how the AV behaves
in the presence of faults and failures. No system is ever 100% perfect;
components will wear out or have premature failures from time to time.
The Aurora Driver is designed to detect and safely mitigate these
failures. This safety principle contains the fault detection,
mitigation, and notifications built into the vehicle to ensure that in
the event of a fault or failure, the Aurora Driver will behave in an
acceptably safe manner.
3. Continuously Improving--The continuously improving principle
outlines how we are enshrining the concept of continual improvement
into the development of our system. An AV is equipped with sensors, and
a fleet of AVs captures significant amounts of data from just a single
day's operations. We are able to harness the power of this data to
enable continuous improvement. This field data feeds a comprehensive
data analysis effort that calculates safety performance indicators and
also considers data collected during design and development. This
approach to systematically collect and analyze data allows us to spot
trends, regressions from the mean, and emergent behaviors. Aurora also
takes a proactive approach to continuous improvement, using risk
identification techniques to proactively identify and manage risks.
4. Resilient--AVs are designed to safely operate on public roads,
but this does not isolate them from malicious actors or unavoidable
events. The resilient principle showcases how the Aurora Driver is
capable of withstanding adverse events and intentional misuse and
abuse.
5. Trustworthy--Aurora's AV may be Proficient, Fail-Safe,
Continuously Improving, and Resilient, but without the trust of the
public and governmental regulators, we cannot fully realize our top
level claim. The trustworthy safety principle addresses how Aurora
plans to gain trust through public, government, and stakeholder
engagement, safety transparency, safety culture, as well as external
review and advisory activities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Aurora Driver & Partnerships
In 2021 alone, we partnered with one of the largest transportation
and logistics companies in the world with FedEx, the number one ride
hailing platform on the planet with Uber, the number one global vehicle
OEM with Toyota, and two of the top three North American OEM's in
trucking with Volvo and PACCAR.
We showed how the Aurora Driver can be seamlessly integrated into
freight operations via an industry-first collaboration with FedEx and
PACCAR. Through this pilot, Aurora-powered PACCAR trucks are regularly
and autonomously hauling FedEx loads in Texas between Dallas and
Houston--a 500-mile round trip, currently with a trained vehicle
operator and co-pilot in the cab gathering data on the Aurora Driver's
performance.\4\ We believe this collaboration demonstrates the value of
autonomous technology as the economy faces a supply chain crisis,
making the need for dynamic logistics solutions more important than
ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ``Aurora Illuminated: Aurora Driver Hyperlapse on Texas
Roads,'' Sept. 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttvEppD3Pjk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After partnering with Volvo last March, we developed the trucking
leader's first-ever prototype truck for autonomous commercial, hub-to-
hub freight operations in North America--the Aurora-powered Volvo VNL.
As Volvo's flagship long-haul model, and the first vehicle in Volvo's
fleet to be designed from the ground up to operate with the Aurora
Driver, this represents a significant step toward building and
deploying autonomous commercial Level 4 Class 8 trucks at scale for
Volvo Autonomous Solutions customers in North America.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Federal Policies to Support the Development of Safe AVs
Aurora takes safety to heart--it is not just a principle for us. It
is how we are building a safety culture and process for a future where
our families can travel safer in and around vehicles powered by the
Aurora Driver. It is unacceptable that we lose over 40,000 people in
the United States each year in vehicle crashes, and yet, we are on
track for one of the worst years for roadway safety in decades. We are
committed to being part of the solution.
There are tremendous opportunities for the whole federal government
to continue supporting the development of AV technology here in the
United States to provide certainty that companies, including Aurora,
need to continue investing and building here.\5\ Creating a level
playing field where the rules are clear and conducive to realizing the
benefits for safety, mobility, and efficiency for AV technology is a
necessary role of government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Forefront: Securing Pittsburgh's Break-out Position in
Autonomous Mobile Systems,'' Sept. 2021, https://ridc.org/news/
autonomy-study/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Aurora supports the work of Members of this Committee,
Congress, and USDOT to ensure that laws and regulations for AVs are
performance-based and technology and business-model neutral.
Second, federal leadership supporting the development of AV
technology here in the United States is critical. The work that started
many years ago at USDOT under Secretary Foxx, continued under Secretary
Chao, and carries through today under Secretary Buttigieg. USDOT's
guidance, research and rulemakings that have been initiated specific to
AVs, along with the Department's use of its convening authority to
bring stakeholders together, has laid the foundation for the future. We
would like to thank Secretary Buttigieg for raising important safety
issues in his six guiding principles for transportation innovation and
in the ``Comprehensive National Roadway Strategy.'' We also believe
USDOT should be considering the full suite of potential solutions,
including AVs, to address the rise in highway fatalities.
We support NHTSA's efforts to modernize the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's (FMCSA) efforts to modernize the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSR) to encourage the development of new and
innovative AV technologies.
As you know, the FMVSS and FMCSR were not created with autonomous
technology in mind. As such, neither currently contemplate the
integration of autonomous technology, like the Aurora Driver, into
vehicles, and should be updated to account for this new technology as
appropriate to improve the efficiency of the technology's deployment.
There are important open rulemakings at NHTSA and FMCSA that need to
continue to expeditiously move forward.\6\ In preparation for other
future regulatory actions, the agencies should continue providing
guidance, conducting research, and fostering collaboration among
stakeholders to support AV development. Additionally, the existing
exemptions process at NHTSA should be used as a bridge to get real-
world data to USDOT about innovative vehicle technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., NHTSA, Framework for Automated Driving Systems
Safety, RIN 2127-AM15; NHTSA, Occupant Protection for Automated Driving
Systems, RIN 2127-AM06; and FMCSA, Safe Integration of Automated
Driving Systems-Equipped Motor Vehicles, RIN 2126-AC17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, we believe Congress should pass legislation confirming the
federal government maintains its regulatory authority over the design,
construction, and performance of AVs. Every vehicle that is on public
roads, including AVs, is subject to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which
provides NHTSA with broad authority over the safety of motor vehicles
and motor vehicle equipment and to issue and update regulations as
necessary for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes. States can, and
should, continue to regulate the testing and deployment of AVs on their
roads in areas such as on-road operations, titling, licensing, test
driver training, and the like. Many states have proactively passed
legislation on these issues, which support the development of AVs.
Still, there is tremendous value in leadership from the federal
government supporting the AV industry and the safety, economic, and
mobility benefits of this technology.
As an example, we believe the federal government has the
opportunity to provide leadership encouraging uniformity of existing
state rules of the road. For example, in some jurisdictions it is
required by law to use a bike lane to make a right-hand turn while in
others it is prohibited. We do not have a position on what is the
safest option, but we do believe that uniformity across states would be
beneficial for all road users, including the Aurora Driver. Similarly,
we see vastly different autonomous operational permitting requirements
across state jurisdictions, with some states allowing operations with
few permitting requirements and others instituting significant testing
parameters or even outright prohibiting autonomous testing or
operation. Such differences in programs slow down the nationwide
rollout of this technology. While autonomous operations permitting and
traffic law are clearly within state jurisdiction, Congress could
provide valuable guidance to states and NHTSA on tackling this
patchwork of laws that affects all drivers, regardless of whether they
are human or autonomous.
Fourth, Aurora supports maintaining the self-certification process
for vehicles in the United States and believes a Safety Case-based
argument supported by evidence is the way for companies to make safety
determinations as discussed above.
Fifth, we ask Congress to ensure that commissioned research about
the job-related impacts of AVs be driven by actual industry experience,
and that job quality should be central to any policy and industry
conversation. It is encouraging that a USDOT report from last year
indicated that potential reductions in long-haul trucking jobs related
to AVs are likely to be offset by natural occupational turnover instead
of layoffs.\7\ Testing and deploying AV technology is a key component
of ensuring there are real world models to ground these important
conversations as we continue to learn more about new and transitioning
jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in Long-
Haul Trucking,'' Jan. 28, 2021, FWHA-JPO-21-847, https://
rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, transparency is key to building trust with all
stakeholders. I am here before the Subcommittee to introduce Aurora and
to explain what we are building and how we have safety integrated into
every part of the organization. We would like to thank this Committee,
and Chairman DeFazio in particular, for his work with industry and
labor on the provisions regarding AV trucks in his infrastructure bill
considered earlier this Congress. The process demonstrated how
leadership from Congress can drive positive outcomes.
We will continue to encourage NHTSA to reach out to industry as it
is developing AV-related policies and guidance. When appropriate, we
will take the opportunity to comment on the record and suggest concrete
improvements to those policies. For example, the difference between
driver assistance systems and the autonomous system we are building is
critical for the public to understand. The language and definitions
NHTSA uses in regulations, orders, and guidance will drive the public
discourse and needs to be clear for all stakeholders. We will continue
investing in an elevated public discourse on these topics. For example,
Aurora is a founding member of PAVE, the Partnership for Automated
Vehicle Education, because of how important we believe engagement and
education is for all stakeholders.
Conclusion
Transparency and collaboration are key to our progress and future
at Aurora. We are committed to continuing to work with the Subcommittee
as it addresses these important issues and supports safety, innovation,
and jobs across the United States. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide this testimony and answer the Subcommittee's questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Beuse.
We go next to Mr. Bloch, who is the political director of
the Teamsters Joint Council 7.
Mr. Bloch. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis,
Chairman DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Doug Bloch, and I am the political director for
Teamsters Joint Council 7, and I am proudly representing over
100,000 Teamsters in northern California and Nevada.
A future that includes partial and fully autonomous
vehicles will change the nature of work in nearly every part of
the transportation industry. Congress will play a key role in
determining whether these changes will be for the better or
worse. And in this case, I am afraid that, if we let large
corporations write the rules themselves, then it will surely be
the latter.
Our union is not afraid of new technologies. The Teamsters
logo displays a team of horses, and in our early days there
were skeptics who thought that horses would never be replaced
with motorized transportation. But the technology evolved, and
so did we. We can do it again, but we need your help.
The impact that AVs will have on workers is still unknown.
Congress has an opportunity to mitigate these impacts before
they happen, and possibly shape better outcomes. Our experience
makes me skeptical about claims that we will train our way out
of any job losses. We once had roughly 100,000 members working
in California canneries, and, thanks mostly to automation, we
are down to about 15,000 now.
When the Campbell Soup Company shut their Sacramento
cannery and 700 Teamsters lost their jobs, Government swooped
in to provide job training assistance. Later, the paper
reported on a second-generation Teamster from Campbell. Her mom
worked there for 40 years. As a single mom herself, she made
$23 an hour, plus benefits. After the closure, it took her 3
years to learn to become an ultrasound technician and find a
job.
This is a place where Government can step in. This
committee was right to include the Surface Transportation
Workforce Retraining Grant Program in the Invest in America
Act. The act also mandated that transit agencies receiving
grants to deploy AVs must require workforce development plans
from applicants.
We are trying to get ahead of the curve here. How do we
capture the jobs being created by automation and make sure they
are good union jobs?
What can our elected officials do to help?
We are meeting with manufacturers and Government to see how
to do that. In San Francisco, we represent nearly 1,500 workers
in parking garages. AV fleets need a place to park, get
charged, be maintained. This is work the Teamsters already do
in parking garages and for rental car agencies. There is no
reason why municipal garages cannot be retooled to serve AV
fleets, and Teamsters should be doing that work.
However, every time there is a hearing like this, companies
call us up. And while we have many good conversations, so far
it hasn't resulted in many new union jobs. That is why it is
critical that Government does not cede the ability to regulate
these new technologies and industries.
It is also important to ask, what is the problem we are
trying to solve here?
One problem we hear a lot about recently is the so-called
truckdriver shortage. Before deregulation in the 1980s, driving
a truck was a good middle-class job. But in very little time,
trucking devolved to one where misclassified independent
contractor drivers work an average of over 60 hours a week, in
many cases making less than minimum wage.
Automation is industry's answer to a driver retention
problem that industry itself created. The solution is not to do
away with humans, but to better enforce our labor laws and
bring back good jobs.
Finally, the issues facing commercial vehicles are
different and potentially more dangerous than personal. They
warrant their own separate and careful consideration. Every day
our members see both the benefits of new technologies and the
malfunctions that occur. Human drivers are a much-needed safety
net for those scenarios and more.
The commercial use of vehicles at 10,000 pounds or less
presents an agency jurisdictional issue which should be
addressed. For example, Waymo recently teamed up with our
employer, UPS in Arizona, to use self-driving vans. And Nuro
received California's first AV deployment permit. These are
under 10,000 pounds, but they are clearly operating as
commercial vehicles.
The committee included the Operation of Small Commercial
Vehicles Study in the Invest Act. We urge you to continue to
explore this segment of the package delivery industry for
appropriate regulation.
In closing, in all aspects of automation, but especially
when we are considering commercial motor vehicles, it is
important to get it done correctly, rather than just done
quickly. We applaud you for having this hearing with the
Teamsters voice at the table. Thank you, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[Mr. Bloch's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doug Bloch, Political Director, Joint Council 7,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman DeFazio and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles'' a subject that is of
vital importance to America's transportation workers and the traveling
public.
Introduction
My name is Doug Bloch. I am the Political Coordinator for Teamsters
Joint Council 7 in San Francisco. The Joint Council represents over
100,000 Teamster members in Northern California, the Central Valley and
Nevada. The Teamsters Union is the nation's largest transportation
union, representing workers in almost every transportation industry.
Teamster members could be delivering anything from bakery goods to
ready mix concrete, palletized material to your latest online-ordered
package--or getting you to work on time and safely transporting your
kids to school.
While nearly 600,000 of our 1.4 million members turn a key in a
truck to start their workday, the issues we will be discussing today
don't just impact those who drive vehicles for a living. A future that
includes partial and fully autonomous vehicles could also change the
nature of work for those in nearly every part of the transportation
industry in our country. Congress will play a key role in determining
whether these changes will be viewed by millions of Americans as
something that is occurring for the better, or for the worse. In the
case of self-driving vehicles, I'm afraid that if we let large
corporations write the rules themselves, unchecked, then it will surely
be the latter.
Planning for the future and incorporating new technologies into our
members' daily lives is not new to me or to my Union. Our Teamsters
Union logo to this day proudly displays a team of horses, which was how
our membership delivered goods in the early 1900's. Back then there
were skeptics who thought that horses would never be replaced with
motorized transportation, but the technology evolved, the workforce
evolved, and the union adjusted to that change, just as we will with
automated vehicles. But we will need your help to do so. It is the
Federal government's responsibility to set the regulatory floor for
AVs, but state and local government should not be preempted from
adopting more stringent regulations. And, state and local entities must
have the authority to revoke operational authority in response to
accidents or incidents with malfunctioning technology that put the
public in danger.
Congress must ensure that workers are trained for the new jobs that
AV technology will bring and that highway and vehicle safety standards
are maintained as automated vehicles are developed, tested, and
deployed on our highways. Extensive data collection and reporting must
be a mandate, as should the opportunity for human intervention in
commercial AV use. And manufacturers must be required to cooperate with
investigating agencies in the event of crashes and/or fatalities. These
are all part of the Labor Principals for Autonomous Vehicle Legislation
\1\ that the Teamsters Union and the 34 unions comprising the
Transportation Trades Department (AFL-CIO) have developed to address
the issues that self-driving technology will introduce on our roads and
in the workplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://ttd.org/policy/letters-to-congress/labor-principles-
for-autonomous-vehicle-legislation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Collection and Reporting
Truck drivers, bus drivers and thousands of other frontline
transportation workers will be sharing the road with AVs for years to
come. In California, testing for truck platooning is already permitted
with a driver in the vehicle. Testing for passenger cars, smaller
package delivery vehicles, and delivery bots are authorized, automated
shuttles are being tested and are coming to airports and other
locations.
The performance of AVs will be of paramount importance to the
safety of our members, not only for those who operate on the roads, but
for those who work directly with those vehicles in other roles, such as
performing maintenance or loading and unloading the vehicle. All
workers deserve to know that an autonomous vehicle or bot traveling
next to them is safe enough to share the same road or worksite. To that
end, it is imperative that transparency exists in the development and
testing of AVs. Extensive data collection and reporting by
manufacturers is key to driving good policy and eventual promulgation
of regulations in this AV space and must be required. Manufacturers and
operators need to collect and report crash, injury and fatality data,
much of what is required now under various state and federal laws, but
also data relating to malfunctions, disengagements and interventions
will better inform both regulators and the public about the safe
operation of these vehicles. The more regulators know about human
interface with technology in testing and development the better they
will be equipped to ensure the safe operation of AVs.
Analysis of crash data is often essential in preventing further
accidents from occurring. We've all seen the value of the black box in
the airline industry in helping determine crash causation. Automated
vehicles should be no different than any other transportation system
user. Investigating agencies must be able to obtain a recorder or
recorded information relating to an accident involving an AV.
Therefore, it is incumbent on this committee to ensure that agencies
like the NTSB and NHTSA have the clear authority to compel companies to
provide post-accident information. AVs cannot be an exception.
The Teamsters Union strongly supports the Tenets of Autonomous
Vehicle (AV) Legislation \2\ developed by the Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety and endorsed currently by over sixty stakeholders. While
these tenets apply to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, much of the framework that Congress is
developing for vehicles 10,000 lbs. and under will inform the work that
this committee does in developing the regulatory framework for
Automated Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs) greater than 10,000 pounds.
Current voluntary initiatives for AVs must be replaced by DOT
rulemaking on safety standards with time limits for issuance of final
rules and compliance dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://saferoads.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AV-Tenets-11-
24-20-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workforce Protections
The United Parcel Service (UPS) is the Teamsters largest employer.
It's the single largest collective bargaining agreement in the country,
covering over 250,000 workers. Amazon is UPS' largest customer. Amazon
has patented a highway network that controls self-driving trucks and
cars and is developing an app to match them with shipments from their
distribution centers. They are also testing drones for deliveries and
automating their warehouses. The impact that AVs will have on workers
is not yet fully known. But attempting to tackle these issues after the
fact is not acceptable. Congress has a unique opportunity to mitigate
these impacts before they happen.
The Teamsters once had roughly 100,000 members working in the
California canneries. For generations of families, especially Latino
families, these jobs were the path to the middle class. Thanks mostly
to automation, we now represent just 15,000 members in canneries. In
2012, when Campbell's Soup shut their Sacramento plant and 700
Teamsters lost their jobs, the government swooped in to provide job
training assistance. In 2016, the Sacramento Bee reported on a second-
generation Teamster from Campbell's. Her mom worked there for 40 years.
As a single mom herself with two kids she made $23 an hour plus
benefits. After the closure, she received job training assistance. It
took her three years to learn to become an ultrasound technician and
find a job. She was forced to move her family in with her mom and
struggled to cover costs when she had health issues. In the meantime,
Campbell Soup's owner, who is a member of the 17th wealthiest family in
the country, gave up his US Citizenship and moved to Ireland to avoid
US taxes. This is where government comes in. We can't trust the
companies to write the rules. We need commitments from them to retain
and retrain incumbent workers. We need them to work with us to create
strong programs for workers to learn the new skills and jobs--and those
programs need to be directly linked to employment. And we need to make
sure these are quality jobs. That is where the real innovation can
happen. We can use technology to augment jobs and make them safer
instead of just automating them. We can ensure that workers profit from
technology, not just the companies that are developing it or purchasing
it.
This committee took a step in the right direction when it included
the Surface Transportation Workforce Retraining Grant Program (Section
5305) in the Invest in America Act. This provision establishes a
workforce retraining grant program for surface transportation workers
whose jobs have been or will be affected by automation. The program
would award grants to eligible entities to test new roles for existing
jobs, to develop degree or certification-granting programs, and for
direct worker training or train-the-trainer programs. Grants to transit
agencies that deploy AVs providing public transportation (Section 2603
of the IAA) must require workforce development plans. This program and
this requirement should serve as a model for mitigating job losses,
wage degradation and allocating retraining funds for displaced workers.
It is also incumbent on Congress to ensure that as the AV industry
grows in this country that it be made in America by American workers.
Automated Commercial Vehicles
The issues facing autonomous commercial vehicles are fundamentally
different, and potentially more dangerous than those facing passenger
cars, and warrant their own careful consideration. The consequences for
getting this wrong could be deadly both for workers and other drivers
on the roads. The public discussion in Congress on autonomous vehicles
has tended to focus on the impact of small personal cars on our daily
lives--increasing mobility for the disabled, providing transportation
access to the underserved, and alleviating congestion in our cities.
These are all important topics. But taking a cookie cutter approach in
dealing with those issues and applying it to large heavy vehicles could
be very dangerous.
Regardless of the technology, automated heavy trucks will still
have maneuverability issues including longer stopping distances, and
their crash impact on smaller vehicles, occupants and pedestrians will
still be devastating. Human intervention must remain as a necessary
safety component to take over control of commercial AVs when technology
fails. Alertness and reaction times are different for one who is
actively performing a driving task than for a driver who may be
disengaged from driving during autonomous operation of a commercial AV.
So, the proper alerts must be incorporated to give the driver the time
to react, re-engage and take control of the vehicle in the event of
technology malfunction. In the case of an automated commercial vehicle,
a human driver/operator should be in the vehicle regardless of the
level of automation. And a level of training for the driver, perhaps
with a specific AV endorsement for the CDL, should be mandated, so that
only those trained on the AV technology can assume control of the
vehicle when that technology fails to operate properly. This committee
will have to give thought to how hours-of-service for drivers will
affect the ability of automated commercial vehicles to operate over
long stretches of time. Airline pilots who rely on auto-pilot
technology are subject to hours-of-service in the cockpit, as are
locomotive engineers who rely on positive train control. It should be
no different for 18-wheel truck drivers in the cab and other drivers of
automated commercial vehicles. This committee conducted extensive
hearings on the failed automation of the Boeing 737-MAX and the
consequences of relying exclusively on technology. Human oversight and
intervention, when necessary, will ensure the safe deployment of
autonomous vehicles. If commercial AVs are monitored remotely, it will
be important to establish a remote monitor/operator to vehicle ratio
that ensures that a monitor can react quickly to technology
malfunctions/failures, mitigate the situation and position the AV in a
safety zone. That ratio should be 1:1 for large commercial vehicles.
It is interesting to note that most testing of self-driving trucks
is occurring in states like Arizona, California, and Texas, where
weather conditions are mild for the most part. And it's no coincidence
that Texas passed a law in 2018 that essentially gave autonomous
vehicles the same status as conventional vehicles. Inclement weather,
including blinding rain and snow, dense fog, and hazardous road
conditions can present challenges to sensors, cameras, and radars that
AVs rely on to operate safely. Advocates' Tenets calls for a ``Vision
Test'' for driverless cars which should also be a requirement for
commercial automated vehicles. They must be proven to be able to
operate on all roads and in all weather conditions, detecting all
vehicles, people and objects in their path. While our members have
experienced the benefits of technology that some motor carriers have
implemented, like lane departure warnings and collision avoidance
systems, we know firsthand that malfunctions have occurred. For
example, our Teamster members have experienced problems with automatic
emergency braking systems in snowy conditions. Drivers are a much-
needed safety net for these unknown factors.
The Committee has been forward-thinking about automated commercial
vehicles and initiated several provisions in its Invest in America Act
that the Teamsters Union supports and are worth noting. Unfortunately,
some were ultimately absent from the Senate version enacted into law.
One such provision, Section 5308 of the INVEST Act, would require
entities operating automated CMVs in interstate commerce to report data
to a repository, including the type of vehicle, level of automation,
DOT number, where operation of the vehicle occurs and miles traveled,
in addition to documenting training of drivers, fatigue management
plans, law enforcement interaction plans and proof of insurance. While
the public has access to the repository, identity of the specific
entity reporting the data to DOT is shielded. The committee should
revisit this restriction when it considers commercial AV legislation.
The current commercial use of vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds
or less presents a agency jurisdictional issue which should also be
addressed. Waymo recently teamed up with UPS in Arizona to use Waymo
self-driving Chrysler Pacifica vans to pick up packages at UPS Stores
and deliver them to a sorting center in Phoenix. And Nuro, which built
a small self-driving package delivery vehicle, received California's
first autonomous vehicle deployment permit in 2020. These are under
10,000 lb. AVs, but they are clearly operating as commercial vehicles.
The Committee included Section 4104, Operation of Small Commercial
Vehicles Study, in the INVEST Act, which would examine the safe
operation of this class of vehicle. We would suggest that small
commercial AVs fit within the parameters of this study, and the
Committee should continue to explore this segment of the package
delivery industry for appropriate regulation of these vehicles,
including delivery bots.
Driver Retention and Misclassification
It's important to ask what the problem is that we are trying to
solve with AV technology? We hear about the benefits of lower
emissions, cost savings, and supposedly safer highways. The other big
problem we have heard a lot about in recent months is the so-called
shortage of available drivers. The Teamsters know why it is difficult
to attract and retain drivers in non-union truck driving jobs. Prior to
the deregulation of trucking by the federal government in the 80s,
driving a truck was a good middle-class job. After deregulation, a new
model emerged of hiring truck drivers as independent contractors
instead of employees. The independent contractor model allows trucking
companies and their customers to outsource almost all the costs and
risks of trucking onto the backs of the workers. Independent
contractors are treated as small businesses under the law and as such
they have no legal right to organize a union. In very little time,
trucking went from a good job to one where drivers work an average of
over 60 hours a week, much of it unpaid and away from home, and in many
cases making less than minimum wage. Workers have no health insurance,
unemployment, worker's comp, or social security.
This situation has only been exacerbated by recent supply chain
congestion. Misclassified drivers can wait for hours on end for a
single haul with no compensation for their time in queue. A 2019 Bureau
of Labor Statistics report found a 94% turnover rate in large Truckload
Carriers and nearly 80% in smaller Truckload Carriers, using data
collected by the American Trucking Association. The ATA even estimates
an annualized turnover rate for truckload drivers at large motor
carriers at 92 percent in the fourth quarter of 2020. Such
astronomically high turnover rates point to a problem with working
conditions. Intentional misclassification is the cause of those poor
working conditions. It is also one of the factors contributing to the
congestion crisis at the ports. The problem is not a lack of drivers
willing to do the job, but rather a system plagued by structural
inefficiencies. To rationalize this system, we must first rein in
misclassification with all the policy tools at our disposal, starting
with vigorous enforcement. Automation is industry's answer to a driver
retention problem that industry itself created. The solution to the
harmful consequences and negative impact of intentional
misclassification and the subsequent degradation of good middle-class
jobs is not to just do away with the workers.
For all the discussion here about the potential benefits that may
accompany this AV technology, I urge you to consider these
possibilities with a healthy dose of realism. When you hear
manufacturers tell you that a list of strong safety metrics will
translate into effortless deployment on the roads, this will not happen
without proper Congressional oversight, regulatory guidelines, and a
good amount of transparency by the companies as they test and deploy
these vehicles on our roadways.
Self-driving vehicles have the potential to change the
transportation industry as we know it. That can be for the better or
for the worse depending on the actions that this committee, workers,
and others take in guiding their implementation onto our roads. It is
incumbent upon the members of this committee to help ensure that
workers are not left behind in this process, and it is essential that
American workers are not exposed to unproven technologies that could
put their lives at risk. The Teamsters have strived to balance the
incorporation of countless pieces of new technology into the workplace
while ensuring that workers are guaranteed a right to avoid harassment
and to always feel safe on the job. New technologies can co-exist in an
environment where workers are given the opportunity to up-skill and
fill those jobs of the future. In the trucking space where margins are
consistently tight and competition is fierce, the fear of many
transportation workers is that absent strong action and guidance from
this committee and others, a new generation of autonomous vehicles will
provide limitless opportunity for disruption and displacement of the
transportation workforce. Could workers see their jobs reclassified and
their paychecks reduced because half of their job has now been
automated away and their employer thinks that it can get away with no
longer paying them the full wage they once did?
There are so many impacts for this committee to consider as you
move forward with legislation. Issues such as worker harassment and
tracking would be intertwined with existing collective bargaining
agreements and workplace policies, along with whistleblower
protections. Cybersecurity standards should prevent a truck driver from
having to think about his rig being hacked and used as the next weapon
in a terrorist attack.
We applaud you for having this hearing with the Teamsters' voice at
the table. We look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that
the priorities and concerns of working families remain at the center of
this debate. In all aspects of automation, but especially when we are
considering commercial motor vehicles, it is more important to get it
done correctly rather than just done quickly.
Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Bloch, for your testimony.
I would like to recognize now the chair, Mr. DeFazio, for
his introduction of the next witness.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to
introduce the next witness, Professor Nico Larco at the
University of Oregon School of Architecture and Environment.
Professor Larco is the director of the Urbanism Next
Center, which focuses on how technological advancements such as
AVs, new mobility, e-commerce, and the sharing economy are
changing our cities. He is also the cofounder and codirector of
the Sustainable Cities Institute, a nationally and
internationally awarded multidisciplinary organization that
focuses on sustainability issues as they relate to the built
environment. Professor Larco has worked directly with many
cities and States to examine the impacts, or potential impacts,
of emerging technologies, and help them to begin to plan for
the future.
I am pleased he could join us today, and I am looking
forward very much to hearing his testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Larco, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larco. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, for that
introduction.
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and subcommittee
members, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
future of AVs, and the impacts they could have on communities.
I also want to give particular thanks to Chairman DeFazio
for all you do for the country, and for the State of Oregon. I
very much appreciate it.
My name is Nico Larco, and I am a professor of architecture
and design, as well as the director of the Urbanism Next Center
at the University of Oregon.
Urbanism Next, as was mentioned, is a cross-disciplinary
center focused on understanding the impacts that emerging
technologies such as AVs, new mobility, and e-commerce are
having and will continue to have on communities. Our focus is
not on the mechanics of the technologies, but rather on their
impacts on land use, urban design, building design,
transportation, and real estate, and why these impacts matter
for equity, health, safety, the environment, and the economy.
We work extensively on these topics with cities and States
throughout the country, private-sector partners who are
developing or deploying emerging technologies, professional
organizations, other research organizations, and foundations.
Our country is at the earliest stages of developing AV
technologies and real-world AV testing. What we don't know
about AVs at this moment far outweighs what we do know about
them and how they will impact our communities.
That said, one thing that is clear is that AVs are not just
another vehicle, in the same way that, over a century ago, cars
were just not a different horse. Our research indicates that
AVs could have widespread cascading impacts on communities. And
because of this, we need to be sure to shape AV deployment to
serve community goals.
Research points to AVs having both positive and negative
transportation impacts. For instance, we suspect that AVs will
cause increases in congestion in local streets, similar to the
hours of delay we are already seeing caused by rideshare
companies. On the positive side, they could lead to large
drops--up to 80 or 90 percent--in the demand for parking, and
if they are used in transit vehicles, potential improvements in
transit frequency and coverage. Those transit service
improvements, as you have heard, might, however, also come with
large impacts on labor, and AVs could actually pull riders away
from transit. Similarly, AV trips may simply cost so much that
AV travel could become a transportation choice for the wealthy,
but with their implications shouldered by everyone.
But AVs are not only a transportation issue. This is an
important point that I want to make. AVs will have cascading
impacts on communities beyond transportation impacts. For
instance, AVs have the potential to exacerbate sprawl, allowing
people to drive further distances on freeways in less time.
This would lead to increasing land consumption, and would
impact infrastructure, the environment, and equity.
Another example, reduced parking demand would open up
existing parking lots for cities for other forms of
development. We could fill parking lots with housing, offices,
shops, and services, increasing accessibility. Not needing to
build parking would allow us to actually put more development
on any one parcel, and would bring down the cost of
development, increasing affordability.
At the same time, the shift in parking demand would
increase the supply of land available for development in a
community. If supply increases and demand stays the same, this
could negatively impact land prices. This is true for urban and
suburban areas, with areas that currently have the largest
amounts of parking the most affected by these changes.
Regarding Government revenues, AVs could significantly
impact the revenues of governments that use fuel tax, vehicle
registration, licensing, parking fees, and traffic citations to
fund transportation infrastructure and operations. A study
conducted by my colleagues at the University of Oregon found
that revenue losses could be between 3 and 51 percent, with the
direst predictions being for cities that heavily depend on fuel
taxes and parking fees to fund transportation.
AVs could also have substantial impacts on equity. In work
we have done with the Knight Foundation and Cityfi, and with
AARP and the RAND Corporation, we found large areas of concern
regarding who has access to AVs. Older adults and lower income
individuals are most at risk of falling by the wayside if these
accessibility issues are not directly addressed.
With these points in mind, we suggest the following
recommendations.
First, fund pilots specifically focused on the cascading
impacts of AVs. Don't only focus on AV technology, efficiency,
and safety, which are very important, but also expand that to
address cascading impacts of AVs. And pilots should not only
focus on large cities, but also mid-sized, small, and rural
communities. If we don't, we won't understand the cascading
impacts in these areas, and these communities will be ill-
prepared and likely suffer adverse effects from future AV
deployment.
Second, support research on the cascading impacts of AVs.
Similar to the points regarding pilots, we also need research
that goes beyond the focus on the technology, safety, or
deployment, and expands to understand cascading impacts. The
Center of Excellence for Automated Vehicles and New Mobility in
the IIJA is a promising step forward, and we are very thankful
to Representative Blumenauer, who first presented the PLACE Act
language that was the basis for the center. We need more
programs such as this.
Third, assist local governments and States with regulatory
preparedness. This encompasses not only enabling regulations,
such as permitting infrastructure, insurance, and emergency
response policy, but also understanding governmental roles in
how best to steer deployment towards community goals, how to
use tools and levers, and how to incorporate community
engagement.
Fourth, organize and lead a national dialogue on AV impacts
and community needs. We hear consistent desire from both public
and private sector for forums to organize and share research
and best practices on the many aspects of AV deployment.
In closing, I want to say that our AV future is not
preordained. It is ours to shape. But we can only adequately
shape the future if we understand not only the technical
requirements of AVs or the regulations enabling deployment, but
also the cascading impacts AVs will have on our communities,
and the regulations, tools, and leverage that we can use to
shape deployment to support community goals.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
[Mr. Larco's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nico Larco, AIA, Director and Professor, Urbanism
Next Center, University of Oregon
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Subcommittee Members, thank
you for this opportunity to testify on the future of automated vehicles
and the impacts they could have on communities throughout the country.
My name is Nico Larco and I am a Professor of Architecture and
Urban Design as well as the Director of the Urbanism Next Center at the
University of Oregon. Urbanism Next is a cross-disciplinary center
focused on understanding the impacts that emerging technologies such as
automated vehicles (AVs), new mobility, and e-commerce are having and
will continue to have on communities. Our focus is not on the mechanics
of the technologies, but rather on their impacts on land use, urban
design, building design, transportation, and real estate, and why these
impacts matter for equity, health, safety, the environment, and the
economy. We work extensively on these topics with cities and states
throughout the country, as well as with private sector partners who are
developing or deploying emerging technologies, professional
organizations, other research organizations, and foundations. We have
found a tremendous interest, across all these organizations, in
understanding AVs' impacts and how to shape the deployment of emerging
technologies to help achieve equity, sustainability, and economic
goals.
Our country is at the earliest stages of developing AV technology
and testing its performance in real world situations. What we don't
know about AVs at this moment far outweighs what we do know about them
and how they will impact our communities. One thing that is certain is
the need to pay attention to AVs' transportation impacts as well as the
cascading impacts they will have on communities. This includes issues
such as safety, accessibility, congestion, equity, environmental, and
land development impacts.
AVs are not just another vehicle--in the same way that over a
century ago cars proved to be not just a different horse. I will
describe how AVs might create cascading impacts beyond moving people
and goods, and how they have the potential to substantially reshape our
communities. The current degree of unknowns around this innovation, and
the potential scale of impacts, suggests caution in the speed of AV
deployment, a need for substantial pilots and research focused on
cascading impacts, a need for federal, state, and local governments to
work together on AV regulatory preparedness, and information sharing
between all levels of government, the private sector, researchers, and
concerned stakeholders.
Transportation Impacts
AVs have a strong potential to impact travel behavior, mode choice,
and freight movement which would have a profound effect on congestion,
parking, transit, and travel costs.
Congestion--While it is difficult to know the exact future impacts
AVs will have on congestion, we do have insights that can guide us. We
can think of ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft as proxies for
future AV deployment. Both follow a similar model of calling a vehicle,
having it pick-up a passenger, driving them to their destination, and
then leaving to serve another trip. Studies on ridesharing's impact on
congestion have shown that it leads to sizable inefficiencies as cars
travel substantial distances without passengers onboard as they travel
to pick up passengers and then reposition themselves after a drop-
off.\i\ With ridesharing, these `empty vehicle miles' or `zombie miles'
are approximately 40% of total vehicle miles travelled (VMT).\ii\ A
study in San Francisco found that between 2010 (when ridesharing
companies were introduced) and 2016, ridesharing contributed to a 62%
increase in hours of delay.\iii\ We suspect shared AVs will follow
these same patterns and that owners of private AVs could have similar
`empty vehicle mile' impacts as they send cars to run errands, pick up
other family members, or simply have a car drive around the block while
they complete a task. AVs could potentially reduce some of this impact
on congestion if they are able to increase travel flow by reducing
stop-and-start behavior. However, an AV future that does not have
controls in place could exacerbate the congestion trends we are seeing
with rideshare, putting increased strain on our transportation
system.\iv\ This would impact infrastructure costs, the environment,
and economic output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Bruce Schaller, ``The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber, and the
Future of American Cities'' (Schaller Consulting, July 25, 2018),
http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.htm.
\ii\ Melissa Balding et al., ``Estimated TNC Share of VMT in Six US
Metropolitan Regions (Revision 1)'' (Fehr and Peers, August 6, 2019),
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FIUskVkj9lsAnWJQ6kLhAhNoVLjfFdx3/view.
\iii\ Erhardt Gregory D. et al., ``Do Transportation Network
Companies Decrease or Increase Congestion?,'' Science Advances 5, no. 5
(n.d.): eaau2670, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2670.
\iv\ Tom Cohen and Clemence Cavoli, ``Automated Vehicles: Exploring
Possible Consequences of Government (Non)Intervention for Congestion
and Accessibility,'' Transport Reviews 39, no. 1 (January 2, 2019):
129-51, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1524401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking--AVs could reduce the demand for parking as vehicles drop
off passengers and move on to their next trip instead of needing to be
parked. Shared AVs in particular are predicted to reduce parking demand
by as much as 90%.\v\ Considering rideshare as a proxy for AVs, we are
already seeing a 19.7% reduction in parking per passenger at airports
due to high rates of ridesharing use.\vi\ Changes in parking demand can
have significant impacts on cities as parking is currently the largest
single land use in urban areas as measured by surface area.\vii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ Wenwen Zhang and Subhrajit Guhathakurta, ``Parking Spaces in
the Age of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: How Much Parking Will We Need
and Where?,'' Transportation Research Record 2651, no. 1 (2017): 80-91.
\vi\ Transportation Research Board and Engineering National
Academies of Sciences and Medicine, Rethinking Airport Parking
Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues
(Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2021), https://doi.org/
10.17226/26091.
\vii\ Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, Revised edition
(Planners Press, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transit--AVs have the potential to complement transit and/or
compete with it, as we are finding with rideshare. On the one hand, AVs
could be a boon to transit if the technology is applied to transit
vehicles, adding technology costs, but reducing operating costs due to
the reduced need for drivers. Labor currently represents up to 60% of
transit agency expenditures.\viii\ Eliminating the need for drivers
would have serious labor consequences but could also potentially create
savings that increase frequency of service and service area expansion.
On the other hand, riders who can afford it may use personal or
rideshare AVs in place of transit, reducing overall transit ridership
and leading to a reduction of service frequency and coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\viii\ MacPherson Hughes-Cromwick and Matthew Dickens, ``2019
Public Transportation Fact Book'' (Washington D.C.: American Public
Transportation Association, April 2019), http://apta.com/wp-content/
uploads/APTA_Fact-Book-2019_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel Costs--Travel costs could change substantially with AVs.
Increased technology and maintenance needs will potentially increase
travel costs, while insurance, parking, and fuel cost savings could
bring costs down. The overall scale or final direction of impacts are
yet unknown but estimates for future AV travel ranges from $0.60-$1.00
per vehicle mile for privately owned AVs, and $0.50 to $1.00 per
vehicle-mile for shared AVs. While this is considerably less than
current rideshare or taxi vehicle-mile costs, it is substantially more
than personal vehicle costs or public transit fares ($0.20-$0.60 per
passenger-mile).\ix\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ix\ Todd Litman, ``Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions:
Implications for Transport Planning'' (Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, December 17, 2021), https://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf; Ashley
Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez, ``Autonomous Taxis & Public Health:
High Cost or High Opportunity Cost?,'' Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice 138 (August 1, 2020): 28-36, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tra.2020.05.011; Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Per-Mile Costs
of Owning and Operating an Automobile (Current Dollars)--Bureau of
Transportation Statistics,'' 2020, https://www.bts.dot.gov/content/
mile-costs-owning-and-operating-automobile; Junia Compostella et al.,
``Near- (2020) and Long-Term (2030-2035) Costs of Automated,
Electrified, and Shared Mobility in the United States,'' Transport
Policy 85 (January 1, 2020): 54-66, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tranpol.2019.10.001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cascading Impacts
AVs are not only a transportation issue as their transportation
impacts will have cascading impacts across communities. The attached
Urbanism Next Framework describes some of these impacts across a range
of domains and we further elaborate on these topics in our Multilevel
Impacts of Emerging Technology on City Form and Development Report
(based on Urbanism Next's NSF Smart and Sustainable Communities
Grant).\x\ Below we highlight cascading impacts on sprawl, government
revenue, the environment, land and development opportunities, and
equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\x\ Amanda Howell et al., ``Multilevel Impacts of Emerging
Technologies on City Form and Development'' (Portland, OR: Urbanism
Next Center, January 2020), https://www.urbanismnext.org/resources/
multilevel-impacts-of-emerging-technologies-on-city-form-and-
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprawl--A large question with widespread AV deployment is how it
might impact metropolitan footprints and sprawl. The average commute in
the US is approximately 27 minutes in each direction.\xi\ AVs promise
to reduce the friction of travel as they will purportedly move faster
along freeways and arterials, while at the same time giving occupants
the ability to do more while they commute as they do not need to drive
themselves. With this, individuals might be willing to move farther out
in search of less expensive housing, opening exurban areas to
development, and increasing pressures on sprawl. This, of course,
accelerates the conversion of agricultural lands, natural resource
lands, and habitat areas into housing and urban development, impacting
the environment, infrastructure costs, and equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xi\ Charlynn Burd, Michael Burrows, and Brian McKenzie, ``Travel
Time to Work in the United States: 2019,'' American Community Survey
Reports, United States Census Bureau 2 (2021): 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Revenue--Not only might AVs cost riders more, they could
also significantly impact the revenues of governments that use fuel
tax, vehicle registration, licensing, parking fees, and traffic
citations to fund transportation infrastructure and operations.\xii\ A
study conducted by my colleagues at the University of Oregon found that
revenue losses could be between 3 and 51% with the direst predictions
being for cities that heavily depend on fuel taxes and parking fees to
fund transportation.\xiii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xii\ Benjamin Clark, Nico Larco, and Roberta F. Mann, ``The
Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles and E-Commerce on Local Government
Budgeting and Finance'' (University of Oregon, August 2017).
\xiii\ Rebecca Lewis and Benjamin Y. Clark, ``Retooling Local
Transportation Financing in a New Mobility Future,'' Transportation
Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 10 (June 1, 2021): 100388,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100388.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environment--AVs could create both benefits and challenges for the
environment. For instance, as previously mentioned, expanded sprawl
could significantly increase land consumed by urban development,
destroying existing habitat, disrupting natural water systems, and
putting more people at risk of wildfire in the wildland urban
interface. Regarding energy, AVs have the potential to reduce energy
consumption by accelerating the shift to vehicle electrification, and
increasing opportunities for platooning, route efficiency, and the
elimination of stop-and-go driving behavior.\xiv\ Increases in the
number of trips taken and the total amount of vehicle miles travelled,
however, could dampen these impacts. Depending on the overall scale and
direction of energy use, AVs could shift greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and particulate pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xiv\ Pantelis Kopelias et al., ``Connected & Autonomous Vehicles--
Environmental Impacts--A Review,'' Science of The Total Environment 712
(April 10, 2020): 135237, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.135237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Value and Development Opportunities--Reduced parking demand
could lead to existing parking areas becoming available for
development. Parking requirements often limit how much housing
developers can put on a given parcel. More and more communities across
the US are choosing to prioritize space for people instead of cars
through the reduction or elimination of those requirements. AVs could
provide an attractive option for getting around without a personal
vehicle, opening up these parcels to development.
AVs could also lead to an increase in the density of development
possible on a given parcel as parking provision would no longer limit
how many units of housing could be built. Reducing the need to build
parking can also reduce the cost of development, increasing the
affordability of housing, for instance, and increasing the number of
projects that are economically viable. This might impact both urban and
suburban areas, with greater impact in areas with the greatest amount
of existing parking. The ability to redevelop land currently dedicated
to parking could radically increase the land available for development,
reducing the cost for that land.
Equity Impacts--AVs have the potential to increase road safety, an
important equity concern as traffic crashes disproportionately impact
low-income Americans \xv\ and carry a heavier burden in terms of the
costs of recovery from crashes. AVs impacts on accessibility, however,
is not yet certain. Accessibility will be determined by issues such as
the cost of trips and vehicles, if vehicles serve all areas of a
region, if they physically accommodate users who are disabled, if users
are sufficiently tech enabled, and in the model of shared vehicles, if
users are banked and have access to digital banking. Research we
conducted with the RAND Corporation for the American Association of
Retired Persons (AARP) specifically pointed to these types of issues
creating substantial barriers to AV use by older adults.\xvi\ These
barriers are not insurmountable, and many researchers and leading AV
and rideshare companies are working on solutions to them, but firm
solutions are by no means clear at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xv\ Robert B. Noland, Nicholas J. Klein, and Nicholas K. Tulach,
``Do Lower Income Areas Have More Pedestrian Casualties?,'' Accident
Analysis & Prevention 59 (October 1, 2013): 337-45, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.009; Sam Harper, Thomas J. Charters, and Erin C.
Strumpf, ``Trends in Socioeconomic Inequalities in Motor Vehicle
Accident Deaths in the United States, 1995-2010,'' American Journal of
Epidemiology 182, no. 7 (October 1, 2015): 606-14, https://doi.org/
10.1093/aje/kwv099.
\xvi\ Laura Fraade-Blanar et al., ``Older Adults, New Mobility, and
Automated Vehicles'' (Portland, OR: Urbanism Next Center, RAND
Corporation, and AARP, February 2021), https://www.urbanismnext.org/
resources/older-adults-new-mobility-and-automated-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
To address the issues and challenges described above, we suggest
the following recommendations to help shape AV deployment in ways that
can support community needs:
1. Fund Pilots Specifically Focused on the Cascading Impacts of
AVs--Pilots are an effective way of learning about the impacts of
deployment and both the benefits and unintended consequences they might
have. It is critical that pilots not only focus on technological
developments, efficiency, and safety, but also focus on the operational
impacts and the cascading impacts autonomous vehicles will have on
communities. These pilots should also not only focus on large cities,
or predominantly on the wealthy areas of these cities, but instead
should also include mid-sized, small, and rural communities. These
pilots should specifically include low-income areas, areas with poor
transit access, and areas with a high number of older adults. If these
communities are not included in the testing and piloting of these
technologies now and we are not able to understand the impacts AVs will
have on them, these communities will be ill prepared and will likely
suffer adverse impacts from AV deployment in the future.
For example, in pilots funded by the Knight Foundation, the
Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon, along with Cityfi, is
working with cities across the country to understand how AV deployment
might impact communities and how to best engage vulnerable communities
in these conversations. These types of pilots, that go beyond the
technical aspects of AV deployment, provide needed insights about what
it will take to ensure that the benefits of the technology are felt by
all. Additionally, these pilots allow government agencies to learn more
about the technology before adopting potentially far-reaching
legislation without a nuanced understanding of both the opportunities
and challenges.
The inclusion of the Strengthening Mobility and
Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Grants Program in the IIJA is an
excellent start, but this program is focused primarily on
transportation efficiency and safety and not on the range of unresolved
cascading impacts I have described earlier. We would encourage the
expansion of the program, or the development of a new program of pilots
that focus on the cascading impacts of autonomous vehicles. Pilots
should be sure to include a range of AV vehicle types including
passenger cars, SUVs, vans, busses, shuttles, and delivery vehicles
including trucks, delivery vans, and drones.
2. Support Research on the Cascading Impacts of AVs--While AVs are
in an early stage of deployment, we are in an even earlier state of
properly understanding the impacts of AV deployment. Much research has
been done on AV technology and on the transportation impacts, but what
is largely missing and much needed is an understanding of AVs' impacts
on land use, urban design, building design, and real estate--and an
understanding of the implications this will have on equity, health, the
environment, and the economy.
The `Center of Excellence for Automated Vehicles and New
Mobility' in the IIJA is a promising step forward and we are thankful
to Rep. Blumenauer who first presented the PLACE Act language that was
the basis for this Center. We are also heartened with the launch of
programs such as the Inclusive Design Challenge by USDOT. We encourage
an expansion of these types of programs to give us the knowledge we
need to make informed decisions that can maximize the benefits of AVs
while eliminating or minimizing potential negative impacts.
3. Assist Local Governments and States with AV Regulatory
Preparedness--Local governments and states are just beginning to
understand the need to manage AV deployment in a way that can serve
community goals. This encompasses not only enabling regulations (such
as permitting, infrastructure, insurance, and emergency response
policy), but also understanding governmental roles in how to best steer
deployment. This includes understanding how best to conduct public
education and engagement, how to leverage governmental roles in the
shaping of the AV market, how best to develop relationships with
private sector AV service providers, how to mitigate externalities such
as potential congestion on roads and at the curb, and how to establish
a healthy AV ecosystem.
Local governments and states also need guidance on how to
create tools and incentives to support equitable deployment through
mechanisms such as vehicle accessibility requirements, service coverage
requirements, and ride reservation and payment options. Cities and
states are also interested in how best to utilize fees, taxes, vehicle
occupancy requirements, and vehicle miles traveled maximums to achieve
community goals. Additionally, cities and states need assistance with
setting data standards and data sharing protocols, addressing curbside
management, and understanding what infrastructure investments are most
beneficial to their communities. (See the attached `Summary of Tools
and Levers for Shaping AV Outcomes' table. This table is adapted from
Urbanism Next's report with Cityfi, funded by the Knight Foundation,
which includes a more expansive discussion of regulatory issues around
AV deployment).\xvii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\xvii\ Becky Steckler et al., ``A Framework for Shaping the
Deployment of Autonomous Vehicles and Advancing Equity Outcomes''
(Portland, OR: Urbanism Next Center, January 2021), https://
www.urbanismnext.org/resources/a-framework-for-shaping-the-deployment-
of-autonomous-vehicles-and-advancing-equity-outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Organize and Lead a National Dialogue on AV Impacts and
Community Needs--In our work with federal, state, and municipal
governments, private sector companies, and research, professional, and
advocacy groups, we hear a consistent desire for forums to organize and
share research and best practices on the many aspects of AV deployment.
There is a general understanding that the successful deployment of AVs,
in both a societal sense and a business sense, will require the
cooperation of the public, private, advocacy, and academic/research
sectors. The federal government and particularly the USDOT, HUD, EPA,
and DOL are all well positioned to partner with national organizations
to lead this type of effort.
As an example of helping create a national dialogue, Urbanism
Next has held an annual conference since 2018 focused on the cascading
impacts of technologies such as AVs. We have done this in partnership
with the American Planning Association (APA), the Urban Land Institute
(ULI), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Oregon Chapter
of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), and numerous
other private and public sector partners. This last year--with support
from NUMO and in partnership with POLIS and TNO, the conference
expanded to Europe. There is widespread interest in better
understanding the impacts of AV deployment.
Urbanism Next, also with funding from NUMO, has also
developed the NEXUS (https://www.urbanismnext.org/the-nexus)--a one-
stop resource for communities, elected officials, private sector
companies, researchers, and other stakeholders interested in learning
about the cascading impacts of AV deployment. As an example of the
interest in these topics, the site has been visited over 100,000 times
in the last year alone.
Contrary to what may have been the landscape a few years ago,
many private sector companies are interested in engaging in these
topics and see developing alignment between their goals and community
goals as a benefit to their business models. We need to help develop
these conversations and build trust so that the best aspects of
emerging AV technologies are the outcomes we ultimately attain in our
communities.
In closing, we believe we stand at this moment in a situation not
dissimilar to where our country stood when the first automobiles were
rolling onto our streets over a century ago. Imagine if, at that
moment, we had the foresight to consider how automobiles would be used
throughout the country, the benefits they could deliver, and also the
problems they might create. Imagine if we could shape early deployment
and the eventual design of our cities and streets to help reduce
congestion, increase accessibility, limit sprawl, and increase equity.
Our AV future is not preordained, it is ours to shape. But we can
only adequately shape the future if we understand not only the
technical requirements of AVs or the regulations enabling deployment,
but also the cascading impacts AVs will have on our communities, and
the regulations, tools, and levers we can use to shape deployment to
support community goals.
__________
This testimony was prepared by Nico Larco, Becky Steckler, and Amanda
Howell of the Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon.
Urbanism Next Center--http://urbanismnext.org/
attachments
Urbanism Next Framework--[Editor's note: The document is retained in
committee files and is available online at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/PW/PW12/20220202/114362/HHRG-117-PW12-Wstate-LarcoN-20220202-
SD002.pdf]
Summary of Tools and Levers for Shaping AV Outcomes table--[Editor's
note: The document is retained in committee files and is available
online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20220202/114362/HHRG-
117-PW12-Wstate-LarcoN-20220202-SD001.pdf]
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Professor Larco.
We will hear next from Mr. Ariel Wolf, general counsel,
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association.
Mr. Wolf. Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair
DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, members of the subcommittee,
good morning. My name is Ariel Wolf, and I serve as general
counsel to the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, on
whose behalf I appear today. I also serve as a partner at the
law firm Venable, where I chair the autonomous and connected
mobility practice. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify at this important hearing.
The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association was founded as
the unified voice of the AV industry. We are committed to
bringing the tremendous safety, mobility, and economic benefits
of AVs--otherwise known as SAE Level 4- and 5-capable
vehicles--to consumers in a safe, responsible, and timely
manner.
For a dozen years, AV technology has been tested on our
roads, over tens of millions of miles, and maintains a
remarkable safety record. At the same time, roadway fatalities
in this country involving vehicles with human drivers have
increased dramatically. As members of the subcommittee already
know, just yesterday the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration reported that 31,720 Americans died on the roads
in the first 9 months of 2021. Those 31,720 deaths represent
the highest number of fatalities in the first 9 months of any
year in the past 15 years.
The 2021 fatality numbers are part of a pattern of
increasingly unsafe driving that is occurring across the
country. Last week, in its new National Roadway Safety
Strategy, the U.S. Department of Transportation reaffirmed what
we have known for many years: human behavior is a contributing
factor to the overwhelming majority of crashes, including
drunk, impaired, distracted, and reckless driving.
The AV industry was established to confront the monumental
and ongoing tragedy on our roads. While AV technology continues
to develop and advance, the simple fact is that AVs do not
drive drunk, they do not drive while texting, they do not fall
asleep at the wheel, and they do not recklessly speed. The
record is clear: autonomous vehicles are being developed
safely, and they will make our roads safer.
To reduce fatalities and injuries, Americans need a
comprehensive approach to roadway safety that includes a full
suite of solutions, from safer road design to driver impairment
prevention systems to updated traffic guidance. But the
approach must also include the deployment of autonomous
vehicles.
AV technology will also transform our transportation system
by making it more accessible, efficient, and sustainable. Just
last week, I visited several AV Industry Association members to
see firsthand how this transformation is taking shape. I rode
on AVs that are safely navigating the streets of cities like
San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, and Pittsburgh. I
climbed into autonomous trucks that are hauling freight in
States like Texas and New Mexico to boost our supply chains. I
saw how zero-occupant electric delivery vehicles are expanding
access to fresh food and reducing emissions.
To experience AV technology and to see its capabilities is
to understand the opportunities for this industry to change our
lives for the better.
On a personal note, I think about safer streets for my four
daughters as they grow up, expanded independence for my
grandmother in Florida and for my parents and in-laws as they
get older, and opportunities to expand equitable transportation
and delivery options in my neighborhood here in DC. I see this
happening, all while growing the economy and creating new,
well-paying jobs.
The AV industry is creating jobs and providing
opportunities for workers with a wide array of expertise and
educational backgrounds, including many jobs that do not
require a college degree. In locations across the country, AV
developers and manufacturers are hiring auto technicians, fleet
managers, safety operations specialists, and many others to
support the testing and deployment of AV technology.
One study found that the AV industry has created 6,500 new
jobs in the Pittsburgh region alone. A recent U.S. Department
of Transportation study also indicated that adoption of AV
trucking will increase total U.S. employment by as many as
35,000 jobs per year, on average, and raise annual earnings for
all U.S. workers.
Given the phased timeline for AV truck deployment,
autonomous trucking is not expected to displace jobs in the
trucking industry, but rather serve as one tool to reduce
strains on the supply chain caused in part by the longstanding
truckdriver shortage.
AVs offer great opportunities. But without a national
framework that maximizes the deployment of the technology, it
will be harder to achieve those benefits.
I want to thank the subcommittee for its leadership on
these important issues. The Autonomous Vehicle Industry
Association looks forward to serving as a resource concerning
both technical and policy questions in this area, and working
with you to make autonomous vehicles a reality for Americans
nationwide. We are eager to engage with Congress, the
Department of Transportation, and all stakeholders on the right
policies to accomplish our shared goals: safer streets,
expanded mobility, and new jobs and economic growth.
And I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[Mr. Wolf's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel, Autonomous
Vehicle Industry Association
Chair Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Members of the
Subcommittee, good morning, my name is Ariel Wolf, and I serve as
General Counsel to the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, on
whose behalf I appear today. I also serve as a partner at the law firm
Venable LLP, where I head the Autonomous and Connected Mobility
practice. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide testimony
for this hearing today.
The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (``Association'') was
founded in April 2016 by Ford Motor Company, Waymo, Lyft, Volvo Cars,
and Uber to be the voice of the nascent autonomous vehicle (``AV'')
industry. Since then, we are proud to have tripled in size, adding many
of the world's leading technology, trucking, ridesharing, and
automotive companies as members of the Association.\1\ This cross-
section of companies demonstrates the widespread interest in developing
AV technology across different sectors. As the unified voice of the AV
industry, we are committed to bringing the tremendous safety and
mobility benefits of AVs to consumers in a safe, responsible, and
expeditious manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AV Industry Association members include Argo AI, Aurora,
Cruise, Embark, Ford, Kodiak, Lyft, Motional, Navya, Nuro, TuSimple,
Uber, Volvo Cars, Waymo and Zoox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our mission is to realize the benefits of AVs--otherwise known as
SAE Levels 4- and 5-capable vehicles--and support the safe and timely
deployment of this technology. For a dozen years, AV technology has
been tested on our roads for tens of millions of miles and maintains a
remarkable safety record. At the same time, as I will discuss, roadway
fatalities in this country involving vehicles with human drivers have
gone up dramatically. So let me be clear at the outset of this
discussion: autonomous vehicles will save lives, which is why the AV
industry is so committed to developing this technology and to deploying
it in a timely manner.
AV technology not only will make our roads safer, but also can
transform our transportation system by making it more accessible,
efficient, and sustainable. Just last week I visited several AV
Industry Association members to see firsthand how this transformation
is taking shape. I rode in AVs that are being used to safely navigate
the streets of San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, Pittsburgh and
other cities across the country. I climbed into autonomous trucks that
are hauling freight in Texas, New Mexico, and beyond, and that are
helping to solve our supply chain crisis and reduce costs to consumers.
I saw how zero-occupant electric delivery vehicles are expanding access
to fresh food and reducing emissions. To experience AV technology and
see its capabilities is to understand the potential for this industry
to change our lives for the better. On a personal note, I think about
safer streets for my four daughters as they grow up; expanded
independence for my grandmother in Florida and for my parents as they
soon enter retirement; opportunities to expand equitable transportation
options to all communities here in DC where I live. And I see this
happening all while we can grow the economy and expand job creation.
I. AVs Offer Significant Benefits to Consumers, Workers, and the
Economy
AVs have the potential to: (a) improve road safety; (b) improve
transportation equity; and (c) create jobs and broadly benefit the
American economy.
A. AVs Will Improve Road Safety
As members of the Subcommittee may know, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA'') reported that 20,160
Americans died on the road in the first six months of 2021--an increase
of 18.4 percent over 2020 and more fatalities than in any first half-
year over the past 15 years.\2\ In fact, in 2020, despite fewer
vehicles on the road and fewer vehicle miles traveled compared to the
previous year, the number of deaths on the road was the highest it had
been since 2007.\3\ As terrible a tragedy as these numbers reflect, the
toll cannot be measured in fatalities alone. Since 2016, the number of
motor vehicle crashes resulting in injury has averaged nearly 2 million
per year.\4\ According to the National Safety Council, the estimated
cost of motor-vehicle deaths, injuries, and property damage in the
first half of 2021 was $241.9 billion.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp., DOT
HS 813 199, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the
First Half (January-June) of 2021 1 (2021), https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813199 [hereinafter
NHTSA Jan.-June 2021 Fatality Estimates].
\3\ NHTSA Jan.-June 2021 Fatality Estimates.
\4\ National Statistics, Nat'l Ctr. for Stat. and Analysis, https:/
/cdan.nhtsa.gov/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2022). According to the
National Safety Council, the number of ``medically consulted injuries''
from crashes is 4.5 million. See Introduction, Nat'l Safety Council:
Motor Vehicle Injury Facts Overview, https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-
vehicle/overview/introduction/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2022).
\5\ Preliminary Semiannual Estimates, Nat'l Safety Council, https:/
/injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/preliminary-estimates/
(last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2021 fatality numbers are part of a pattern of increasingly
unsafe driving that is occurring across the country. According to the
U.S. Department of Transportation (``USDOT''), human behavior is a
contributing factor to the overwhelming majority of serious and fatal
crashes; \6\ NHTSA attributes an increasing share of roadway fatalities
to distracted driving and other risky driving behaviors. While AV
technology continues to develop and advance, the simple fact is that
AVs do not drive drunk, they do not text while driving, they do not
fall asleep at the wheel, and they do not recklessly speed. And unlike
human drivers, AVs do not present a risk of misusing driver assistance
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Roadway Safety Strategy, U.S. Dept. of Transp. 14
(Jan. 2022), https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-
01/USDOT_National_Roadway_Safety_
Strategy_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AV industry was created to confront the monumental and ongoing
tragedy on our roads--over the last ten years, there have been 374,432
reported deaths and nearly 16 million crashes with injuries on our
roads due to human-operated vehicles. The remarkable safety record of
autonomous vehicles, which have been involved in only one fatality in
more than a decade of testing and deployments, gives me hope that we
will be able to make progress against this public health crisis. The
record is clear: autonomous vehicles are being developed safely, and
they will make our roads safer.
As USDOT Secretary Buttigieg has recognized, we cannot accept the
reality of our roads as the ``cost of doing business.'' Though we may
have grown numb to the grim roadway statistics in our country, each
fatality and injury is a tragedy that affects countless lives. To
reduce fatalities and injuries, Americans need a comprehensive approach
to roadway safety that includes a full suite of solutions, from safer
road design to drunk-driving prevention systems, in addition to the
deployment of AVs.
B. AVs Can Improve Transportation Equity
By improving safety and providing greater mobility, AVs will be a
vital tool in securing transportation equity and connecting communities
and individuals to the resources and jobs they need. Specifically, AVs
will allow those who previously had limited or no access to a personal
vehicle or transit system the freedom to travel, commute, and
conveniently obtain goods and services.
1. Roadway Safety and Equity
Roadway crashes, and the resulting injuries and deaths, are not
evenly distributed across socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic groups. An
analysis published by the Governors Highway Safety Association
highlights the disproportionate number of traffic fatalities
experienced by Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (``BIPOC'').\7\
In particular, per capita rates of traffic fatalities among American
Indian/Alaskan Natives and Black populations were all higher than the
national average,\8\ and pedestrian death rates per capita were higher
than the national average for American Indian/Alaska Natives, Black,
and Hispanic individuals.\9\ Estimates published by NHTSA indicate that
these discrepancies have become exacerbated in recent years, with
traffic fatalities of Black individuals up 23% in 2020 compared to
2019, while American Indian deaths rose 11%.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, An Analysis of Traffic
Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity 18 (2021), https://www.ghsa.org/sites/
default/files/2021-06/An%20Analysis%20of%20
Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20Race%20and%20Ethnicity.pdf [Hereinafter
GHSA Race and Ethnicity Analysis].
\8\ Id. at 8.
\9\ GHSA Race and Ethnicity Analysis at 13.
\10\ Id. at 18; Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of
Transp., DOT HS 813 118, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2020 8 (2021),
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis and other research indicate that socioeconomic status
can also influence the risk of motor vehicle crash involvement. Census
tracts have recorded pedestrian fatality rates within low-income
metropolitan areas approximately twice that of more affluent
neighborhoods.\11\ These patterns are echoed in a City of Chicago
report revealing that Black residents and those living in communities
with high levels of economic hardship were more at risk of dying in a
traffic crash compared to white residents and those living in
communities with low and medium levels of economic hardship,
respectively.\12\ By reducing crashes across the board, AVs can reduce
these inequities and improve the quality of life for all communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Governing, America's Poor Neighborhoods Plagued by Pedestrian
Deaths 1 (2014), http://media.navigatored.com/documents/
Governing_Pedestrian_Fatalities_Report.pdf.
\12\ Vision Zero Chicago, Action Plan 2017-2019 17, https://
visionzerochicago.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/17_0612-VZ-Action-
Plan_FOR-WEB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Connecting Underserved Communities to Transit,
Resources, and Jobs
AVs can provide vital connections to areas with high demand but low
supply of transportation, otherwise known as transit deserts.\13\
Access to transportation and average length of commute are connected to
upward mobility,\14\ and studies have found links between public
transit access, income, and unemployment.\15\ A 2011 study showed that
an average person can access only about 30% of all jobs and 25% of low-
and middle-skilled jobs in a given metropolitan area via public transit
within 90 minutes.\16\ AVs have the potential to reduce or eliminate
gaps in transportation access by improving integration with mass
transit, whether by providing both first mile and last mile connections
to transit, servicing direct trips to workplaces and other endpoints,
or by broadly increasing supply that helps free up other conventional
and AV transportation options to build those linkages. Projections
indicate that the transportation connections facilitated by the
adoption of AVs would increase access to jobs within a metropolitan
area by 45% by 2040.\17\ Through these various means, AVs will further
connect Americans with a variety of key features of their communities,
improving access and quality of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Frequently Asked Questions, Transit Desert Research, http://
www.transitdeserts.org/faq.html (last visited July 22, 2021).
\14\ Mikayla Bouchard, Transportation Emerges as Crucial to
Escaping Poverty, N.Y. Times (May 7, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/
2015/05/07/upshot/transportation-emerges-as-crucial-to-escaping-
poverty.html.
\15\ Gillian D. White, Stranded: How America's Failing Public
Transportation Increases Inequality, The Atlantic (May 16, 2015),
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/stranded-how-
americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality/393419/.
\16\ Adie Tomer Et Al., Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in
Metropolitan America, Brookings (May 11, 2011), https://
www.brookings.edu/research/missed-opportunity-transit-and-jobs-in-
metropolitan-america/.
\17\ Richard Ezike et. al., Where Are Self-Driving Cars Taking Us?,
6 (2019), https://ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/02/Where-
Are-Self-Driving-Cars-Taking-Us-web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to food is another area of inequality that AVs can help
alleviate. Transit deserts often overlap with food deserts, which are
defined as areas with high poverty (20% or greater) and low access to
food (at least 33% of people living more than one mile from a grocery
store or supermarket).\18\ A 2017 report by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Economic Research Service (``ERS'') estimates that 54
million individuals, or 17.1 percent of the total U.S. population, had
limited access to a supermarket or grocery store between 0.5 and 10
miles from their home.\19\ Further, a 2009 ERS report found that, at
the time, 2.3 million people lived more than one mile from a
supermarket and did not have access to a vehicle.\20\ The COVID-19
pandemic has increased overall food insecurity--the lack of access to
food due to financial constraints--across the nation, with projections
suggesting that up to 42 million (1 in 8) people in the U.S. may
experience food insecurity in 2021.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Michele Ver Ploeg et al., Mapping Food Deserts in the United
States, Economic Research Service (Dec. 1, 2011), https://
www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/december/data-feature-mapping-food-
deserts-in-the-us/.
\19\ Econ. Rsch. Serv., EIB-165, U.S. Dep't of Agric. Low-Income
and Low-Supermarket-Access Census Tracts, 2010-2015 12 (2017), https://
www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82101/eib-165.pdf?v=3395.3.
\20\ Econ. Rsch. Serv., Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food:
Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences iii
(2009) https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42711/
12716_ap036_1_.pdf?v=8423.6.
\21\ Feeding America, The Impact of the Coronavirus on Food
Insecurity in 2020 & 2021 1 (2021), https://www.feedingamerica.org/
sites/default/files/2021-03/National%20Projections
%20Brief_3.9.2021_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVs can prove particularly useful for improving access to food,
both by transporting people to previously inaccessible or difficult to
access supermarkets and grocery stores, and also by bringing food
directly to their doors. AV companies are already preparing to use
their vehicles in such ways, exemplified by Cruise delivering over one
million meals to food-insecure families in San Francisco,\22\ TuSimple
using autonomous tucks to deliver more than 3.5 million pounds of food
(2.7 million meals) for food banks in Arizona,\23\ and Nuro vehicles
helping the Houston Food Bank feed people in Texas.\24\ With more
widespread deployment, AVs could improve access to fresh food for 14
million low-income households, with roughly 70% of the total low-income
population living in food deserts.\25\ The addition of safe and
affordable options into the transportation ecosystem will create the
capacity to execute on these trips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Dan Ammann, Introducing Cruise for Good, Medium (Apr. 23,
2021), https://medium.com/cruise/introducing-cruise-for-good-
8ebf9bfdaf4a.
\23\ Hunger-Free AZ News, Ariz. Food Bank Network (Summer 2020),
https://azfoodbanks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
AzFBN_S20_Newsletter_DIGITAL.pdf.
\24\ Sola Lawal, Serving America's Food Deserts, Medium (July 15,
2020), https://medium.com/nuro/serving-americas-food-deserts-
a7442e922053.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Expanding Mobility Options for All
AV deployment offers new and improved transportation options for
people with disabilities as well as for older residents. Studies by
USDOT estimate that 25.5 million Americans have travel-limiting
disabilities,\26\ while roughly 560,000 people with disabilities never
leave their homes due to transportation difficulties.\27\ These
difficulties are often due to a lack of accessible or convenient public
transportation or an inability to operate their own vehicle, as is the
case for the over 7.6 million Americans over the age of 16 who have
significant vision impairment.\28\ This lack of transportation impacts
employment as well--only 17.5% of people with disabilities are
employed, compared to 65% of people without a disability.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Accessibility, U.S. Dep't of Transp. (July 29, 2020) https://
www.transportation.gov/accessibility.
\27\ Bureau of Transp. Stat., Transportation Difficulties Keep Over
Half a Million Disabled at Home (2012), https://www.bts.gov/archive/
publications/special_reports_and_issue_
briefs/issue_briefs/number_03/entire.
\28\ Blindness Statistics, Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, https://
nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics (last visited Jan. 28, 2021).
\29\ Economic News Release, U.S. Bureau of Labor Stat., Persons
with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary (Feb. 24, 2021),
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVs can allow those with disabilities greater freedom to move about
the world on their own schedule. AV mobility-as-a-service offerings can
help improve transportation for individuals who cannot drive. For
instance, Cruise has made public its work to develop a wheelchair
accessible version of its Origin vehicle platform.\30\ For low vision
individuals, companies like Lyft, through a partnership with Motional
and the National Federation of the Blind, have worked to create Braille
guides for AV riders.\31\ Likewise, in Arizona, Waymo has highlighted
the use of its AVs by vision impaired people of all ages, while its
ongoing efforts to develop additional accessibility features were
recognized by the federal government when the USDOT named the company
as a semifinalist in its Inclusive Design Challenge.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Sam Abuelsamid, Cruise CEO Shows Off Locker Module and
Wheelchair Accessible Origin Robotaxi, Forbes (Oct. 6, 2021), https://
www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2021/10/06/cruise-ceo-shows-off-
locker-module-and-wheelchair-accessible-origin-robotaxi/
?sh=567dd9d61c78.
\31\ Lyft, Aptiv, and the National Federation of the Blind Partner
to Provide Rides to Blind and Low Vision Passengers, Lyft: Blog (July
8, 2019), https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/lyft-aptiv-nfb-low-vision-
riders.
\32\ See Max's Story, Let's Talk Autonomous Driving, https://
ltad.com/story/maxs-story-foundation-for-blind-children.html (last
visited Jan. 28, 2022); Brian's Story, Let's Talk Autonomous Driving,
https://ltad.com/story/brians-story-foundation-senior-living.html (last
visited Jan. 28, 2022); Inclusive Design Challenge Semifinalists, U.S.
Dep't of Transp., https://www.transportation.gov/inclusive-design-
challenge/inclusive-design-challenge-semifinalists#
Waymo (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, older populations also stand to benefit from the
deployment of AVs. The number of Americans over the age of 65 grew by
34% between 2010 and 2020,\33\ with 2016 estimates putting their total
population at 46.2 million (10.6 million in rural areas alone).\34\ By
2030, that number will grow to more than 70 million, or roughly 20% of
the population.\35\ While transportation challenges can vary greatly
between individuals, roughly 600,000 older adults a year give up
driving, with many more changing their driving habits as they age.\36\
Studies have shown that older Americans without access to a car make
15% fewer trips to the doctor and 65% fewer trips to visit friends and
family.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Press Release, U.S. Census Bureau, 65 and Older Population
Grows Rapidly as Baby Boomers Age (June 25, 2020), https://
www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/65-older-population-
grows.html.
\34\ Amy Symens Smith and Edward Trevelyan, ACS-41, U.S. Census
Bureau, The Older Population in Rural America: 2012-2016 (2019),
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/acs/acs-41.html.
\35\ Dabid Dudley, The Driverless Car is (Almost) Here, AARP The
Mag. (Dec.2014/Jan. 2015), http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-
technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html.
\36\ Transportation, Nat'l Ass'n of Area Agencies on Aging, https:/
/www.n4a.org/transportation (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
\37\ Transp. for America, Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options:
Fixing the Mobility Crisis Threatening the Baby Boom Generation (2011),
https://t4america.org/docs/SeniorsMobilityCrisis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, AVs are well positioned to assist older Americans as
they navigate the world. As more people ``age in place'' by staying in
their own homes, on-demand AVs could carry them to doctor's
appointments and shopping trips, and help them visit friends and family
whenever they like.\38\ AVs can also provide similar connections to the
residents of retirement communities, as Voyage (now part of Cruise) did
in a San Jose-based pilot program.\39\ AVs can keep millions of older
Americans connected to their families and communities, and allow them
to retain their independence without risking their safety or the safety
of vulnerable road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Dudley, supra note 35.
\39\ Tara Andringa, When AVs Get Real, Attitudes Change, Medium
(May 19, 2020) https://medium.com/pave-campaign/when-avs-get-real-
attitudes-change-2463101d4dcf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Connecting Rural Communities
AVs also serve as a useful tool in rural communities, which face
many of the same problems as urban and suburban ones, with the added
issue of individuals often having to travel much farther to take care
of their needs. Rural areas are threatened by food deserts \40\ while
also facing motor vehicle death rates three to ten times higher than
other areas.\41\ NHTSA's 2020 early estimates project an 11% increase
in rural road deaths in 2020,\42\ while 2017 numbers show more than
half of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths occur on rural roads.\43\
At the same time, approximately 40% of all rural residents live in
areas with no public transportation.\44\ Almost a quarter of all people
over 65 live in rural areas,\45\ leading to diminishing transportation
options as they age in place. In rural areas, AVs are positioned to
provide the same safety and mobility improvements as they will
elsewhere and to improve the quality of life for residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Lois Wright Morton and Troy C. Blanchard, Starved for Access:
Life in Rural America's Food Deserts, 1 Rural Realities 1, 2007,
https://web.archive.org/web/20131021015542/http://
www.ruralsociology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rural-Realities-1-
4.pdf.
\41\ Passenger Vehicle Occupant (PVO) Deaths and Seat Belt Use
among Rural Americans, Ctr. for Disease Control (Sept. 20, 2017),
https://www.cdc.gov/ruralhealth/motorvehicle/policybrief.html.
\42\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., supra note 10 at 1.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Transp. for America, supra note 37 at 10.
\45\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Improving Public Health
In addition, AVs can serve important environmental goals that
advance public health.\46\ Emissions from motorized vehicles are a
major source of air pollution, which is a leading risk factor for
mortality and morbidity.\47\ Although the American Lung Association has
found that more than 40% of Americans are living in places with
unhealthy air, the effects of poor air quality are disproportionately
experienced by BIPOC.\48\ Specifically, the American Lung Association's
most recent ``State of the Air'' report demonstrates that BIPOC were
61% more likely to live in a county with unhealthy air than white
peers.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See David Rojas-Rueda, et al., Autonomous Vehicles and Public
Health, 41 Ann. Rev. Of Pub. Health 329 (2020), https://
www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094035.
\47\ Id. (citing Health Effects Inst., State of Global Air/2018,
https://www.stateofglobalair.org/sites/default/files/soga-2018-
report.pdf).
\48\ State of the Air: Key Findings, American Lung Ass'n, https://
www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
\49\ Press Release, American Lung Association, More Than 4 in 10
Americans Breath Unhealthy Air, People of Color 3 Times as Likely to
Live in Most Polluted Places (Apr. 21, 2021), https://www.lung.org/
media/press-releases/sota-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVs can positively impact air pollution by reducing emissions as
well as offer an array of significant environmental benefits, ranging
from greater fuel efficiency and reduced congestion to reduced
agricultural spoilage and related preservation of soil and water
resources. In the context of emissions specifically, AVs are helping to
lead the way on reducing emissions, with numerous companies already
using battery electric vehicles (``EVs'') or gasoline-electric hybrids
for their AV fleets, and adoption of EVs is increasing. A study by
Steer found that autonomous, electric local delivery vehicles could
avoid more than 400 million tons of CO2 from 2025-2035.\50\ Embark
Trucks has partnered with HP to help expedite this transition. The two
companies are using Embark's network of transfer hubs to allow for the
direct transfer of goods from autonomous-equipped trucks onto zero-
emissions drayage vehicles which carry computer parts to their final
destination. It is estimated that this process will remove up to 50,000
tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from HP's distribution
network over the next decade.\51\ Additionally, a recent study
demonstrated that AV trucks can reduce fuel consumption of heavy-duty
trucks by at least 10% as a result of more efficient driving, resulting
in a significant reduction of CO2 emissions.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Steer, Economic Impacts of Autonomous Delivery Services in nhe
U.S. XV (2020), https://www.steergroup.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/
200910_%20Nuro_Final_Report_
Public.pdf.
\51\ Alan Adler, Embark Knits BYD Electric Trucks with its
Autonomous Tractors for Cleaner Air, Modern Shipper (Sept. 14, 2021),
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/embark-knits-byd-electric-trucks-
with-its-autonomous-tractors-for-cleaner-air.
\52\ Ryan Gehm, Self-driving trucks cut fuel consumption by 10%,
SAE International (Dec. 19, 2019), https://www.sae.org/news/2019/12/
tusimple-autonomous-trucks-cut-fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. AVs Can Create Jobs and Broadly Benefit the American Economy
The AV industry is currently creating new jobs and bringing new
investment, tax revenue, resources, and human capital to states across
the country, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, Colorado, Texas and the
District of Columbia. A study performed for the Pittsburgh-based
Regional Industrial Development Corporation found that in the
Pittsburgh region alone the autonomous vehicle industry has created
6,500 new jobs, and the global autonomous vehicle industry could be
worth $1 trillion globally by 2026.\53\ The further development of the
AV industry is poised to support the economic competitiveness of
American businesses and help grow the U.S. economy. Currently, the U.S.
is the world leader in the AV industry due to the strength and breadth
of American innovation in the industry. Policies that support the
deployment of AVs are also policies that support the growth of the U.S.
economy. By saving lives, creating jobs, and reducing costs for
consumers the economic benefits of AVs promise to be significant in the
decades to come. Additionally, AV trucking alone is anticipated to
produce substantial economic benefits for both consumers and workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ TEConomy Partners, Forefront: Securing Pittsburgh's Break-Out
Position in Autonomous Mobile Systems ES-1-2 (2021), https://ridc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PGH-Autonomy-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Job Expansion in the AV Industry
The AV industry is creating jobs and providing opportunities for
workers with a wide array of expertise and educational backgrounds,
including many jobs that do not require a college degree. Today, in
locations across the country, AV developers and manufacturers are
hiring auto technicians, fleet managers, safety operations specialists,
sensor calibrators, transportation planners, engineers, and many others
to support the testing and deployment of AV technology. Additionally,
as the industry continues to expand, delivery workers, and grocery
store employees will be involved in selecting, packing, and delivering
goods to consumers, among other jobs and roles that will emerge. AVs
can expand access to affordable delivery while also creating over three
million new jobs by 2035, as retailers and delivery providers expand
their services, according to a study by Steer.
In addition, the AV industry is investing in partnerships to create
the jobs of the future. For example, Nuro's program with De Anza
Community College will offer a new career pathway to prepare the next
generation of autonomous fleet technicians.\54\ The initiative, which
will include more locations in the near future, includes a free tuition
option, access to paid internships and part time work, and preference
for full time jobs and full benefits upon graduation. Another example
is TuSimple's work with Pima Community College, which established an AV
certificate program to prepare drivers for new jobs such as training AV
systems as test drivers, operating the AV in situations where
autonomous driving is not suitable, and remotely monitoring the system
from a command center.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Autonomous and Electric Vehicle Technician Pathway, De Anza
College, https://www.deanza.edu/autotech/
av#: :text=A%20New%20Career%20Pathway%20With,nation
%20%E2%80%94%20for%20De%20Anza%20students (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
\55\ Linda Baker, TuSimple and Pima Community College Launch First-
Ever AV Certificate Program for Truck Drivers, Freight Waves (June 13,
2019), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/tusimple-and-pima-community-
college-launch-first-ever-av-certificate-program-for-truck-drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Consumer Savings
AVs can reduce the costs of consumer goods as well as
transportation. To highlight one example, AVs have the potential to
significantly reduce the cost of deliveries for consumers, with some
pilots costing only $5.95 per grocery delivery, compared to the added
costs of between $10 and $20 charged by existing delivery services.\56\
With respect to transportation costs--which amount to the second-
largest expense for most households \57\--AVs could reduce average
household costs by as much as $5,600 per year when consumers rely on
shared fleets of AVs.\58\ This would be particularly impactful in food
deserts, rural communities, and other areas that do not yet have
significant, accessible public transit options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Steer, supra note 49 at XI.
\57\ Fostering Economic Opportunity through Autonomous Vehicle
Technology, SAFE (Jul 16, 2020) https://secureenergy.org/fostering-
economic-opportunity-through-autonomous-vehicle-technology-2/.
\58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Economic Benefits of AV Trucking
In the coming years, autonomous trucking will fundamentally alter
interstate commerce by changing the manner and speed in which goods
move in our country while making roads safer for everyone, AV trucks
can increase long-haul efficiency and capacity, which will in turn
improve the efficiency of countless industries that rely on moving
goods on trucks, such as agriculture, retail, and manufacturing.
Importantly, AV trucks will be part of a comprehensive trucking
ecosystem that works with human drivers, not against them. Adoption of
this technology will not lead to mass layoffs; it will lead to a
positive lifestyle change for thousands of truckers, allowing them to
stay closer to home during the day instead of driving routes that keep
them on the road for weeks at a time. Our members' technology will
allow drivers to spend more nights in their own beds instead of in the
sleeper berth of a truck. That's a change we believe will be welcomed
by many truckers.
A recent study funded by USDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration also indicated that adoption of AV trucking will
increase total U.S. employment by 26,400 to 35,100 jobs per year on
average and raise annual earnings for all U.S. workers by between $203
and $267 per worker per year.\59\ Given the timeline for AV truck
deployment, autonomous trucking is not likely to cause significant
displacement of jobs in the trucking industry,\60\ but it can serve as
one tool to reduce strains on the supply chain caused, in part, by the
longstanding truck driver shortage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Robert Waschik et al., John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Ctr.,
Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in Long-Haul
Trucking (2021), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
\60\ See Securing Am. Future Energy, America's Workforce and the
Self-Driving Future Realizing Productivity Gains and Spurring Economic
Growth (June 2018), https://avworkforce.secureenergy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/Americas-Workforce-and-the-Self-Driving-
Future_Realizing-Productivity-Gains-and-Spurring-Economic-Growth.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV trucking also holds substantial potential to decrease the cost
of goods. Sixty-five percent of U.S. consumable goods are brought to
market by trucks, and the implementation of full autonomy in the
trucking sector stands to decrease operating costs by about 45%--
resulting in savings between $85 billion and $125 billion.\61\ The
benefits to our nation's economy, workers, and supply chains make AV
trucking well positioned to complement the broader array of economic
benefits that AV deployment will bring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Aisha Chottani, et al., Mckinsey & Co., Distraction or
Disruption? Autonomous Trucks Gain Ground in US Logistics (Dec. 10,
2018), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-
infrastructure/our-insights/distraction-or-disruption-autonomous-
trucks-gain-ground-in-us-logistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. U.S. Leadership in AV Development Should Not be Taken for Granted
The United States is leading the world in the development and
deployment of AV technology, but the U.S. risks losing our
technological and automotive leadership in a global market worth an
estimated $8 trillion \62\ due to foreign competition. America's
leadership role is integral to securing the economic growth, job
creation and many safety and societal benefits offered by AVs. However,
as explained below, foreign competitors are moving to surpass our
progress through policy changes and government investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Michael Wayland, GM's Cruise Values Autonomous Vehicle
Industry at $8 Trillion, CNBC (Feb. 5, 2020), https://www.cnbc.com/
2020/02/05/gms-cruise-values-autonomous-vehicle-industry-at-8-
trillion.html. The estimate includes ride-hailing, trucking, data
services, and telematics/infotainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China. China's government is investing heavily in developing
autonomous vehicles as part of its strategy to overtake and replace
foreign market leaders. The Chinese government has prioritized AV
development and included AVs in the Made in China 2025 strategic
initiative, which encourages local governments to open roads for
testing.\63\ One company, AutoX, backed by e-commerce giant Alibaba,
announced the launch of autonomous taxis on public roads across an area
three times the size of Manhattan within Shenzhen in January 2021.\64\
In 2020, Apollo Go, backed by China's leading search engine Baidu, was
authorized to launch a pilot of the first paid AV taxi (or
``robotaxi'') service in Beijing,\65\ and has also begun public tests
in Shanghai.\66\ Many other Chinese companies are investing in AV
technology and testing, including Huawei, Pony.ai, WeRide.ai, Didi
Chuxing, and Momenta. These companies are also attracting investment
from other countries around the world. However, Chinese companies
recognize that American talent and investment is a key to competing
with the U.S. for leadership in the AV industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Michael Dunne, China Races for Global Leadership in AVs, Axios
(Oct. 27, 2018), https://www.axios.com/china-races-for-global-
leadership-in-autonomous-vehicles-6a3a8059-d170-47e6-87d5-
fbb6fa8e738b.html.
\64\ Rita Liao, China's Robotaxis Charged Ahead in 2021, Techcrunch
(Jan. 14, 2022), https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/14/2021-robotaxi-
china/.
\65\ Id.
\66\ Rebecca Bellan, Chinese Tech giant Baidu Begins Publicly
Testing Apollo Go Robotaxis in Shanghai, Techcrunch (Sept. 14, 2021),
https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/13/chinese-tech-giant-baidu-begins-
publicly-testing-apollo-go-robotaxis-in-shanghai/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore. Singapore is ranked #1 in the world in regard to AV
readiness \67\ and has launched an autonomous commuter bus available to
residents for a small fee.\68\ The government of Singapore has also
opened over 620 square miles of road for AV testing, and has set a
target of having AV bus service to three new towns by the end of
2022.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ KPMG International, 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index
12 (2020), https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/06/autonomous-
vehicles-readiness-index.html.
\68\ Eileen Yu, First Commercial Autonomous Bus Services Hit
Singapore Roads, ZDNet (Jan. 25, 2021), https://www.zdnet.com/article/
first-commercial-autonomous-bus-services-hit-singapore-roads/.
\69\ KPMG International supra note 66 at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany. Germany passed a law in 2021 that amended the national
road traffic law to create an approval framework for L4+ capable
vehicles.\70\ Mobileye is already testing vehicles in Munich,\71\ and
in 2021, Argo AI and Volkswagen announced they would commence on-road
testing in Germany with an intended launch date for AV commercial
delivery and micro-transit services in 2025.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Jack Ewing, How Germany Hopes to Get the Edge in Driverless
Technology, N.Y. Times (July 14, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
07/14/business/germany-autonomous-driving-new-law.html.
\71\ Kyle Hyatt, Intel's Mobileye Goes for an Autonomous Spin
Around Munich, CNET: Roadshow (Dec. 15, 2020), https://www.cnet.com/
roadshow/news/mobileye-self-driving-munich-demonstration/.
\72\ Andrew Hawkins, VW Will Start Testing its Argo AI-powered
Self-driving Vans in Germany this Summer, The Verge (May 12, 2021),
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/12/22430813/vw-argo-autonomous-
delivery-ride-pooling-germany.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Kingdom. In 2021, the United Kingdom (``UK'') legalized
automated lane keeping systems (SAE Level 3), and on January 26, 2022,
the Law Commission of England and Wales, along with the Scottish Law
Commission released a joint report recommending new laws to regulate
AVs in Great Britain.\73\ The UK government also touted a report last
year that AVs could generate 41.7 billion and 40,000 skilled jobs by
2035 for the UK, and the country has invested 200 million into British
AV startups.\74\ AV testing is already underway across the country with
backing from the UK government, universities, technology companies, and
research institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Law Comm'n of England and Wales & Scottish Law Comm'n,
Automated Vehicles: Summary of Joint Report (2022), https://s3-eu-west-
2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2022/01/AV-
Summary-25-01-22-1.pdf.
\74\ UK on the Cusp of a Transport Revolution, as Self-driving
Vehicles Set to be Worth Nearly 42 billion by 2035, Gov.uk (Jan. 13,
2021), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-on-the-cusp-of-a-
transport-revolution-as-self-driving-vehicles-set-to-be-worth-nearly-
42-billion-by-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
France. The French Council of Ministers passed an ordinance on
April 14, 2021 amending the French road traffic law to allow L4+
deployment.\75\ Late last year, the French government also approved a
Level 4 AV shuttle to carry passengers on public roads.\76\ Further,
France has indicated it will implement its own L4+ type approval
requirements by September 2022, if the EU has not done so already.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Johnna Crider, France is Preparing for the Arrival of
Autonomous Driving, Cleantechnica (July 4, 2021), https://
cleantechnica.com/2021/07/04/france-is-preparing-for-the-arrival-of-
autonomous-driving/.
\76\ David Rogers, Europe's First Fully Autonomous Vehicle to Carry
People in Toulouse, Global Construction Rev. (Nov. 29, 2021), https://
www.globalconstructionreview.com/europes-first-fully-autonomous-
vehicle-to-carry-people-in-toulouse/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan. Japan enacted a Road Transport Vehicle law in 2020
recognizing AVs and establishing an inspection regime and permit
system.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Kazuhiro Ogawa, Japan Revamps Laws to put Self-driving Cars on
Roads, NikkeiAsia (Mar. 9, 2019), https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/
Japan-revamps-laws-to-put-self-driving-cars-on-roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Countries. Other countries, including the Netherlands,
Norway, Finland, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, also
continue to make significant strides to incorporate AVs into the
transportation landscape.
The American automobile and technology industries will continue to
develop, test, and eventually deploy AVs. However, as other foreign
governments move forward, and in some cases give a leg up to their own
domestic industries, the U.S. risks ceding its leadership position and
market opportunity. To guard against this outcome, the U.S. should
adopt a national policy framework that unlocks more opportunities for
American companies to test and deploy AVs safely.
III. National Framework
In order to advance toward a future that maximizes the benefits of
AV technology, both the AV industry and policymakers will need to work
together to establish a national framework for the safe and swift
deployment of AVs. In the section below, we outline the core elements
of such a framework: (a) enhancing public trust in safety, and (b)
maximizing the deployment of safe AV technology with clear federal and
state roles.
A. Enhance Public Trust in AV Safety
As with any new technology, the AV industry understands that many
people have questions about how AVs work and how they affect local
communities. To answer these questions, the industry will continue to
take steps to educate the public about the safety of AV systems.
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association member companies that are
engaged in AV testing and development have joined or will join NHTSA's
voluntary ``Automated Vehicle Transparency and Engagement for Safe
Testing Initiative'' (``AV TEST Initiative'') to provide the public
with direct and easy access to information about testing of automated
driving system-equipped vehicles. Participation in the AV TEST
Initiative will increase the public awareness of on-road testing,
safety precautions, and principles guiding the testing. Our members
that are engaged in AV testing and development also are publishing, and
updating as necessary and appropriate, safety evaluation reports that
contain detailed information meant to educate the public and NHTSA
about the SAE Level 4 technology being tested or deployed. Other
initiatives that the industry is taking include working with public
safety officials to educate them about how to interact with AVs with no
human driver present in the vehicle and supporting increased funding
for NHTSA to reinforce the role that the agency is playing to support
the safe deployment of AV technology and to help ensure that the agency
is able to resolve rulemakings and exemption petitions in a timely
fashion.
B. Maximize Deployment of Safe AV Technology
The industry's work to enhance public trust in AV safety goes hand
in hand with a policy framework that is optimized to bring the swift
deployment of AV technology to the public. Below, we identify the core
elements of such a framework:
i. Preserving traditional state roles in vehicle operation
licensing, registration, inspection, and insurance, and the federal
government's exclusive authority over vehicle safety performance.
ii. Preserving the traditional federal role in vehicle operation,
licensing, inspection, repair, and maintenance for commercial vehicles
transporting property or passengers in interstate commerce.
iii. Lifting vehicle exemption caps and creating predictable
processing timelines.
iv. Completing a rulemaking or series of rulemakings on removing
barriers to the deployment of AV technology.
v. Expanding eligibility for the test exemption in the FAST Act to
level the playing field among all stakeholders in the AV and automated
driving system development ecosystem.
vi. Clarifying that practices to avoid rider interference with
conventional driver controls during autonomous operation do not fall
within NHTSA's interpretation of the ``make inoperative provision.''
vii. Ensuring that no government policy, legislation, or
regulation should require people who are unable to obtain a driver's
license to obtain a license to be a passenger in an AV. People without
a driver's license should not be precluded from obtaining the mobility
benefits of this technology.
IV. Conclusion
We face a safety crisis on our roads caused in large part by human
behavior. AV deployment will make our roads safer, and can improve
transportation equity, freight efficiency, and economic growth. As
other countries take steps to realize these benefits, the U.S. should
not take its leadership position for granted. Through a national
framework that enhances consumer trust and maximizes AV deployment, we
can seize this momentous opportunity. I want to thank the Subcommittee
for its leadership on these important issues. The Autonomous Vehicle
Industry Association looks forward to serving as a resource concerning
both technical and policy questions and working with you to make safe
autonomous vehicles a reality for Americans nationwide. I look forward
to answering any questions that you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf.
I now record recognize the chair of the full committee, Mr.
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to all the
witnesses for the testimony. This is a very important hearing,
and the committee needs to be focused more on these issues.
I would like to address one particular concern. Pretty much
all of the discussion in Congress has been about the
technology, the vehicles themselves. I think there has been
very little discussion of the current state of our
infrastructure and whether or not it is suitable, and, if not,
what sort of measures do we need to implement in order to have
vehicles safely deployed throughout the whole United States?
Would anyone like to comment on that?
Ms. Castex-Tatum. Thank you for that question, Chair
DeFazio.
Many of the autonomous vehicle companies have stated that
the infrastructure needed is not different from the current
infrastructure of drivers today. We can all benefit from
improved roads, fewer potholes, and better lines. But the
information that we have received in Houston is that these
vehicles will operate with the infrastructure that we currently
have in our cities.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, but, I mean, some of them are dependent
on camera--I mean, they use different ways of navigating.
And if anybody else would like to comment, because I am
concerned that when many States don't put state of good repair
at the top of their list, that there are many roads that don't
have adequate fog lines, that don't have good markings and
other things that many of these vehicles are dependent upon to
range more widely. Anyone want to comment on that?
Mr. Beuse. Yes, Mr. Chair, I can comment on that. I think,
being in a city that just experienced a pretty horrific bridge
collapse--and thank goodness that there were no fatalities--the
point that you raised is really, really important to understand
around maintenance of the current infrastructure.
While I completely agree with what Ms. Tatum was saying,
there are normal things that make driving as human beings good,
and those are good for self-driving vehicles. But to your
point, everybody has sometimes a different approach. And so,
when we talk about this issue, I think it is really more about
what can we do to make the current environment safer. So,
whether that be striping, whether that be making sure road
signs are there, whether that be even equipping current-day
vehicles with different technologies, all of those things
together, actually, will help the deployment of AVs, as opposed
to where we treat them now as sort of these very discrete and
different issues.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you. Anybody else?
Ms. Chase. Mr. Chair, yes. Mr. Chair, Cathy Chase.
I agree with some of the points that you already astutely
pointed out, in terms of improvements that need to be made both
for vehicles now, as well as vehicles of the future, especially
as our population is aging. Signage needs to be improved.
Different lines of sighting need to be improved for autonomous
vehicles.
I also am thinking about a few years ago, when the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on
infrastructure and autonomous vehicles, and then-head of the
New York City Department of Transportation, now Deputy
Secretary of Transportation, Polly Trottenberg, said something
to the effect of: New York City is never going to have a
perfect infrastructure; these vehicles better be ready to
pretty much deal with what they are going to come upon. And we
agree with that. And that is why we are pushing so hard for
these minimum standards, like a vision test, so that when a car
or truck takes over the responsibility of seeing, that we know
that the vehicle itself will actually see and respond to what
is happening.
So, I think we need a holistic approach, where the
infrastructure needs to be improved both now--because people
are holding on to cars for approximately 12 years--and vehicles
of the future. And all of this can be accomplished. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. I want to----
Voice. Mr. Chair?
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Quickly make another point,
because this is very important.
Tomorrow we are holding a hearing on 5G. The FCC created
issues, the way it was deployed. But we also saw that the FCC
has proposed selling more than half of the vehicle-to-vehicle
communication spectrum.
Mr. Marler, you referenced this. Can you just comment on
how abysmally stupid that is?
Mr. Marler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would be happy to offer
a few perspectives from the State DOTs. And to link it to the
previous question about infrastructure, we all want good
pavement condition.
We all think that lane markings and clear signage are very
important. These will help drivers today and the CAVs tomorrow.
But the digital infrastructure is just as important to enable
the future transportation systems. We are talking about
communications, we are talking about data standards, we are
talking about digital mapping.
So, with specific regard to connectivity, we believe that
the safety promise of the CAVs will be enhanced through
connectivity. So, preserving the 5.9 gigahertz safety band,
this would add certainty, not only for State and local
jurisdictions, but also for developers and manufacturers, and
we do see that as a key component of any future automated
transportation system.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My time has expired.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I now recognize Mr.
Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
I would note that this hearing was originally scheduled for
10 a.m. I don't know how many people this change
inconvenienced, but I would hope that we could, at the very
least, maintain a schedule.
And further, perhaps if we held hearings more frequently,
we wouldn't need to jam eight witnesses into a single panel. At
the very least it is unwieldy, but it also does a disservice to
both witnesses and members of this committee by constraining
meaningful dialogue.
Let me say this. I want to direct a question to Catherine
Chase.
In your written testimony to the committee in November on
challenges to the supply chain, you responded to the argument
that many of my colleagues and myself made that, if 18 is old
enough to put your life on the line and drive a convoy into
battle, then it is old enough to make a living as a commercial
truckdriver. Your testimony dismissed that idea. Not only did
you miss the point of the argument, but you minimized the hard
work and sacrifice of young men and women in uniform with an
offensive political cartoon depicting seven sailors operating
one compact car, including one sleeping in the back, presumably
because it is such an easy task.
Ms. Chase, would you consider manning military vehicles an
easy job?
Ms. Chase. No, sir.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. If 18 is old enough to die for
your country, is it not old enough to choose to make an honest
living as a truckdriver?
Ms. Chase. Well, I would like to first address a comment
that you made----
Mr. Crawford. That is a yes or no question, ma'am. That is
a yes or no question.
Ms. Chase. I----
Mr. Crawford. Is 18 old enough to die for your country--can
they also drive a truck?
Ms. Chase. They are not comparable questions. It is an
apples to oranges.
Mr. Crawford. They are. That is an absolute yes or no
question. And you are taking a position that, as a military
veteran, I find offensive, and many of the Members on this
panel who are military veterans find offensive.
Not only did you make that comment, but you included this
[indicating a ``Broadside'' cartoon], which is already in the
record, but I will ask unanimous consent to enter it into this
record.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
``Broadside'' Cartoon by Jeff Bacon, Included in a Letter From
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety,
Published in the November 17, 2021, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Hearing Transcript Entitled, ``Industry and Labor
Perspectives: A Further Look at North American Supply Chain
Challenges,'' Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick''
Crawford
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Crawford. I find that highly offensive, as a veteran,
and I think most veterans would, that your position is that we
are either incompetent and/or lazy and not well trained.
So, I am asking you again, this is a yes or no question, if
18 years old is old enough to die for your country, shouldn't
they be old enough to make a living driving a truck?
Ms. Chase. Sir, the point of the----
Mr. Crawford. Yes or no, and then I will go on to my other
witnesses.
Ms. Chase. It is very difficult----
Mr. Crawford. Yes or no, and I will go on to my other
witnesses.
Ms. Chase. Please go on to your other witnesses.
Mr. Crawford. So, you have no answer to that question? We
know how you feel about it, based on the cartoon you entered in
the record earlier in your testimony.
Ms. Chase. I am trying----
Mr. Crawford. OK, I will move on. I will move on to Mr.
Ariel Wolf and Mr. Nat Beuse.
We certainly, in my district, like many other districts, a
lot of truckdrivers out there--and I know how vital trucks have
been to the American economy, especially during the COVID
pandemic and our recent supply chain crisis. Can you talk about
how you envision higher levels of automation, making truck-
driving jobs safer, and what impacts that will have, in terms
of efficiencies on automated trucking and productivity?
Mr. Wolf. Congressman, I am happy to take that question,
and thank you for it.
I think the place to start is the well-documented and
longstanding truckdriver shortage that is having an impact on
the economy as we speak, and the supply chain. And that issue,
in concert with the U.S. Department of Transportation study
that showed a net increase of jobs, as many as 35,000 per year,
in addition to other economic benefits, leads us to the
conclusion it really is time to shift the way we think about
the conversation around jobs and autonomous trucks. These are
two areas that can complement each other in this ecosystem.
And as that technology moves forward, I would just also say
it is a matter of safety as a baseline matter, because as we
have talked about the safety statistics worsening over time, 14
percent of fatal crashes, serious crashes, involve heavy
trucks. So, getting this technology deployed is essential in
that respect.
And on the jobs front, we certainly see, overall, an
increase in jobs, economic growth. And as I noted in testimony,
as the ecosystem grows, there are a number of different roles
and new kinds of jobs that are going to be created in this
exciting area.
So, I think, all of that taken together, we see a lot of
positive activity going forward.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. Mr. Beuse?
Mr. Beuse. Congressman, thank you for the question. I think
I will mention two things.
Part of the challenge we have with this space is the
lumping of all the technologies together, and we call them all
automated. Certainly, there are technologies in the pipeline,
some already on vehicles today on commercial trucks, that make
the driving task easier for human drivers.
And then there is technology like that we are working on,
which is really around the driving task, which could make the
driving trucking jobs different in the future.
So, it is not about some sort of replacement thing. And
that is exactly why we are doing this pilot with FedEx, is so
that we can learn all of these different issues beyond just:
does the tech work? It is actually: how do we introduce this
technology into the existing system in a way that is--and
frankly--seamless, right? We don't want to introduce additional
friction into a system that already has a bunch of friction in
it.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Samuelsen, your testimony makes a strong case for
ensuring workforce needs are addressed as deployment of
commercial AVs becomes more prevalent. I share your concerns
that, if left unchecked, automated vehicles may create
tremendous hardship for commercial motor vehicle drivers.
So, my question is, what steps can Congress and the Federal
Government take to harness the safety benefits of automated
trucks and buses, while at the same time supporting a stable,
well-paid surface transportation workforce?
And do you believe that addressing commercial driver
workforce needs and employing AV technology are mutually
exclusive goals, or can both be attained?
Mr. Samuelsen?
Mr. Samuelsen. Thank you for the question.
So, we have a situation now where there are waves of
technology coming into public transport--buses, for instance,
the operation of buses--that require an absolute robust Federal
regulatory framework for them to be deployed safely. And I
think the first thing that needs to be done is that there needs
to be a Federal check that anything that goes on to highways,
roads in America, meet a regulatory minimum that is set forth
by the Federal Government.
And the second piece of that is, I have listened to some of
these questions back and forth about automated technology and
impact on the workforce. I think that the impact on the
workforce has the chance to be extreme. Right now, there are,
despite discussion about automating technology being introduced
for safety reasons, for many other reasons, there are transit
systems and operators across the country right now that are
embracing this technology simply for the purpose of reducing
headcount. And that is absolutely true.
We deal with transit employees across the country, public-
sector operators that are looking to reduce budgets, and
private-sector operators that are looking to maximize profit,
and all doing this without any regard for the future safety of
highways or roads. And I think that the only intervener there
that can prevent this from happening in a chaotic way is the
Federal Government.
And in terms of the use of automated technology
simultaneously with human operators, I think that is the way to
go to utilize automated technology, augmenting and assisting
humans operating vehicles, particularly in public transit.
There is no working American that believes that replacing buses
with automation is a good thing for working people who use
public transit in America. Nobody believes it.
And also, this notion that the introduction of automation
is going to somehow create new jobs, we have heard all of this
with NAFTA. We have heard it many, many times with NAFTA, with
normalization of trade with China, that somehow the
introduction of automated technology that could replace human
operators is going to produce more jobs. We have heard that, we
have seen that movie already, and have absolutely no trust or
faith in this technology coming in in a positive way, unless
the Federal Government steps up and regulates. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuelsen.
Mr. Beuse and Mr. Wolf, the last time the subcommittee held
a hearing on this topic was in 2013. That is going on 10 years
ago. And at that time, AVs were still considered a technology
of the future. But today there are at least 1,400 AVs,
including automatic commercial vehicles, being tested on U.S.
roadways in 36 different States.
What do you think is a realistic timeline for deployment of
your technology, specifically vehicles with Level 4 automation
and above, and when can Americans expect to see these vehicles
driving on the roads next to them?
Mr. Wolf. Madam Chair, I am happy to jump in, and then
defer to my colleague on the panel here.
I think that, as a baseline matter, we see this technology
on the roads today, as you noted. One of the most important
things to see this technology scale--and again, it is, as Mr.
Beuse noted, being used in pilot projects carrying freight, and
helping to alleviate the supply chain crisis that we face, as
well as other instances where the technology--and one example
in Arizona: providing meals to individuals that live in food
deserts is just another example.
But to scale this technology, the timeline is somewhat
dependent on building a national framework that will accomplish
two things: one is to enhance consumer trust in the technology,
but then two is to maximize deployment.
And in my written testimony I note a number of different
steps that we are eager to continue to work with this
committee--and we are thankful for the work thus far in other
committees in Congress and stakeholders--to develop a national
framework that will maximize the deployment of this technology
so that we can start to see those benefits that we have talked
about a number of times accrue to the public.
Ms. Norton. My time has expired, and I go next to Mr. Bost.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I go on to my
questions that I have prepared, I would like to associate
myself with the comments that Representative Crawford made,
because, as a member on this committee--probably the only one
that actually had my license for a tractor-trailer when I was
16, was driving when I was 18, and by the time I turned 19, I
was in the Marine Corps. All of those things I was very capable
of handling, and handling safely. My family believed in me. The
State of Illinois actually tested me out and, by golly, guess
what? I passed that driver's test at 16 years old, never had a
car license, only had a tractor-trailer license.
At a time when the United States is needing people to be
available to work, wise decisions based on the individual, not
discriminating against them because of their age, would
probably be a lot wiser thing to do than to have cute cartoons
about where we are at right now, and what we are needing.
That being said, Mr. Wolf, the development and deployment
of automated trucks is already raising a question for
truckdrivers about what the future of their profession would
look like. Many are wondering how their work will change, and
what new skills they will need.
To help us kind of understand what the future would look
like for drivers, could you describe the level of
standardization between the various AVs, as far as trucks, and
their technologies that are being developed by different
manufacturers?
For example, if a trucker is trained to operate one of the
trucks that Aurora has developed, would their skills be easily
transferable to the drivers of a different manufactured truck
or technology?
And would the driver need to have separate or additional
training? Do we know that?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I am
happy to address it.
I think maybe the place to start is to understand that
there are two different kinds of technologies here, and the
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, we are working with,
of course, autonomous vehicle technology, which is so-called
full automation, where the technology is not designed nor is it
expected for a human to be involved in the driving task. That
is distinct from driver assistance technology, which many of us
have seen: lane-keep assist, adaptive cruise control. And
others have described it. And that technology, there is an
expectation for a licensed human operator or driver to take
back control, or to be vigilant at all times to take control.
So, those two are very different kinds of technologies, and I
think that distinction is critical, because oftentimes it can
be conflated.
So, in that respect, I can't speak to the expectation to
licensed human drivers in the driver assistance context, and
the technology in that sphere. But in the autonomous vehicle
side, again, the expectation is that there would not be a
driver to take back control. For the time being, there are
safety operators and monitors involved there, and I would defer
to individual members of our association to speak to the
transferability of those skills.
Mr. Bost. I understand. I appreciate that answer.
Mr. Samuelsen, well-trained mechanics are essential for
keeping our trucks and buses safe and on the road. What
additional training needs will there be for mechanics, for
having automated systems?
Are there additional safety concerns for workers around the
automated trains or buses?
And what can we do to make sure that the maintenance
workers are prepared for these type of vehicles, once they
start in operation?
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, thank you for the question. So,
workforce development forced by Federal intervention, Federal
regulatory requirements, is of the utmost importance with the
advent of these latest waves of technology coming in, and AV
technology and electric buses closely related.
And if that is a model going forward of what we could
potentially expect, electric buses, which seem like such a
great idea in terms of greening the environment, greening urban
America, have had the unintended consequence of a massive,
massive negative impact on workers, particularly bus mechanics.
So, we anticipate a 30- to 40-percent reduction in bus
mechanics that would be necessary when the bus fleets across
America are fully electric. or fully zero emissions. Without
the combustion engine, it is just a lot less maintenance
required.
So, what we see is a necessity for workforce development, a
necessity by the Federal Government to ensure that our current
mechanics on diesel buses are able to make the transition to
work on the new fleet, and that systems and the trade union
movement are able to work collectively to figure out how the
existing workforce--how the negative effects can be mitigated
as best available. So, the Federal Government is extremely
valuable in this. They are going to be the guide here.
And again, a regulatory framework and with workforce
development requirements is vital. Thank you.
Mr. Bost. Thank you.
My time has expired. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I recognize next Ms. Johnson of Texas.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
thank you for holding this hearing. I have a question for Mr.
Bloch, but I will do a part of my statement first.
Over the last 3 years, the Dallas-Fort Worth area has
become one of our Nation's central testing grounds for AV
trucking technology. And two companies, Kodiak Robotics and
Waymo, have opened operational hubs in my district. And another
company, Aurora, expanded into the Dallas-Fort Worth area in
June of 2020, bringing high-quality, high-tech jobs to many of
my constituents.
Indeed, this wave of investment is due in large part to the
leadership and close coordination demonstrated by Dallas
College, which is our community college network; the North
Central Texas Council of Governments; the Dallas Regional
Chamber; the Texas Department of Transportation; and the Texas
Department of Public Safety. Dallas College has been a leader
in creating workforce development in our community college
district, focused on the future of transportation, in part
fueled by $1\1/2\ million granted from COG to develop a
curriculum for AV and transportation tech jobs.
However, although AV technology has the potential to
provide many societal benefits, serious questions remain. Like
many of my colleagues, I am concerned about the issues related
to safety, and want to make sure that a strong Federal safety
framework is enacted and adhered to in the industry.
Additionally, as we move forward, I believe that the
Congress and AV industry should incorporate labor priorities,
and address the workforce needs by including policies aimed at
mitigating both job losses and any potential wage decreases.
And lastly, I urge the AV industry to invest in the
creation of high-quality jobs for those who may face
displacement.
Now we have a large traffic in trade. And this was simply a
way to try to keep things moving. I noticed that most people
are worried about the jobs, and we are too, except that we have
such a small number of drivers for the traffic we have.
So, Mr. Bloch, I want to thank you for highlighting a
provision that I fought to include in the INVEST Act regarding
workforce retraining. As you can imagine, I was more than
disappointed that the Senate deleted that language from the
final bill. Would you be able to expand on what kinds of
programs you would like to see when you mention workforce
retraining programs for surface transportation workers whose
jobs have been affected by automation?
Now, I have the largest Teamsters local in the country in
my district, so, I would like you to respond to that, if you
will.
Mr. Bloch. Thank you very much for the question. I am
thinking about legislation we are introducing in the California
State Legislature, in the public transit arena, that will make
it a subject of collective bargaining when AV technology is
introduced in the public transit arena. And I think the
important thing is that impacted workers get notice of new
technology before it is introduced, and have a chance to
respond and have a voice.
Now, I gave some examples out of the canneries, where
canneries were closed, and workers were thrown out there at the
mercy of workforce development, and it did not work well for
them. So, I do think it is important to get ahead of this, and
I appreciate the efforts that are happening in your district.
Here, we represent 800 workers at a bus company called
Gillig. They are the highest paid manufacturing workers in the
United States. They make buses that Mr. Samuelsen's members
drive. And we are doing a partnership with Gillig with
workforce development funding from the State of California to
train workers to work on zero-emission vehicle buses.
We really do think there are win-win scenarios out here,
where we can leverage Federal and State money to train workers
for the jobs of the future. But again, the important thing here
is that, at least in California, when employers get money,
there are strong labor standards attached to that: prevailing
wages, minimum wages, so that we make sure that the workers
that we are training actually stick around and get retained in
their work.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. I am out of
time, but I ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my
questions in the record for attention, and the rest of my
statement.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Highways and Transit Subcommittee
Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis for holding today's hearing.
I would also like to thank our outstanding witnesses for testifying
before us today.
Right before the holidays last December I took my staff to tour
Kodiak Robotics' AV facility at the Dallas Inland Port, located in my
congressional district. Seeing first-hand the technology being
developed at this facility was truly impressive.
In fact, over the last three years the Dallas-Fort Worth area has
become one of our nation's central testing grounds for AV trucking
technology. And two companies--Kodiak Robotics and Waymo--have opened
operations hubs in my district, and another company, Aurora, expanded
into the Dallas-Ft. Worth area in June 2020, bringing high-quality,
high-tech jobs to many of my constituents.
Indeed, this wave of investment is due in large part to the
leadership and close coordination demonstrated by Dallas College, the
North Central Texas Council of Governments, the Dallas Regional
Chamber, the Texas Department of Transportation, and the Texas
Department of Public Safety. Dallas College has been a leader in
creating workforce development programs focused on the future of
transportation, in part fueled by a $1.5 million grant from the COG to
develop a curriculum for AV and transportation tech jobs, and through
this grant, Dallas College has been partnering with the growing
industry throughout the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.
However, although AV technology has the potential to provide many
societal benefits, serious questions remain. Like many of my
colleagues, I am concerned about issues related to safety, and want to
make sure that a strong federal safety framework is enacted and adhered
to by the industry. Additionally, as we move forward, I believe that
Congress and the AV industry should incorporate labor priorities and
address workforce needs by including policies aimed at mitigating both
job losses and any potential wage decreases. Lastly, I urge leaders in
the AV industry to invest in the creation of high-quality jobs for
those that may face displacement by this emerging technology.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Stauber, I recognize Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Thank you all for being here today,
and I think we have all learned a lot about the industry and
about this technology already during this hearing.
I will preface this with saying that I think that Congress
needs to get this right, and I think there is a happy medium
between letting tech companies rule our streets and applying
over-restrictive Government regulations on the industry.
My first question has to do with the actual technology used
in the AVs. As technology progresses, I have no doubt that we
will see more of these vehicles throughout the country, not
just in cities or in areas where there are company-specific
engineers to make repairs to vehicles. We have already seen
with some manufacturers that they are limiting who can actually
do work on their vehicles.
I can tell you that I trust my local mechanic a lot more
than someone who needs to fly out to my hometown of northern
Minnesota from Silicon Valley to do the repairs. And Mr.
Garamendi, this should not be offensive to you.
I just want to know, Mr. Wolf or Beuse, how are companies
looking at these types of issues as we move into the future?
Mr. Beuse. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I will
take a shot at it, and then I will pass it over to Ariel to
talk about just kind of what we are doing at this stage.
So, obviously, we are still in the testing phase, and
getting kind of really focused on the path to shipping a
product. One of the things we are learning in all of that is
exactly the questions you are asking about, so, how do we think
about maintenance, the schedule of those, what that really
looks like.
I think a key point to reference here is the fact that the
technology that we are developing is really more of in a
business-to-business relationship. So, think about a FedEx or
Walmart or an Amazon who has their own fleet of vehicles, who
is maintaining that fleet of vehicles for the operations that
they are conducting, versus the point you excellently made
about you or I in our personal vehicle needing to get a repair
at the local repair shop where we choose to go.
I think, again, this is where we and our principals are
very supportive of Congress actually doing more on
commissioning any studies on jobs, and that they really be
around the quality of those jobs, because they are going to be
slightly different than I think what we envision today.
Mr. Stauber. OK, thank you.
And Mr. Wolf?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, sir. I may just add in response to
that question that the autonomous vehicle industry is a diverse
industry with respect to use cases and applications.
And so, in thinking about those important issues you
raised, there is, of course, personal vehicle ownership, there
is deployment in a fleet model, there is autonomous trucking,
and then there is last-mile autonomous delivery services. In a
sense, it is not one size fits all. There may be different
conversations in each of those use cases as those businesses
start to continue to scale up and bring benefits to the
American society.
Mr. Stauber. And Mr. Wolf, this is the next question.
Additionally, I also recognize that increased automation
introduces new risk factors for folks that we do not understand
yet, such as sensor, camera, or software problems. Because of
this, diagnosing damage to a vehicle, determining liability,
and completion of police reports will increasingly rely on the
data that the vehicle generates before, during, and after an
accident.
Mr. Wolf, what do the companies you represent--what are
they doing to ensure that relevant entities will have access to
this critical data, and that it is timely, complete, and
useful?
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
In that respect, the autonomous vehicle industry and
companies that are developing and operating this technology are
engaging in information sharing in a number of ways. Let me
just spell out a couple here.
All of these companies are responding to a NHTSA order with
respect to incidents involving autonomous vehicles.
The developers and manufacturers also are participating in
a voluntary initiative with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to provide information about the location of
testing and the parameters of that testing.
Members also have released safety self assessments that
examine the safety of the technology and provide information in
that respect.
And so, I think, for those reasons and other reasons, there
are a number of ways that these companies are providing data
and information, and I look forward to having the conversation
going forward in other ways, as well.
Mr. Stauber. OK, my last question real quick for Mr.
Samuelsen.
The human component of our public transit operators are
really valuable, and great members of our community. In, for
instance, in a bus or one of the transit commuters, we have
seen examples where there is violence happening. Can you please
speak to some of these incidents, and how are we going to look
at them going forward on AVs?
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, so, I mean, the violence is prevalent.
There is a full-moon type atmosphere going on right now across
passenger transportation. But it has been a glaring problem in
urban transportation, urban transit, buses, and subways for
decades.
Actually, the uniformed bus operator is the single greatest
deterrent to crime taking place against riders in the systems.
And I think a really big problem with the potential of
humanless operation in public transit is the crime that riders
would be exposed to absent a uniformed presence of a bus
operator. I think it is super important to contemplate that,
going forward.
I myself was on a B78 bus in Brooklyn many times, mugged
during high school and saved by the intervention of a uniformed
bus operator.
So, I hope that answers your question. I think it does.
Mr. Stauber. It does. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I recognize next Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Madam Chair, thank you very much, very good
hearing.
Mr. Stauber, thank you for your questions. I was going down
the same line here. My questions really go to, first, Ms.
Chase.
The gathering of information. It seems to me that one of
the things that we must do immediately is to make sure that
information on all accidents, as well as the machines and the
technology, be readily available. Could you please respond to
that? Is information available? What do we need to do to make
sure that it is on reporting on all accidents?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question, Congressman. As was
recently just mentioned, there is a standing general order by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which
requires companies that are producing vehicles of SAE Level 2
and higher to submit information regarding crashes.
However, we have not seen that information, so, we don't
know what is happening on our roadways, and it is very critical
that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration share
this, so that the public and consumers are informed when they
are on the roads, when they are buying new cars, what they can
trust.
And I would just like to comment also on the compliance
with the voluntary safety agreements, or the AV TEST
Initiative. None of these are regulatory or required. They are
all voluntary, meaning a company can decide to submit some
tests, some information, choose what information they want to
submit, or walk away at any point. And that is why these
minimum performance requirements are so essential. A framework
or voluntary agreements is not going to do the trick. We need
to know what is happening on our roads, and the way to
accomplish safety is through regulation.
Mr. Garamendi. Very good. That also applies to the
insurance industry. And that was, I am sure, one of the issues
that was brought to us earlier today.
Mr. Samuelsen and Mr. Bloch, representing the men and women
that are on these trucks and vehicles, how do you envision a
regulatory environment or scheme in which your workers would be
protected, and the transit operators and people that are on
those vehicles would also be protected? What do we need to do
to create a regulatory environment?
Mr. Samuelsen. So, if I may, the main thing here is to
understand that we have seen advanced technology introduced
into public transit several times before. In my 30 years here,
this is about the third or fourth significant wave of
technology coming in. And the technology can be used to enhance
service delivery, safety, state of good repair, while
simultaneously benefiting workers.
And that is what a regulatory framework from the Federal
Government should emphasize, that all of these can work
synergistically together to produce a really good outcome for
riders and transit systems and workers, where no worker gets
left behind and no rider gets endangered. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Mr. Bloch?
Mr. Bloch. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
So, we all know our friendly neighborhood UPS driver, and
our members--we have 325,000 working for UPS, it is the largest
collective bargaining agreement in the country--drive trucks
that have driver-assistive technologies like automated braking
systems, lane controls, telematics, mapping and routing
software, and algorithms that all make our jobs safer and
better.
So, like Mr. Samuelsen, we are not afraid of technology and
we benefit from it. However, in response to your question, I
think it is very important, as others have mentioned, that the
Federal Government set the floor for the regulation of
technology, and not the ceiling.
I am fortunate enough to live in a State like California,
where a lot of this technology is being developed, and we have
policymakers that are going above and beyond to protect both
workers and the general public, and not to stop this
technology, but to ideally develop it in a way that benefits
workers and the public and industry. So, thank you.
Mr. Garamendi. I thank you for that. It seems to me that we
have a necessity to set at least a couple of standards here:
one, that information from crashes and the technology be
readily available, not only to the Government, but also to the
insurance industry, as well as to the committee, so that we can
then develop legislation; secondly, the training programs that
have been discussed here must also be in place.
Fortunately and unfortunately, this committee wrote a very
good bill on surface transportation. Unfortunately, much of the
training programs that were in that bill did not find their way
into the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, so, we have to
repurpose and get that back in.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields. I ask next Mr. Burchett
for your questions.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. Thank you all for being
here. I will make a statement first that has absolutely nothing
to do with my questions, but I think one of the folks in labor
said something about NAFTA, and how they were promised jobs,
and how that just turned out to be a joke. I think it might
have been Mr. Samuelsen.
And if you think these AV jobs are going to come to you, I
think you probably are mistaken in that, because the only thing
we seem to do up here very well is run up debt, and you are
either at the table or on the menu. And I think American
workers are currently on the menu when a lot of this stuff
comes down. So, I hope you all are paying very close attention
to that.
But my question is for Mr. Beuse regarding the FedEx ground
pilots with Aurora.
What safety data is Aurora collecting, and how will that be
used to improve the safety of AVs, more broadly?
Mr. Beuse. Congressman, thank you for the question. This is
a really great example of something I mentioned in my testimony
about our safety case framework.
So, our safety case framework is a holistic approach to
safety, where we are not looking at just the product, but also
our operations, as well as our organization. And so, in this
way, this is how we are addressing safety, even before those
vehicles are on the road with autonomy.
As we get closer to actually releasing the product without
vehicle operators, then all of those different principles that
we have--and there are five--that we need to fulfill within
that.
So, the FedEx pilot is really learning more about the
operational aspects of what we are trying to do, as opposed to
how we are engineering the product. And certainly, there are
some things that we are actively looking at, particularly with
respect to maintenance, as I mentioned before. But really, the
safety of the product is really handled by our safety case
framework.
Mr. Burchett. OK, thank you. I was county mayor, and I
remembered hearing some testimony about it, and just out of
the--I think the educational level on this is lacking out in
the communities because a lot of folks thought that some of
this would be controlled, community to community. But in
reality, it has got to be an entire network. It can't be one
county to one county or one State to one State, because we know
those borders are not followed, especially when traveling. But
the automotive vehicle legislation, of course, it has been in
limbo for at least half a decade.
And what do you think is going to be needed in the short
and the long term to make sure that the automated vehicle
technology can be safely deployed?
And also, I wondered--and in my mind I hear a lot of folks
talking about how AV, is somebody going to have the master
switch and going to be able to turn it off, to where, if
somebody steps afoul of the law, or some other reason, that
they can literally shut that down. I wonder what your thoughts
on that are, Mr. Beuse.
Mr. Beuse. Thanks again, Congressman, for the question.
Yes, I completely agree with your points around a jurisdiction-
to-jurisdiction approach. That is certainly not workable for an
efficient rollout of the technology, nor is it workable to
actually realize that--even the potential, right? Like, that is
a framework that just doesn't work, and it is a framework that
we have never used for motor vehicle equipment in the United
States.
I think, with respect to what is needed, I think it is some
of the things that bear mentioning here.
So, one is NHTSA and DOT have already outlined a number of
rulemakings. Some are started, some they planned as part of
what Secretary Buttigieg put out late last week. And we need
those to continue, and we need those to continue with some
urgency.
I think one of the themes that I keep hearing in this panel
is we are pitting safety against innovation, and I don't know
why we are doing that. We are literally in a crisis of
fatalities on our Nation's roadways. We really need all of
these tools on the table, including autonomous vehicles. And
so, all of those rulemakings are helpful, whether they apply to
lower levels of automation or whether they apply to what we are
doing.
I think the second thing we need is really for Congress to
show and demonstrate some leadership with all of us
stakeholders around developing laws and regulations that are
technology and business neutral. I still hear a lot of
commentary that seems very specific to a very particular
application. In some cases, even a particular manufacturer,
which, again, is not how we have developed and rolled out
technology in the United States.
And then the third thing is really with respect to the jobs
question. No doubt there are issues that we need to study and
understand. But that doesn't mean we should not take action.
Again, the status quo is not great. That should not be our
goal. Our goal should be: what are all the tools that we need
to use in order to see this technology really advance.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. That is all my time.
Thank you so much, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Norton. We hear next from Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding
this very important hearing, and thank you, witnesses, for your
testimony.
The Georgia Institute of Technology released a study in
March of 2019 that exposed the algorithmic bias embedded in
machine learning and the technology behind self-driving cars.
Researchers found that people with darker skin are more likely
to be struck by an autonomous vehicle than a person with fair
skin, because models are programmed by people who do not
consider every complexion a person can have.
Mr. Beuse, what measures can be taken to root out racial
bias at the onset of newly developed AV technology?
And what, if anything, is holding back industry from taking
those steps?
Mr. Beuse. Thank you, Congressman Johnson, for that
question. Pretty important, as we sit here in the beginning of
Black History Month, as well.
I think what I would say is it is not necessarily about the
folks writing the software. Part of what we are doing is
training autonomy based on what it sees. And so, it really is
more of the environment that it is in, as opposed to someone
actually programming something malicious in the code.
There is a lot of talk in the industry about how do we go
about making sure that those biases aren't in the algorithms as
we get closer to deployment. And I know some researchers have
put some studies out there, but I think this is one that is
worth maybe a deeper conversation around just how all of this
is fitting together, and certainly how deeply Aurora thinks
about this particular issue.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, sir. As AVs increase in
numbers, they will need to talk to one another and their
surroundings. This will result in the need for supportive
infrastructure, not to mention cybersecurity and privacy
safeguards for the exponential growth in data.
Mr. Wolf, what regulatory measures are needed to prevent
against cybersecurity attacks and to ensure the privacy of
Americans' data?
Mr. Wolf. Congressman Johnson, thank you so much for the
question.
The autonomous vehicle industry has some of the world's top
engineers working to build AVs. And in that context,
cybersecurity efforts are part of the engineering and design
process from the start, at all levels of development. So, that
is a very good aspect there, not just for the development, but
for the testing and eventual deployment.
Now, in the 21st century, of course, cybersecurity is
critical every single day for the AV industry. But it is not
confined to the AV industry, of course. It is not just for the
rest of the automotive industry, but all sectors of the
economy, writ large. So, we support, as an industry, a robust
and risk-based policy approach that recognizes that cyber
threats are dynamic and constantly evolving, and would be happy
to work with this committee and other stakeholders to develop
that approach.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. How should Federal
agencies ensure that our wireless infrastructure can handle the
data needs that AVs require, without causing interference with
existing systems such as what we have seen with 5G and the
aviation industry?
Mr. Wolf?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Congressman. Now I want to make sure I
answer the question directly. I think there are maybe two
things.
One is, if it is on the issue of spectrum, and the use of
connected vehicle technology, of course, the industry welcomes
investments in that respect. But autonomous vehicles are being
developed, tested, and deployed so as to not have to rely on
connected vehicle technology, but again, of course, welcomes
investments in infrastructure that enables those
functionalities.
With respect to the data handling on the Federal side, I
may have to defer to others on the panel who can better answer
it, or just respond to you in writing on that. But I am happy
to do so.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. The statistic that 94
percent of traffic crashes are caused by human error is
widespread, even though it is erroneous. In fact, numerous
structural issues play a role in traffic crashes, including the
distance between crosswalks and the roadway, the width of a
lane as the speed limit changes, and the presence or absence of
bike lanes. So, the idea that self-driving cars are the
solution misses the bigger picture.
What is more, Tesla recently developed a self-driving model
that includes an assertive driving feature so that the car will
not fully stop at stop signs. Mr. Wolf, what justification is
there for developing a program that allows vehicles to violate
State and local laws?
Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate the question, Congressman. And
the simple answer is: Tesla is not a member of our association
because it is not an autonomous vehicle. It is a driver
assistance technology.
Autonomous vehicles are developed from the start to comply
with all Federal and State and local laws as just one component
of the safety assurance systems that are put into these
technologies. Other examples, as you raise, are just--they deal
with other technologies--again, driver assistance--that just
don't relate to it.
And I would maybe just say one additional note very quickly
on the statistic you noted. Whether or not it is a specific,
exact number, DOT, the U.S. Department of Transportation, just
last week reaffirmed in its National Roadway Safety Strategy
that the overwhelming majority of serious and fatal crashes
involve at least one human behavior issue as a contributing
factor. And that is the key point.
And the autonomous vehicle industry fundamentally, and
first and foremost, exists to address that safety failure that
is contributing to the crisis on our roadways and in addition
to many other solutions and strategies that are outlined in
that paper. And as you noted, Congressman, we are hopeful, and
look forward to getting this technology widely deployed to
solve that problem.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, and I recognize Mr. Guest
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to first thank
all of our witnesses for educating us on the challenges that
lie ahead for automated vehicles.
Mr. Beuse, I want to talk to you just a few moments. In
your testimony you talk about the importance of safety and
trust as being an important key mission. You actually say there
in your written testimony--on page 3 you say, ``Safety is at
the core of everything we do at Aurora. It shapes who we hire,
how we work, and how we develop our products.''
I see later, on page 4, you talk about Aurora's safety case
framework, which was published in August of last year, and
which you describe as the first AV safety case framework that
applies to both autonomous trucks and passenger vehicles.
And then you go on to talk a little bit more indepth about
safety. One of the things that I found was particularly helpful
was the fact that you say no single piece of evidence captures
the totality of safety, and then you go on to list five safety
principles. Those principles that you list in your report were
proficient, fail-safe, continuously improving, resilient, and
trustworthiness.
And so, I would ask if you would take a few minutes to
expand first on each of these principles, and then to explain
how these principles are applied to automated vehicles.
Mr. Beuse. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes, I
am a safety guy, so safety appears a lot when I talk. It means
a lot to me.
One of the things that I think maybe help to explain how
this all fits together is kind of taking a step back and
talking about the Aurora Driver as a technology versus Aurora
Driver being inserted, let's say, into one of our platform
partners like PACCAR or Volvo or Toyota.
So, in order to do those partnerships, we have to have deep
relationships with those vehicle manufacturers who are very
good at building vehicles. And what we are doing is putting
together the best of the best. So, we are very good at building
hardware and software that can do the driving task, and they
are very good at building vehicles that are used today and for
the foreseeable future.
And so, when we think about the safety, it is the safety of
that whole package together. And so, these five principles are
how we engineer and design the Aurora Driver in concert with
those vehicle manufacturers.
And so, let me talk about proficiency, for example. So,
proficiency is really around how we put the right behavioral
competencies in the vehicle. Do we actually understand what
those mean? Do we understand the environment that we are
operating in? Do we have tests and requirements, and so on and
so forth.
When you look at the principle of fail-safe, that is really
around: is the vehicle safe in the presence of all faults and
failures. So, Chairman DeFazio mentioned, like, the camera goes
out, right? That is something that we have to understand, and
we have to understand how that relates so that the vehicle
always ends up in a safe spot--or lidar, or whatever the case
may be.
When you think about continuous improving, so, this is
where we are always learning. I think one of the challenges
that we have in the industry right now is the assumption is
that you do it once, and then it is done forever. Well, that is
not the case with automated vehicles. There is a continuous
improving part of it that we are always going to input the
lessons learned, and put them back into the vehicle.
Resilient is where we sort of really focus on things like
software and how the vehicle can be misused. These are all
things that we have to think through as we design the Aurora
Driver to be used in commerce.
And the last one is really around trustworthy. That is
really with, first and foremost, our regulators. That is also
with members of the public. And then that is also with our
partners. We have to build a product that is safe for them to
actually be able to trust it and actually use it in their
course of business.
And so, those five principles together, we believe,
encompass the whole framework of safety that is needed to
deploy these vehicles safely.
Mr. Guest. And is this something that could be expanded
industrywide, so, it is not something just unique to Aurora
itself, but these same principles would be something that would
be important to anyone who would be in this industry? Is that
correct?
Mr. Beuse. Yes, Congressman, it is. We have been openly
sharing our framework. And in fact, I would note that I was in
DC about 2 weeks ago for the SAE Government/Industry Meeting,
and there were some of our competitors openly talking about the
use of safety case and some of the things that they consider.
Mr. Guest. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairman, at this time I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Guest. I next call on
Ms. Brownley for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really do
appreciate you holding this hearing today, and I am sure this
is going to be one of many, many hearings on autonomous
vehicles, certainly, as the technology progresses on this.
So, I think always safety has to be first. I think
everybody agrees on that. And as Mr. Samuelsen noted in his
testimony, he said over-reliance on automation can be deadly.
We certainly saw that on this committee with a 737 MAX and the
2009 Red Line Metro crash in DC. So, in my opinion, we are
going to continue to need highly skilled drivers for transit
vehicles and trucks.
So, Mr. Samuelsen, speaking further on safety, you also
noted in your testimony that there are 9.1 self-driving car
accidents per million miles driven versus 4.1 per million miles
among regular vehicles. This is, to me, a startling statistic,
since many proponents of AVs argue that the technology will
improve safety. Why do you think there is such a disconnect
between the real statistics and the rhetoric?
Mr. Samuelsen. Well, first of all, I think that the
introduction of automated operation into public transit is just
so new, it is so absolutely new, it is not even here yet, in
reality. There are tests going on into big city public transit
systems in America. So, the rhetoric is going to accompany the
introduction, because it is new, and nobody has ever seen it
before.
But absolutely, the statistics that are being put forth, we
just saw kind of dueling statistics right now, with how many
accidents there were per 100,000, and whether or not those
accidents are based on human error or based on traffic design,
and that type of thing.
So, I don't think I am answering your question quite well.
Ms. Brownley. Well, I appreciate your attempt at it, and I
just think it is an important distinction to make as we move
forward with this. We want to move forward based on the science
and the facts, and not by rhetoric.
Ms. Chase, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Chase. I do, thank you, Congresswoman. I think that the
lack of minimum performance standards and the confusion right
now about what technologies can and can't do, and human over-
reliance upon some of the technologies--not to beat up on
Tesla, I don't mean to do that at all, but when a company calls
a system auto driver, autopilot, or full self-driving, it
really communicates a message that that is what it is going to
do.
And I think that while Aurora and other companies might be,
as Nat said, tapping the best of the best, that is not
happening throughout the industry. And that is why the Federal
Government needs to step in, and we need our regulators to do
their jobs with that assurance to the Federal Government. Then
we will see all types of crashes reduced.
Ms. Brownley. Thanks for that, and that leads me, actually,
to another question for Mr. Wolf. And this is really more about
public education.
There seems to be some misunderstanding among the general
public regarding the level of autonomy that some vehicles
offer. For instance, I am sure we have all seen the viral
videos of people sleeping behind the wheel, or sitting in the
back seat of vehicles which are not fully autonomous. And then
there have been some high-profile crashes that raise concerns
that consumers do not fully understand the necessary level of
driver engagement required to operate vehicles that are
considered Level 2 vehicles.
So, my question is, what is the Autonomous Vehicle Industry
Association doing to educate consumers about the significant
differences between Level 2 and Level 4 or 5 autonomy?
And what additional steps do you think are needed in this
area?
Mr. Wolf. Congresswoman, thank you so much for that
question, because it speaks to a very important safety issue
that is at play today.
Autonomous vehicles are distinct and different from driver
assist technology. And that conflation, as you outlined, ma'am,
that conflation is having, really, a twofold impact. One is, it
is dangerous, because it is leading consumers to believe that
lower levels of automation and technology are, in fact, actual
autonomous vehicles, and over-reliance on that. And then
second, it is having an impact on consumer trust in the
autonomous vehicle industry, which is problematic because of
the very positive safety benefits that will accrue to society
if we get that technology deployed. So, it has a twofold
impact, as well as other things.
Now, the industry is absolutely committed to trying to
brighten this line, delineate this as clearly as possible, and
has undertaken some initiatives on consumer education. There
are a number of educational initiatives. I am trying to work on
terminology, standardizing terminology, so that consumers can
understand that.
So, in a number of different ways, we are laser-focused on
trying to get this distinction--essentially, decoupling this--
because what we are concerned about, in addition to what I
mentioned, is in some respects in the conversation, leveraging
these high-profile failures of driver assist technology, and
having that impugn or disparage the autonomous vehicle
industry, which has a very strong safety record going on more
than 10 years and, again, will solve a number of safety
problems that are driven by human behavioral issues in the
statistics.
So, I am happy to follow up with you more on that and
explore ways to try and brighten that line.
Ms. Brownley. Well, thank you for that. My time is way
over.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I next call on Mr. Fitzpatrick for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all
of our panelists for being here, for all of your work. We do
appreciate your expertise. I want to start with Mr. Samuelsen.
Sir, good to see you. I wanted to talk a little bit about
AVs. DOT recently issued a new set of innovation principles for
transportation. These principles make it clear that innovation
investment should be in service of creating high-quality jobs.
Do you believe that Congress should adopt this approach to
overseeing new technologies like AVs, as well?
If so, do you expect this approach to improve the lives of
your members in your union?
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, so, thank you for the question.
Absolutely, Congress should follow the lead that the DOT
set out. Innovation investment can be an absolute win-win-win
across the board in public transit. It could be a win for the
workforce, in terms of ensuring that good jobs are protected
and, when good jobs are created, that they are solid, union
jobs. It can also enhance service delivery, enhance state of
good repair, enhance the overall transit rider experience.
So, that type of innovation investment is exactly what we
are looking at. And with a regulatory framework in place that
bears in mind the impact on workers, our members will likely
greatly benefit from much of this technology.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I appreciate that. Moreover, I want to
expand on that topic.
Since about 2016, DOT has taken steps to having a
regulatory framework for AVs. If Congress were to move forward
this year with an AV bill, what TWU provisions benefiting your
union would you like to see in there?
The AV bill this Congress could tell us what kind of
provisions would ensure that labor has a seat at the table.
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes. So, we would want to see a bill that
put an emphasis on rider safety, worker safety, workforce
development, and an absolute assurance that we don't revisit
mistakes of the past that workers are displaced by technology
in the same way that they would be displaced by a mass
exportation of jobs. All of this can be achieved with Federal
Government intervention.
That piece of legislation would be incredibly helpful to
workers, and I fear, without a piece of legislation that
accomplishes what I just laid out, that workers will be
severely negatively impacted, going forward.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen. Next up, Mr.
Wolf.
The FAA has extensive experience with autopilot
technologies, going back to its founding. More recently, it has
dealt with AVs. Some AVs even have ambitions to be multimodal
and serve as surface and air taxis. Sir, from your industry
perspective, has there been adequate cross-agency collaboration
between NHTSA, FMCSA, and the FAA?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I can't
speak to what conversations have taken place between the modes
at DOT, whether between NHTSA and FAA and so forth.
What I can say is that the autonomous vehicle industry and
the engineers, and scientists, and all of the folks who are
working to develop that technology, I know are open to learning
from all different analogies and other technologies to make
this technology as safe as possible.
I would note that, of course, there are some key and
important differences: 270 million-plus vehicles registered in
the United States, and our approach does take a human driver
approach to how those operate, and licensing. And so, all of us
get behind the wheel.
And as I noted a couple of times, it bears reiterating that
the U.S. Department of Transportation has reaffirmed just last
week that it remains the case that the overwhelming majority of
serious and fatal crashes involve at least one human behavioral
issue as a contributing factor.
So, in that respect, it becomes very important for the
autonomous vehicle industry to scale and deploy, so, it can
work to remove those human behavioral issues that contribute to
these tragedies on our roads. And if we can get that technology
out, and scale it as quickly and safely as possible, in
conjunction with many other safety approaches that may apply in
the cross-modal context, as you noted, Congressman, then we can
start to see a reversal of the terrible trend regarding
fatalities and injuries on our roads.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Do you believe that there should be a new
agency, whose sole mission it would be to oversee new
transportation technologies such as AVs?
Mr. Wolf. Well, Congressman, I would say that, as we look
right now, as my copanelist, Nat Beuse, has mentioned, there
are a number of regulatory instruments and rulemakings that are
underway at both NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration that will help address the national framework
that we need to get this technology to scale.
So, at the moment we are looking at those rulemakings and
advancing them as quickly as possible, in conjunction with
congressional action that will also--with some of the measures
I enumerated in my written testimony--help the industry scale,
and build out, and bring those benefits to the public.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. We will next hear from Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
of our witnesses. I think what we have heard are the tremendous
opportunities and challenges of the autonomous vehicle
technology that it presents to us.
And Mr. Bloch and Mr. Samuelsen, I want to hear from your
perspective how these technologies impact a part of our supply
chain which often gets overlooked, and that is--and
frequently--and I will get to it--is really the disenfranchized
part of our supply chain.
I represent the Port of Long Beach, and I am also the
cochair of the PORTS Caucus. Drayage truckers face some of the
most challenging working conditions in an extremely competitive
industry. And frequently, drayage drivers are misclassified, I
believe. They are misclassified as independent contractors. And
what that means is frequently it leaves them in a cycle of
poverty, without the benefits of employment, without the
benefits of potential unionization.
And so, the question that I have is, when we are dealing
with those that are the most disadvantaged now, the most
impacted, how do we facilitate the deployment of AV
technologies to take advantage of their potential to improve
working conditions for existing drivers, such as the driver
assistance technologies to improve operator safety and job
quality, while also mitigating the risk of job loss or
displacement, when we are really talking about those that are
already disenfranchized, the members of the trucking workforce?
Do you have any thoughts about how this is going to impact
those that are the most disenfranchized today?
Mr. Bloch. Well, Mr. Lowenthal, I appreciate the question,
and I appreciate all the work that we have been able to do with
you during your time as a Representative in California to
improve the working conditions for truckdrivers at all of our
California ports.
We did a study with a researcher named Steve Viscelli out
of the University of Pennsylvania a few years ago, looking at
how automation was going to roll out in trucking. And the
scenario that he projected, after talking to industry experts,
was that a lot of the long-haul trucking is poised to take
advantage of this technology, from platooning to semi-
autonomous to fully autonomous vehicles.
But when you get into urban areas, such as Long Beach and
L.A., it is very hard to imagine drayage trucking, or short-
haul trucking, or even less-than-truckload trucks fully
automated, doing that work.
So, the scenario we saw was hubs being set up outside urban
areas where these transfers could happen. And our concern,
unchecked, is that we could have hubs outside of urban areas
all over the United States that operate under the same model
that happens at our ports, which you are describing, which is
hiring workers as independent contractors, instead of
employees, making them buy the trucks, making them liable for
everything, and, essentially, them making less than minimum
wage after they pay all their expenses, which has led to huge
turnover in the workforce, and gets back to my earlier point
about the supply chain problems are not really a training and
recruitment problem, but a worker retention problem that is
tied to actually making sure that drivers make decent wages and
benefits so they can stay in their jobs.
I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Lowenthal. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Samuelsen, do you have anything to add? That was a very
complete answer.
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes--and thank you for the opportunity--only
that in your comments leading up to the actual question you
spoke about innovation technology working synergistically with
truckdrivers. And I think that is the ultimate goal here. That
should be everybody's ultimate goal, to utilize technology to
make transportation, either passenger transportation or
otherwise, as safe as it possibly can be.
We all know that automation fails. We have seen automation
fail. There has been testimony and answers to questions about
how safe it is. But all we have to do is look back at the 737
MAX incident, where in, one fell swoop, a computer overrode the
decision of a pilot and crashed, killing several hundred
people, more than once.
I am not suggesting that that is imminent, but it is that
type of thing that a human operator would stop. And this type
of technology, again, working hand in hand with a human
operator, is an ideal that we should be pursuing. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. And I recognize Mr. Johnson of South
Dakota.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
appreciate it, and my conversation will be with Mr. Marler.
And I liked the fact that you called out the fact that,
although our rural areas only hold 19 percent of our
population, it is 68 percent of our Nation's lane-miles and 45
percent of our fatal crashes. And so, I am coming from a rural
State. Of course, I care a great deal.
And I thought Chair DeFazio asked a really good question
earlier to one of the other witnesses about the effectiveness
of these automated vehicles really depends a lot--autonomous
vehicles, rather--depends a lot on the quality of the roads.
And so, you mentioned this automated shuttle service that was
operating on all different kinds of rural roads, including
gravel and unmarked roads. And so, maybe tell us a little bit
more about that. Maybe tell us how you would have answered
Chair DeFazio's question.
Mr. Marler. Well, thank you for that question.
Rural roads and the operations of autonomous vehicles on
rural roads is certainly on the minds of many of our States,
because many of our populations are rural in nature. And as you
pointed out, the rural areas have--45 percent of all fatalities
are on rural roads. So, this absolutely is a concern.
So, one of the things that we focus on in Iowa is our
physical infrastructure across the board needs to be in good
condition: better pavements and bridges, our lane markings, our
signage, our shoulders. We know that good stewardship of our
physical infrastructure helps to enable automated vehicles of
the future.
But we are also looking at the digital infrastructure, and
that is getting at the demonstration project that you
mentioned. The University of Iowa actually received a Federal
grant to look at the operation of rural shuttle buses in rural
parts of Iowa, and these buses are operating on gravel roads
and unmarked roads, very rural scenarios in the State of Iowa,
because we are trying to make sure that we are able to serve
all of our populations across the State.
And so, one of the things that is very important for this
shuttle bus to work is the digital infrastructure and, more
specifically, the high-definition mapping that is on board.
That map is able to digitally paint a center line down a gravel
road. And this is very key for the operation of this particular
rural shuttle.
Now, that is one thing that we are learning, and there are
many learnings that we are experiencing, but I would say that
there is work yet to do here, and we need to ensure that the
benefits are going to be widespread.
I will mention one other thing that will tie into this
directly is the expansion of broadband across our States and
across our Nation. In Iowa this has been a very important focus
for us, and we, just in the last 12 months, as a matter--we
have invested $323 million in broadband grants for the private
sector to install more broadband.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, as we work on this
demonstration project, as the University of Iowa works on this
demonstration project, what appears to be the biggest
challenge?
I mean, logistically, what is going to be the largest
hurdle to clear?
Mr. Marler. Logistically, is standards across the board.
Basically, this project is helping us understand the data
standards that we need, but we are building that through this
demonstration project: what are those minimum standards across
our Nation that we need to look at for data; what are those
minimum standards for connectivity?
This is one reason we talk about preserving the 5.9
gigahertz space, is we need to be able to rely on some of the
communication technologies, as well as those minimum data
standards that make the distribution of the technologies
ubiquitous everywhere in our country.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Is the demonstration project--
tell me more about if they are analyzing to what extent these
things are scalable.
Setting aside the broadband, because I think you are right,
the digital infrastructure is critically important. But what
about all of the other things?
You talk about upgrading the quality of the roads. That is
a pretty substantial undertaking, as well. Is a demonstration
project very scalable?
Mr. Marler. Well, we think it will be. And keep in mind, we
are learning a lot with this. But the reason we think it is
scalable is because these lessons that we are learning, we are
trying to look at it more from an agnostic point of view with
the technology, and just saying, what are those basic things
that we need in these rural areas?
And that is why I mentioned earlier the broadband
perspective. It is because----
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Sure.
Mr. Marler [continuing]. We know----
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. One more thing, quickly. What
would come next?
Let's say that the demonstration project is a big success.
What does phase 2 look like?
Mr. Marler. So, phase 2 is we are trying to understand,
operationally, what we can do, as transportation departments,
to help the situation with rural automation. What can we do,
from an infrastructure and an investment perspective, to set
that stage such that it can really, as you say, be scalable and
go to the next level?
So, it is really our operations focus is what comes next,
as we analyze the data.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Next, Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chair Norton and
Chairman DeFazio, for holding this important hearing on
automated vehicles.
As automation becomes more common across all our
transportation modes, including public transit, we must
proactively ensure that we are placing workers first, and that
we are upholding the highest safety standards. We can do this
by including workers in the decisionmaking on how automation is
deployed and making sure that they are given knowledge to use
the new technologies.
My questions. To Mr. Samuelsen, in your testimony you
mentioned how the AV framework needs to focus foremost on
upholding the highest safety standards, and on creation of good
jobs. As you mentioned, we can do this by giving workers a seat
at the table so that they can help shape innovation. Employers
who automate jobs, including transit agencies, usually know
that they will eliminate positions years ahead of time.
Is this information generally shared with workers in a
timely manner?
And if not, should the Federal Government require companies
that use automated technology to give workers advance notice on
these kinds of procurements?
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for the
question.
Certainly, there is very little notice given, in general,
to workers or representatives of workers, workers unions, very
little notice. And it would be common for a worker or the union
to find out that there is going to be technology displacing
human jobs when a pink slip arrives. That would not be uncommon
at all.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And how best can we bring workers
to the table when it comes to deploying innovation?
Is it fair to say that making sure workers learn about
these kinds of events far enough in advance to find other
employment or to retrain in the use of new technology is the
first step?
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, absolutely. In cities in America, where
workers have the power to compel that to happen, it has
happened. But in the overwhelming majority of transit cities
across the country, that does not exist.
So, the Federal Government stepping up and compelling
transit employees or municipalities and State governments to
give as much advance notice as possible, as a requirement,
would be ultra helpful. And in fact, it would enhance labor
peace in the long run. It would give the unions and the
employees a chance to work together to identify jobs that
workers who are potentially facing displacement could land in.
And that is what this should all be about.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
Mr. Bloch, from a Teamsters perspective, how can you bring
workers to the table when it comes to innovation, so that we
are putting workers first?
Mr. Bloch. I appreciate the question, and would echo the
comments of Mr. Samuelsen.
When new technology comes to the workplace, and workers
have the ability to join together in unions, then they can sit
across the table from their employer and bargain about it. As I
mentioned, we are introducing legislation in California to make
the introduction of autonomous vehicles in the public transit
sphere, where we also represent a lot of drivers, a mandatory
subject of collective bargaining. We are going into bargaining
with United Parcel Service this year, as I mentioned, the
largest collective bargaining agreement in the country. And you
better believe we are going to be bargaining around technology.
Our experience has been that new technology can help make
our jobs safer and make us more productive. But, as you have
said, sir, to have those discussions on the front end allows us
to be proactive and adapt.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Great.
Mr. Bloch. And for workers that don't have unions, they
just have to take whatever they get from the boss, and that is
not the sort of protections the workers need.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, sir.
Councilmember Castex-Tatum, in your testimony you discuss
how the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices needs to be
modernized. In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Congress directed the U.S. Department of Transportation to
revise MUTCD, including by making sure vulnerable users like
pedestrians and cyclists are protected, and by incorporating
AVs into the MUTCD for the first time. From the National League
of Cities perspective, what reforms need to be made to the
MUTCD to modernize it?
Ms. Castex-Tatum. The National League of Cities definitely
supports the modernization of the manual. We think that better
protection for road users equally is extremely important.
The main thing we want to point out is we want to make sure
that this does not become an unfunded mandate on cities. Local
governments own many of the roads in our cities, and they
maintain those roads. So, concerning the manual, we just want
to make sure that it does not become an unfunded mandate with
those changes.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
And thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair. I yield
back.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back, and I recognize Mr.
Nehls now for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Chairwoman Holmes Norton and Ranking
Member Davis, for having this hearing. I do have some concerns
about how we integrate AVs safely onto roads and into the
economy.
Trucking is a critical industry, and disruptive technology
like AVs promises great increases in efficiency and safety, but
it threatens jobs in our already strained truck-driving market.
While I appreciate talking about how technology could disrupt
the trucking market in 20 to 30 years, I want to talk about
what is forcing truckers out of the profession today, now, and
that is the vaccine mandate.
While the Supreme Court, thankfully, struck down the
unconstitutional vaccine mandate imposed by President Biden,
both the Canadian and U.S. Governments are imposing vaccine
mandates on truckers just to be able to cross the border. We
are releasing potentially COVID-infected aliens from Federal
custody into our country on the southern border. But on the
northern border we are not allowing truckers to cross, simply
because they don't have the vaccine. Interesting. For the first
2 years of the pandemic it was considered safe. But now that
the main variant causes less serious infections, the truckers
must be vaccinated. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
This also threatens to disrupt trade with one of our most
important partners, Canada, in the midst of an artificially
created supply chain crisis. In Canada, we have seen a massive
protest against these senseless mandates: a convoy of trucks 45
miles long [indicating photo] made it all the way to Ottawa to
protest, and a similar protest is being planned in the U.S.
So, I have a question for Mr. Bloch. It is one question.
In your written testimony, you talk about the difficulties
truckers face in the occupation, including supply chain
inefficiencies that caused drivers to wait in line for hours.
The freight division and the car-haul division of the Teamsters
represents thousands of hard-working drivers across the U.S.
and Canada. Do you know how many of your members either
resigned or lost their jobs due to earlier vaccine mandates?
And is the union concerned about the new cross-border
mandate's impact on your members' livelihood?
Mr. Bloch. Well, thank you for the question, sir.
On the Federal policy and the cross-border, I will have to
ask our Federal policy experts to respond to your question,
which I am happy to do.
The California experience on the inefficiencies, I think
everybody on this panel today who has worked for somebody or
supervised anybody during your career can appreciate the
efficiencies you have with an employee, where you can direct
that person to go somewhere and do something, versus this model
that Mr. Lowenthal talked about of hiring truckdrivers as
independent contractors.
Mr. Nehls. OK, so, you represent--OK, got it. So, you
represent 100,000 truckdrivers from California and Nevada, and
you are telling me you can't answer the question of how many of
those truckdrivers have been affected, how many have lost their
jobs as a result of the vaccine mandate? You can't answer that?
Mr. Bloch. I can tell you that we have heard complaints,
but we have not seen resignations because of vaccine mandates
here in California.
Mr. Nehls. Very well, not surprising.
Mr. Bloch. And sir, we did not take a position on the
mandatory vaccinations, as well.
Mr. Nehls. I am just saying, with all the issues we were
facing across this country, and right now what you are seeing
in Canada and now coming to the U.S. with vaccine mandates on
our truckers, I am surprised that you, who represent the
Teamsters, you couldn't have an answer to my question. But
again, it doesn't surprise me.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back. Since a vote has
been called on the House floor, the subcommittee will stand in
recess, subject to the call of the chair. We will restart the
hearing as soon as the last vote is over. That is approximately
30 minutes. It could be longer, and we do have a number of
Members who haven't had the opportunity to ask their questions.
We will reconvene after a recess for votes that are now being
taken.
[Recess.]
Ms. Norton. I want to call the subcommittee to order and
resume the hearing while Members are returning, and we
certainly have one Member here already.
Mr. Auchincloss, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate
the patience of our witnesses as we take a break to vote.
I want to start by emphasizing points that have been made
in different threads by both my colleagues and by some of our
witnesses, which is who needs to be at the table as we roll out
autonomous vehicle technology.
With long-haul trucking in particular, as Mr. Bloch, I
think you emphasize really quite articulately, the Teamsters
need to be at the table, whether it is the hub model, whether
it is a different model that ends up being the organizing
architecture for an AV long-haul trucking system, unions and,
in particular, the Teamsters, need to be at the table to make
sure that we are sustaining, reinforcing, and cultivating good
union jobs as we roll out this technology.
And then, insofar as AVs have a place in our cities--and
maybe they do, maybe they don't, I think we are going to
explore that over the next decade, and cities, mayors, and
Governors really need to be the ones driving that ship, because
they know what is best for their constituents. But insofar as
we are rolling out AV technology in our cities, I would
encourage us all to organize them around the premise of
walkability.
What makes cities thriving places, what promotes public
health, good environmental quality would help small businesses.
What makes cities more livable for citizens of all abilities
and ages is walkability, is the infrastructure and the ambiance
that promotes walking and cycling. And we do not want an
autonomous vehicle future to in any way undermine that. And it
may not. It actually may promote it. And I think one way it
could do that, as has been pointed out by one of our witnesses,
is by reducing the need for parking, which has really been a
plague of American urban land use for the last 70 years.
If we can drastically reduce the amount of parking that is
required because of an autonomous vehicle fleet, a ride share
fleet, that would be a good thing. And that would--that should
be used as an opportunity for cities to promote walkability,
and how they spend their infrastructure dollars, and how they
repurpose public land.
One institution that really has not been brought up to date
in this hearing as being an important stakeholder is the
property and casualty insurance industry. And I would encourage
my colleagues and I, as well as our witnesses from their varied
perspectives, to bring in the P&C industry in these
conversations.
The property and casualty insurance industry has a huge
stake in making sure that we do this well. They are on the hook
for a lot of the safety considerations, financially. They have
got tremendous data, sometimes over the course of 100 years and
at population scale, about what kind of behaviors make for safe
driving, what kinds of infrastructure and semiotics make for
safe driving. And they really need to be part of this
conversation.
So, I would open it up to any of the witnesses to weigh in
here about how they have worked with the P&C industry, or how
they propose that we should work with the P&C industry to
ensure a safe rollout of AV technology.
Ms. Chase. Congressman, if I could respond to your
question.
Mr. Auchincloss. Sure.
Ms. Chase. By no stretch of the imagination do I speak for
the P&C industry, but I wanted to share that our board of
directors is comprised half of members of the P&C industry and
half of other leading public health, law enforcement, consumer
and safety advocates, and individuals. So, there are some
wonderful companies that belong to Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety who are deeply devoted to making sure that
autonomous vehicles, both cars and trucks, are developed and
deployed in as safe a way as possible.
I also just wanted to comment on your remark about making
sure that cities are walkable and bikeable. We share that as
well. And one of the positions that we have been advocating for
is to make vehicles more absorbing if there is a conflict or a
crash with a car or a truck, especially delivery trucks, which
are more ubiquitous in some of our neighborhoods, and
bicyclists.
And my last point on that is, again, the urge for automatic
emergency braking, to require that as standard equipment in
cars, and not as an add-on in a luxury package, or only in a
high-end vehicle, which not everyone can afford, because then
it is an equity issue. Every family should be afforded the
safest braking systems, and that will be to tremendous value of
all road users, especially vulnerable road users. Thank you.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Ms. Chase.
Mr. Beuse. Congressman, I can add on from an industry
perspective, if that would be helpful.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes, very briefly, please. I am over time.
Mr. Beuse. Sure. So, one of the things we have done is
[inaudible] very, very important. And here in Pennsylvania we
are on a committee, along with several other local firms that
are working on self-driving, along with insurance companies.
So, absolutely, they need to be at the table.
Mr. Auchincloss. Madam Chair, I yield back my time.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. [sic] Van Duyne?
Ms. Van Duyne. I have been called worse. Ms. Van Duyne. I
identify as----
Ms. Norton. I am sorry, Ms. Van Duyne. Please forgive me.
Ms. Van Duyne. No, you are fine. You are fine. Thank you
very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Only a slim framework currently exists when it comes to
automated vehicles across this country. Many States, such as
Texas, have been leading the charge to provide safe testing,
while also giving companies the flexibility to run productive
tests.
As we continue to recover from the pandemic, employers
struggle to find enough workers, experience slowed economic
recovery, and are faced with national supply chain disruptions.
A regulatory framework favoring AV deployment in the U.S. is
critical for workforce opportunity and domestic growth.
The U.S. is home to a dynamic AV industry that provides job
opportunities for Americans across the country. A regulatory
framework favorable to deployment in the U.S. will ensure
continued growth of this industry by having increased career
opportunities and more seamless supply chains.
A 2021 U.S. Department of Transportation study found that
Level 4 and Level 5 automation in the long-haul trucking
industry would raise annual earnings for all U.S. workers by
between $203 and $267 per worker per year. The study
additionally found that trucking automation would increase
total U.S. employment by 26,000 to 35,000 per year, on average,
over 30 years.
So, Mr. Bloch and Mr. Samuelsen, the trucking industry
currently needs approximately 80,000 drivers. I have heard this
from businesses across the country, specifically within Texas.
This need is expected to double by 2030. And yet, in your
testimony you stoke fear of massive job loss and a layoff. And
I have got to be honest with you, you are literally the only
folks that I have heard that from in the country.
And I would be curious. What solutions do you propose to
close these gaps, and if you do look toward the future and
innovate through advancements in new technology?
Mr. Bloch. Well, thank you for the question, and actually,
we are not out running around, screaming about a robot
apocalypse coming to take jobs in the trucking industry. I
don't see it. I actually agree with----
Ms. Van Duyne. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Bloch. OK, well, thank you. I don't go for hyperbole.
And quite honestly, we do believe that, in some segments of the
supply chain, we may see a net job increase.
I think that our concerns are more around the quality of
jobs. We are doing a big push around our apprenticeship program
here in California to train workers to take these jobs. The big
concern is how long people stay in those jobs after we train
them, and we don't want to invest a lot in California or
anywhere in the country, including Texas, in training workers
if it is just going to be a revolving door. And so, that is why
I tried to tailor our comments to the quality of jobs that we
are creating.
And I appreciate you raising those issues in your question,
as well.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you.
Does anyone else have a comment on how to bridge the gap
with the need in the current glut that we have got, if not
through technology?
[Pause.]
OK, I will go on to my next question. North Texas is home
to a growing AV industry, and has more aviation jobs than
anywhere in the country. Autopilot requires extensive
programming, and this creates new jobs to develop, maintain,
and update the system, while increasing the efficacy and
resulting wages for pilots in the aviation industry. So, why
would autonomous motor vehicle technology not do the same thing
for road transportation?
And would your members not benefit from safety and
productivity and wage improvements?
Would your organization welcome the opportunity to
represent the new folks who program and maintain these systems?
Mr. Samuelsen. Hi. If I may, and thank you for the
question, I had no comment because we are simply not in the
trucking industry. We are in the airlines and public transit
and railroads. No trucking.
So, the question was posed as if somehow that we are
opposed to the implementation of technology, or the development
of technology, and the way that that can create jobs. It is
simply not the case.
So, we are in favor of technology. We have embraced now
waves of new technology and the jobs that that brings into
public transit. We just want that technology harnessed in a way
that creates and sustains jobs, doesn't have an unnecessary
impact on workers, and doesn't jeopardize worker safety or
rider safety. So, the comments that I have made all day, I
think, sort of connect with the question you are asking, which
is that type of innovation is good, and we embrace it.
We just want good jobs. We don't want workers inadvertently
displaced where, if another route was taken in implementing all
of this, they would be fine. So, we are good with innovation.
We just want good union jobs across America, and we want safe
jobs.
So, we do have a disagreement with the use of AV in public
transit to replace bus operators. We believe it is dangerous.
We believe automation should be under the control of a human
operator at all times. And so, thank you.
Ms. Van Duyne. All right, thank you.
Mr. Bloch, did you have anything to add?
Mr. Bloch. I would say very quickly, because you are out of
time, yes. And if there are employers who are tuning into this
hearing who think there are jobs out there, please call us.
Please, please contact. Yes.
Ms. Norton. OK.
Ms. Van Duyne. Awesome.
Ms. Norton. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Bourdeaux, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, and thank you
for holding today's hearing.
It is clear from the testimony that we are going to see
automated vehicle technology increasingly woven into our
transportation systems, and it is now our job to ensure that
we, at all levels of Government, create safe, equitable, and
well-researched AV policies that really maximize the benefits
of this technology, while also protecting against the risks.
My district is home to Curiosity Lab at Peachtree Corners,
which is a one-of-a-kind living lab, and it is designed to
provide a real-world test environment to advanced next
generation intelligent mobility and smart city technology.
During a conversation with the head of Curiosity Lab in
November, he mentioned that vehicles are taking over
smartphones as the most connected devices in the world.
A key element of safety, of course, is ensuring that these
highly connected, technologically reliant vehicles will not be
hacked or remotely controlled, and one of the things that they
are testing there is cybersecurity. So, I just wanted to talk
about that a little bit.
And starting with Ms. Chase, in your testimony you list
cybersecurity standards as one of the tenets of autonomous
vehicle legislation. Could you fill us in, and talk a little
bit about the current cybersecurity requirements for autonomous
vehicles?
And are there additional standards or things we need to be
thinking about to ensure their safety?
Ms. Chase. Thank you, Congresswoman. I greatly appreciate
the question, and you are completely correct that addressing
cybersecurity and having a minimum standard is in our AV
tenets.
I am not going to claim to be a cyber expert by any stretch
of the imagination, so, I can't get granular into the details
of that, other than to say we have deep concerns because we
have already seen hacking and weaponizing some vehicles that
have advanced technologies in them to the detriment of
pedestrians and road users. So, it is a concern of ours.
And the AV tenets was really a collaborative process, as I
mentioned earlier, with approximately 60 stakeholders
representing a myriad of organizations. And we listened to
everyone, and we created this living document, if you will,
that we hope that the committee and the subcommittee will use
as a foundation for future legislation.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf, do you have any thoughts on this? I know you
talked about a similar issue earlier.
Mr. Wolf. Absolutely, Congresswoman, thank you so much for
the question.
Cybersecurity is a challenge, which is one that is not
limited to the AV industry, of course, but for the automotive
sector and, of course, the economy writ large in all sectors.
And so, the AV developers and manufacturers, they build in
cybersecurity by design upfront, and it is something of
paramount importance at the outset.
As we look ahead to ways in which the AV industry and the
auto sector writ large can address cybersecurity
vulnerabilities, we look at a robust, risk-based approach as
the best way to address that, and I am happy to work with
stakeholders on that process, going forward.
Ms. Bourdeaux. Thank you very much. So, building on that--
and back to you, Mr. Wolf--are there things that we should be
doing in Congress to talk more about cybersecurity protections
or build out standards? Should we be focused on software
requirements, the workforce, physical infrastructure? What are
the kinds of things we should be thinking about as we move
forward with trying to find ways to support the deployment of
these technologies?
Mr. Wolf. I appreciate the question. I think, ultimately, I
would be happy to respond to you in writing with some of the
more specifics here. A risk-based approach is intended on
looking for what are those risks and vulnerabilities, and how
can there be a framework that is able to adapt over time,
rather than enact specific provisions and have a static, kind
of, check-the-box exercise. So, that is the exercise that is
important for this kind of policy.
And I know that, again, across different sectors--I believe
it was the National Institute of Standards and Technology has a
framework for cybersecurity, and a number of other measures can
be adapted and applied in this context. And again, I am very
happy to follow up in writing on that.
Ms. Bourdeaux. OK, thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentlelady yields back. Representative
Gimenez.
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Mr. Gimenez?
Well, Mr. LaMalfa.
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Representative LaMalfa?
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I am here,
mostly. Thank you for convening today's hearing, and I had a
few thoughts on what is going on here in rural California, and
the effects of legislation on people that were providing Lyft
and Uber services, and then tying that back in to what AV
vehicles might be able to provide in our rural area.
Excuse my illness here today, I am at home and taking it
easy here.
So, in my rural district in northern California, Lyft was
performing about 2,500 rides late at night, which might entail
people that have had too much to drink or other purposes, but
certainly drunk driving and drowsy driving is something they
want to avoid.
In the State of California, of course, a bill passed called
AB5, and the PRO Act in DC is being modeled after that. So, the
result was that they were trying to classify Lyft and Uber
drivers as employees of companies there, when actually they
really do have, in their own way, autonomy as to set their own
hours and their own workplace, et cetera. So, the voters of
California overturned that portion of AB5 via an initiative
process to a referendum to say that had gone even too far over
the line.
And so, what we are looking at is that rural areas are
especially affected by less choices with these types of Uber
and Lyft operators. As you can surmise, there is just going to
be less people operating at those hours versus when you are in
Washington, DC, et cetera. So, it is harder to compete for
rural folks like that.
And so, if we find that they still can't compete because of
the effects of AB5 or PRO Act coming through, then, Mr. Beuse
and Mr. Wolf, what can autonomous vehicles provide, do you
think, in rural settings like we are talking about here, very
rural, many miles between towns, et cetera?
Mr. Beuse. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question. I
think you point out at the macro level sort of an issue with
regulations that sometimes kind of go the wrong way.
Specific to AVs, for example, when you look at the use case
of where I live, for example, I wouldn't consider myself
necessarily rural, but it can take, let's say, a half hour to
get an Uber or Lyft out there. And you can think one of the use
cases for AVs is to kind of load balance that, where that part
of the population that doesn't get the magic of the service, as
Dara would say, are better served by something like an
autonomous vehicle operating on the network.
I think the issue is larger, though, right? The issue right
now we have is that, in some States, it is particularly just
not clear. So, for example, in California, there currently is
just a flat-out prohibition on the testing and deployment of
autonomous trucks. And so, until that gets fixed, we can't even
start to address some of the issues that you are talking about
with respect to trucking.
But one of the things we have to do is work closely with
not just other industry partners, but also the Government
partners to kind of really encourage a more future-looking
view, and not trying to lock down things for what we know
today.
I mean, having regulated at the Federal level for a while,
rulemakings are challenging, and this is exactly, I think, the
point I was raising earlier around we really need a more
flexible approach here, and for DOT to continue the rulemakings
that they are working----
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, let's bear down a little more on the
rural aspect. I mean, we are talking long, long stretches of
two-lane road, highway, and even turning down a dirt road,
perhaps, for certain--whether you are talking deliveries or an
Uber or Lyft situation via an autonomous vehicle.
How do you see it applying that well to areas that just
have less infrastructure of markers or signs, or whatever you
would use as an autonomous vehicle to tie into that?
Mr. Beuse. Yes, exactly. Those are challenges that we have
to solve within the operational design domain, or the area that
we are going to go into.
I would point out, part of our mission at Aurora is to
deliver this technology not just safely and not just quickly,
but broadly. We believe there is a huge, huge impact far beyond
our imaginations on what this technology could deliver. And
certainly, I think rural America is part of that.
I mean, I grew up in a very rural part of town. We had one
stoplight, so, I can relate.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, OK. Well, the time has flown by. I thank
you.
And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Strickland, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member Davis.
As we consider the direction of this emerging technology, I
know my constituents back home in the Washington 10th
Congressional District want to see transportation developments
that can improve their daily lives and also have a focus on
equity. But they also want to know that they will be safe and
secure on our Nation's roadways.
As we have heard today, there is evidence that AVs have the
potential to reduce roadway deaths and injuries. And with 2021
being the deadliest year for motorists in Washington State in
15 years, I am glad that the subcommittee is exploring these
possibilities. So, I have two questions, one for Mr. Wolf and
the industry, and this is more of a conversation about
messaging.
Could you very briefly talk to our constituents and people
who may be hesitant, or not quite certain, or nervous about AV
deployments happening across the country?
And what would you tell them after this discussion today?
What should be the big takeaway for people outside of our
bubble?
Mr. Wolf. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for that
question. The simple and straightforward answer is that the
data is clear: autonomous vehicles are not only safe, but they
are making our roads safer.
There is a crisis on our roadways, as has been discussed a
number of times in this hearing, and it cannot be stated
enough. And the number of crashes and fatalities and severe
injuries continues to go up at an alarming rate, and in the
overwhelming majority of those, there is a contribution of a
human behavioral issue, whether it is distracted driving, drunk
driving. Those are the numbers, and it is a big problem.
So, autonomous vehicles, the industry that we represent and
the members of our association, are designing technology that
will address that specific issue, and it will have a dramatic
impact on safety, in conjunction with many other solutions that
were put forward by Secretary Buttigieg and the National
Roadway Safety Strategy.
So, first and foremost, this is about improving safety, not
just of other drivers on the road, but vulnerable road users,
as well: bicyclists, pedestrians, across the whole gamut. So,
that is the key thing.
And I would just very quickly enumerate the other benefits:
with respect to equity, the ability to enhance and expand
mobility for individuals with disabilities; and with respect to
economic growth, there are tremendous benefits that accrue to
society as a result of the deployment of AVs, and what we are
looking to do is build out a national framework to scale that
deployment in a way that brings those benefits to the greatest
number of people as possible.
Ms. Strickland. Great. Well, thank you very much. Now I
would like to turn to Vice Mayor Pro Tem Castex-Tatum.
And welcome, ma'am, it is nice to see you here. And I am a
former mayor myself, so, I really appreciate that you are here
today. And I would like to ask you, on a local level, what
specific infrastructure investments have been needed in your
city, in Houston, or any dedicated lanes as you tried to
prepare for this deployment? That is the first part.
And then the second part, tell me how you have done this
through the lens of equity, as a leader.
Ms. Castex-Tatum. Thank you for that question. I can speak
from the pilots that we have had, here in Houston. With the
pilot that we had at Texas Southern University, in conjunction
with METRO, we had a shuttle that was riding on the campus of
Texas Southern University, and that was phase 1. We are working
in phases. Phase 2, we are looking at going off-road between
two universities. So, as we work through each of the phases, we
are hoping to gather more data so that we can make sure the
infrastructure works alongside of the autonomous vehicles.
With our work with Nuro, which is delivering for
businesses, we have seen transportation become less of a
barrier for some of our lower economic communities.
Specifically, during our time with COVID, Nuro was able to
deliver senior boxes to apartment complexes in one of our
poorer areas in the city of Houston, one of our complete
community areas, one of the areas where residents need
assistance with getting groceries.
So, we see the opportunity for these autonomous vehicles to
really help the quality of life for some of our residents who
can't drive to the store because they don't have a car, or some
of our differently abled constituents to get their
prescriptions delivered. So, we see this as a new and
innovative way for us to meet the needs of our residents, and
really improve their quality of life in cities.
Ms. Strickland. Great. Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. The gentlelady yields back.
Mrs. Napolitano, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Chairman Norton. My statement
would be that it is going to create quite a bit of confusion,
people seeing driverless cars and trucks. So, we have got to be
sure that we--because that is going to be a tremendous traffic
safety hazard. But I have a question for Mr. Bloch.
I agree with your testimony regarding the concerns over the
misclassification of truckdrivers. And I have met with some of
the drivers in southern California that work 14-plus-hour days,
make below minimum wage with no benefits because of forced
independent contractor status. The State of California has been
trying to crack down on these companies, but the Government
needs to step in and do more. I authored a provision in the
bipartisan infrastructure bill that creates a Federal task
force to study the problem and create policy to address this
problem.
Secretary Buttigieg recently announced a plan to formulate
the task force. What are your thoughts on what the Federal
Government can do to address this problem?
Mr. Bloch. Thank you very much, and this has been a problem
the Teamsters Union has been combating for the last 40-plus
years, since deregulation of trucking. And prior to that, 90
percent of the truckdrivers in the United States made good
wages working under a Teamster contract, and I wish that was
still true today.
I can speak to the California experience that Mr. LaMalfa
mentioned, which came out of a court ruling against a package
delivery company using independent contractors that competes
with UPS, one of the largest private-sector employers in his
district. A UPS driver makes $100,000 a year in California, on
average, has fully paid family health insurance and a pension.
And it doesn't matter if you have a criminal background or just
a high school education, you can get that job.
The California law that passed, and the portions of the PRO
Act that deal with misclassification, came out of a court case
involving a company that was competing with UPS and
undercutting those good wages. And that is the issue that is
happening within the trucking and transportation industry in
the United States. And so----
Mrs. Napolitano. What can the Federal Government do to make
it better, to address it?
Mr. Bloch. So, having a task force to look at
misclassification is very important. The new ABC test, the
provisions in the PRO Act that Mr. LaMalfa mentioned, is a test
in many States in the United States, and it is the most
stringent test to address the classification of workers.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Mr. Samuelsen, I want to thank the Transport Workers Union
for working with me on a provision in the bipartisan
infrastructure bill that improves transit safety program with
busdriver protection and blind spot removal requirements. How
can technology help drivers with blind spot issues and general
safety issues?
Mr. Samuelsen. Well, thank you for the question. In terms
of blind spots on buses, it is a fact that buses in the United
States, across every transportation district, every transit
provider, bus operators are ordered to go through pedestrian
right-of-way areas to maintain schedule on buses with blind
spots. And that is a bit of a disaster waiting to happen, and
it is an example of where technology has such an extremely
positive place, in terms of collision avoidance and that type
of thing, in order to protect pedestrians, protect riders, and
protect the operator. And so, technology does have its place.
And I am sorry, you asked a second question, and I forget
what that one was.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, how the technology helps drivers
with a blind spot. Because if they implement it in the AVs,
then it solves a problem that might work. I don't know what
technology can do to avoid having a blind spot, to help prevent
accidents.
Mr. Samuelsen. Oh, absolutely. Our position, essentially,
across the entire spectrum of this conversation, is that the
technology should be utilized to increase safety, to increase
service reliability, increase state of good repair where that
is applicable, and all synergistically working with a bus
operator. We believe that that is the safest outcome, a bus
operator being in control of the automation, a bus operator
that can pull a switch and end the dangerous situation if one
is arising. But yet utilizing the technology to improve safety
and improve service delivery.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very----
Mrs. Napolitano. The AV issues are enormous, so, we have to
be very careful. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
Mr. Carbajal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
the witnesses that are here today. Thank you for your time and
your testimonies.
From passenger to commercial vehicles, there is no doubt
that autonomous vehicles will become integrated into our
transportation system in the coming years. Congress must begin
preparing now to legislate in a way that optimizes economic
benefits, prioritizes safety, and avoids job displacement.
I am interested in learning how Congress can support the
growth and deployment of AVs, but also what we should be
considering when it comes to safety regulations and ensuring
transportation workers have a place in this workforce.
Mr. Samuelsen, you note that the Department of
Transportation, DOT, innovation principles will put job
creation and workers at the center of the innovation
development process. Elements of these principles include
forging partnerships with the private sector while protecting
interests of the public, workers, and communities. How can
Congress promote partnerships with the private sector and local
communities in ways that facilitate support for workers by
expanding access to skills?
And how can these partnerships wrap around ongoing
deployments and pilots to develop and build training models?
Mr. Samuelsen. Right, so, thank you for the question.
The Federal Government plays a vital role, from workforce
development and across a whole wide array of other necessities,
as we go into the future of public transit. Now, as the Federal
Government doles out money to transit providers, the Federal
Government needs to ensure that those transit providers are
doing everything that you said, both in terms of investing in
workforce development so that workers aren't left behind, and
also involving communities that workers live in, and the
decisions on what public transit will look like going forward.
And you have said--I believe you said a couple of times--
about the deployment of automated vehicles in public transit.
And again, we would be adamantly opposed to that. And it is not
just about the degradation of jobs, which is bound to come,
despite what some people might put forth about how this is
going to be a job creator. When you talk about automated
vehicles, automatically what that is going to lead to is the
degradation or the diminishment of bus operator jobs.
And we are opposed to that on a whole bunch of levels, and
the main one is that service delivery and public transit
delivery is about more than the amount of buses that you put
out. It is about service quality and service reliability. And
we believe that innovation technology is best utilized, as I
said before, in conjunction with a human operator, technology
used to augment the safe operation of buses, augment service
reliability, augment scheduling in a positive way to ensure
that service delivery is at the highest level it can be for our
riders. Thank you.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum, it is exciting to hear about the
successes of pilot programs in Houston. How did Houston work
with the industry to implement these programs safely and
equitably?
Ms. Castex-Tatum. Well, I will tell you that Nuro came to
us with their pilot and their bots, and we met with them. We
had an opportunity to also introduce their product to the
community. We introduced them to the law enforcement officers
in our community so that, once they started to see these bots
on the roads, if there were any problems or concerns, they
would know how to interact and who to contact.
So, I say it all the time, Government can't do this work
alone. So, these public-private partnerships are extremely
important for us to make sure we are meeting the needs of our
constituents and really doing our best to try to make their
quality of life better.
So, we are excited about the opportunity to bring services
directly to people's homes, and also to provide shared services
to help get one person out of one car. And we think that the
autonomous buses will allow us to get some cars off the road
and move more people at the same time so that we won't all be
sitting in traffic all the time.
Mr. Carbajal. Should other cities wish to implement similar
programs, what lessons can they learn from Houston?
Ms. Castex-Tatum. I think it is important that they start
piloting with companies like Nuro and transit authorities like
METRO. We learn as we pilot and gather data. That is why, as
the National League of Cities, we are asking for Federal
partnerships for more testing in more places, so that we can
provide more data and get more AVs to have some regulated
safety standards. So, my suggestion would be keep piloting.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I am out of time, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Next, we have Mr. Moulton
for 5 minutes.
I recognize you, Mr. Moulton.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to
all the witnesses for sticking this out. I know this is a long
time, but we are grateful for your wisdom on this incredibly
important issue.
Professor Larco, if I may start with you, Motional, which
is an AV company headquartered in Boston, has partnered with
Hyundai to develop AV fleets. But without a Federal regulatory
and legal framework for AVs, testing their technology looks
different in Massachusetts than it does in Nevada, or at least
that is how I understand it. So, States, essentially, are being
burdened with the absence of clear Federal guidance.
Beyond the burden to individual States and communities like
Nevada and Massachusetts, what does this cost with regard to
our national priorities, to not have these Federal standards?
Mr. Larco. Thank you very much for the question. I think
you are absolutely right that a lot of the deployment of AVs
are actually--it is a local issue, right?
And a lot of the things that I talked about before, some of
these ramifications, cascading impacts, are really going to be
affecting different communities differently, and there needs to
be some control at the local level to be able to respond to
these things.
The conversation that we have had so far, it is fantastic
to hear, the issues around safety and labor. But I guess the--
one of the main points is that that is not the only questions
that are important for AV deployment, and we really need to be
working at the local level to be able to answer some of these
things.
To answer your question about the role of the Federal
Government, I would say what is really important is that the
Federal Government actually does many of the things that we
have been talking about here: help support pilots, and help
support research into these topics, and support cities, but
making sure that it is not only about safety and about the
technology itself, but really looking at these cascading
impacts.
Mr. Moulton. So, to follow on on that, Mr. Wolf, the U.S.
can be first in marketwide AV deployment, or we could cede that
leadership to countries like Germany, allies, or competitors
like China. How will the U.S. market and efforts to create a
Federal framework be impacted if we don't act first, if China
sets the rules of the road for AVs?
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you so much for the question,
Congressman. I think it is a critical issue that I don't think
we have discussed enough today, and that is American leadership
in this technology.
America is the birthplace of autonomous vehicle technology
and, in many respects, it has got the largest amount of
investment, and we are the leader in that technology. Where we
are slow, where our edge is eroding is in the regulatory
framework component. The national framework piece is a critical
aspect of being able to scale the technology. And in that
respect, the countries that you mentioned and others are
catching up in being able to allow technology to scale and
deploy there.
So, the biggest thing that needs to happen, from the
industry's perspective, and I think it sounds like from the
perspective of a number of folks, is actually we need to
proceed without delay to enact this national framework that has
a couple of components. And the way we structure it is really
two pieces.
It has to be able to enhance consumer and public trust in
the technology. That is first and foremost, and that comes from
completing a number of rulemakings that NHTSA has underway and
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has underway,
and a number of other initiatives that can help on that front.
But the second part--and they must go hand in hand--is to
maximize deployment of the technology. The vice mayor is
correct. One of the key things that comes from being able to
scale the technology in the interim, while rulemakings are in
process, is the information that regulators and policymakers
can get from being able to deploy the technology. So, raising
exemption caps, being able to put new and different kinds of
vehicles on the road in the interim, that is critical. We have
to maximize deployment to keep that position, that leadership
position.
Mr. Moulton. So, Mr. Wolf, just following on that, and
specifically on your first point about consumer trust, I hear a
lot of concerns from constituents, from technology experts,
perhaps most concerningly from some artificial intelligence
experts, about the degree of trust that drivers currently place
in their Teslas. So, a rather technical question, but why is
Level 3 and above automation different than what Teslas are
using on the road with us today, and do you think these
technologies are safe?
Mr. Wolf. Well, I appreciate the question, Congressman.
I think the key thing there is that the AV Industry
Association, we represent Level 4 and above, and the
distinction is critical because Level 4 and Level 5 autonomous
vehicles are not designed to have nor do they have any
expectation of a human involvement in the performance of the
driving task.
Mr. Moulton. Right, but a lot of humans today read the
newspaper behind their Tesla, so, there seems to be an
expectation that they don't need to do anything.
Mr. Wolf. Well----
Mr. Moulton. That is a problem, right?
Mr. Wolf. To that exact point, Congressman, Tesla is not a
Level 4 or Level 5 technology. It is a driver assistance
technology. And as we were discussing a little bit earlier, it
is very important to your point, sir, that we are very clear
what the difference between those technologies are, so that
consumers are not confused and engaged in dangerous activity
with driver assist technology that they assume is autonomous
vehicle technology. Those things have to--they are different
industries, different business models, different technologies.
All of it needs to be separated very clearly, and we welcome
the dialogue and working with other stakeholders to do that.
Mr. Moulton. Well, thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me a little bit more
time, because I do think this is a critical issue, and clearly,
there is work that the Federal Government needs to do in this
regard. So, thank you, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Of course, Mr. Moulton.
Ms. Williams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want
to thank all of the witnesses here today that are testifying
for sticking it out with us, for waiting through the votes.
When you get to a freshman Member whose last name starts with a
``W,'' you know you are in the home stretch, and it is almost
time to go home. So, thank you, thank you.
When people say that Congress writes the rules of the road,
that is usually just an expression, except here on the Highways
and Transit Subcommittee, because, y'all, we really do write
the rules of the road. And our job is to be sure that we are
writing the rules as quickly as the roads are changing, while
centering safety, workers, and innovation, simultaneously. When
it comes to writing the rules of the road for automated vehicle
technology, this is no different, and we must center
transportation workers and the people who rely on
transportation systems every day.
Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum, in your testimony you highlighted
the importance of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. What
role do you see automated vehicle technology playing in
achieving that goal?
And how can Congress start writing policy in preparation
for automated vehicle technology that prioritizes safety for
both motorists and pedestrians?
Ms. Castex-Tatum. Thank you for that question,
Representative Williams. Zero is the only number that makes
sense for us with fatalities on the road.
NLC's position is we are recommending more pilot
partnerships with our cities. That way, we can have more
testing in more places, more climates, more areas, our rural
areas, the areas that are urban. We need more data so that
autonomous vehicles can get their own safety standards. Until
we have more information, I think that we will need to do more
testing, more piloting so that you can write the rules that
would be equitable across the country.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you. And last week I took
the time to speak with State and local elected officials in my
district about many of the programs and opportunities that
exist in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. One of the programs
that garnered interest was the Safe Streets and Roads for All
program, which funds projects aimed at reducing traffic
fatalities.
Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum, how could a critical program like
this support projects that both advance responsible technology
and reduce traffic fatalities?
Ms. Castex-Tatum. We definitely want to take the human
error out of the fatalities that are happening on our roads,
and we feel like autonomous vehicles is that opportunity that
can take that human error out of the numerous number of crashes
that are happening on our roads. The sensors that are on these
autonomous vehicles have shown that they are stronger than the
human eye. The vehicles can react faster than a human.
This technology is very innovative. However, it is still
very premature, and there still needs to be more piloting and
more data collected so that we can do all of this innovation
safely, and make sure we are protecting the public trust.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you.
And Mr. Samuelsen, in your testimony you mentioned the
importance of protecting collective bargaining principles at
every stage of automated vehicle development, including during
research, testing, and implementation. Can you elaborate on
this, and tell me how these principles can be implemented at
each state of technology development to ensure that workers
have a seat at the table every step of the way?
Mr. Samuelsen. Yes, and thank you for the question.
So, as the technology comes in, and what needs to be done,
definitely, which has been referenced here many times today, is
that the Federal Government needs to set up a framework that
protects workers, protects jobs, doesn't allow a situation
where transit providers--and I am speaking strictly in
transit--transit providers implement technology in a blindside
manner that eliminates workers.
So, the Federal Government has an ability to compel transit
operators, transit employers to engage in workforce development
investment, and also to engage with communities and workers in
such a way where waves of technology that are going to impact
working neighborhoods and impact workers themselves are
discussed well ahead of time, well before the time of
implementation.
And those things are happening now, where workers have
power to compel that to happen; for instance, in New York City,
where that is very common, it is a very common element of the
TWU contracts that we have in New York. But the Federal
Government needs to adopt this as a uniform standard, so that
it happens city after city after city, transit provider,
transit provider, and on.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Samuelsen. My
policymaking always centers those most marginalized, and
building a transportation system that is accessible for all is
always a top priority for me on this committee.
I do have additional questions that I will submit for the
record, and I hope that I can get further answers.
And Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Your time has expired.
Ms. Williams of Georgia. No time to yield.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Stanton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
this important hearing, and thank you to each of the witnesses
for your important testimony today.
Arizona, and my district in particular, has been at the
epicenter for the development and testing of autonomous
vehicles. In Chandler, Waymo is operating a fully driverless
vehicle as part of its ride hailing service, Waymo One. In
Scottsdale, Nuro and Cruise have partnered with retailers for
local deliveries. And in Tucson, Arizona, TuSimple recently
completed its first fully autonomous semi-truck run on the open
road between Phoenix and Tucson.
AVs have the potential to transform our transportation
system by improving mobility for vulnerable populations or
those who face barriers to transportation, enhancing vehicle
safety, reducing vehicle crashes and deaths, and increasing
productivity. At the same time, we also need to recognize that
AVs have the potential to alter our workforce, and we want to
keep as many people employed as possible.
As Congress continues to consider the Federal role in the
testing and deployment of AVs, it will be important for this
committee and all of the entities represented by the witnesses
before this committee today to have a seat at the table. My
first question is for the vice mayor, Vice Mayor Castex-Tatum.
I am a former mayor myself. I come from the city world, the
former mayor of Phoenix. I know firsthand that leadership at
the local level is key to fostering innovation. What are your
thoughts about what the Federal Government can do to support
and collaborate with cities in AV testing and development?
Ms. Castex-Tatum. Again, I will reiterate the importance of
piloting with the cities. We want to see partnerships with
cities that create more testing in more places, providing more
data, and really working to get autonomous vehicles their own
safety standards.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much. My next question is for
Mr. Marler.
Mr. Marler, there are many public places and public and
private stakeholders involved in AV development. Your testimony
calls for Federal leadership to help direct the conversation
surrounding AVs. What role can the Federal Government play to
help facilitate the safe deployment of AVs to meet community
needs?
Mr. Marler. Thank you for that question. In Iowa, we have
convened a public-private multisector vision for AVs, and we
created a space for this in our State via the Iowa Automated
Transportation Council. We have done this regionally in the
Midwest, among our 10 Midwestern States, and it is our view
that we need to replicate these types of engagements at the
national level, and establish a clear, consistent vision,
strategy, and framework.
There is sufficient energy across the Nation, in terms of
this conversation. It has been somewhat fragmented. In Iowa, we
call them silos of excellence. Congress can foster this
collaborative environment at all levels of Government. We
believe that you can convene a new national dialogue and
conversation. You can make sure that we are engaging a broad
cross-section for input, including local communities, both
public and private. And also, there are some great
collaborative efforts already underway that support is critical
for, like the Cooperative Automated Transportation Coalition.
So, those are some thoughts on how we might meet some
community needs.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate it. This is for yourself and any
other witness that may want to answer.
A significant number of roadway fatalities occur on rural
roads. One of the challenges on the use of connected and
automated vehicles is the lack of required infrastructure
features to accommodate them in rural parts of our country.
What can and should be done to prepare rural America for the
expanded use of AVs?
Mr. Marler. I would be happy to start with an answer to
that question, and thank you for that question. Really, two
things that we are looking at.
First is, we do need to look at our physical
infrastructure, and make sure that we have good condition
pavements, our signs, our lane markings, that these things are
in good condition in our rural areas, especially. But the
investment can still be challenging. Our rural areas do
struggle to have the available levels of funding to ensure that
they are making those stewardship investments that they need.
The second thing we can do is really an emphasis on digital
infrastructure, really looking at our broadband, particularly
in rural areas, looking at our mapping, looking at our
connectivity and spectrum. This is why the spectrum question is
so critical. These things, these two components, both physical
and digital for our rural areas, they really have the
opportunity to lift our rural communities across our Nation.
Mr. Stanton. In my short time left, any other witness want
to take a----
Mr. Beuse. Yes, I will chime in here, just add something
from an industry perspective.
Two points you raised. One, we find a lot of value in the
convening power, both at the State level, like Congress is
doing today, but also even at the USDOT level to really bring
all stakeholders together. My personal opinion is I don't know
that we have done enough of that lately on these particular
issues.
On your point about rural, part of our mission is to
deliver this technology broadly. In fact, when you look at even
some of our locations right now, they are what are considered
to be rural America. And I think we need to keep that in the
conversation, as well. I mean, many of the paths that highways
cut through are rural in nature, and there are a lot of needs
that probably should be considered, again, to support the
efficiency and effectiveness of the rollout.
Mr. Stanton. All right, I have run out of time here, so, I
am going have to yield back. But I would love to get, at a
later time maybe, a separate conversation with our
representatives of organized labor about some of the thoughts
on that one, as well. I will yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I would like to thank each
of the witnesses for your testimony today.
You can see by how many Members came back after the votes
to ask questions, that this was an important hearing in our
committee today. Your comments, you who have testified today,
have been very informative and very helpful.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Norton, for holding this hearing, and thank you to
our witnesses for participating today.
Throughout my time on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, one of my top priorities has been to support innovation, and
make sure that advancements in technology are incorporated into our
transportation system.
Automated Vehicles (AVs) may be one of the most transformational
innovations in transportation since the automobile was invented.
Automated trucks and buses have the potential to increase mobility,
and make our transportation system safer and more efficient, and the
movement of goods less costly.
AVs will create new highly skilled jobs and strengthen our economy.
While many have called for a federal regulatory framework, such a
framework should not be overly prescriptive but instead create
guardrails for the industry to grow with safety at the forefront. We
must avoid stifling innovation as it is just getting off the ground.
Striking this balance is vital for America to secure our global
competitive edge in this industry.
I look forward to hearing about challenges and solutions to full
deployment of automated trucks and buses.
Thank you again to our witnesses, and I yield back.
Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His Remarks to
Hon. Mike Bost, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 4, 2022.
The Honorable Mike Bost,
House of Representatives,
1211 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Bost:
I appreciated your question to me during the recent Highways and
Transit subcommittee hearing ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles''.
You noted a very important issue and I wanted to get you a more
extensive, detailed answer.
During our exchange you asked:
What additional training needs are there for mechanics on automated
systems? Are there additional safety concerns for workers around
automated trains or buses? What can we do to make sure that maintenance
workers are prepared for these kinds of vehicles once they enter
deployment?
There are two groups of maintenance workers that will have to
interact with this kind of technology very differently: mechanics
fixing these vehicles--who will need to have equipment-specific
training--and the workers maintaining tracks, roads, and the rest of
the built environment around these vehicles--who will need clear safety
protections and trust that an autonomous system would be able to
recognize and follow safety procedures. In both cases, the federal
government needs to be an active partner and regulator to ensure these
vehicles meet existing standards.
Mechanics working on AV-equipment will need access to all of the
vehicle's systems along with the diagnostic tools necessary to
troubleshoot and repair issues as they arise. This could mean more
training on software or other advanced tools. Especially for commercial
fleets, which may have many purpose-specific operational rules or
limitations, these workers will need significant job-training
investments to make sure that they can continue to do their jobs on
this new equipment.
For track workers, road workers, and others who are working on
active roadways, it is essential that workers trust that any vehicle
around them will stop, slow down, or divert to maintain a safe
distance. If these workers don't believe that a train car is going to
stop for them to clear a track, they cannot do their work. No AV should
be allowed to operate in these kinds of situations if the safety of the
workers around the vehicle cannot be guaranteed (as well as the safety
of those inside the vehicle).
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and questions. I look
forward to working with you on these issues.
Sincerely,
John Samuelsen,
International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO.
cc: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit staff
Post-Hearing Supplement From Witness John Samuelsen to His Remarks to
Hon. Julia Brownley, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton
February 4, 2022.
The Honorable Julia Brownley,
House of Representatives,
2262 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Brownley:
I appreciated your question to me during the recent Highways and
Transit subcommittee hearing ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles''.
You noted a very important issue and I wanted to get you a more
extensive, detailed answer.
During our exchange you asked: ``Why do you think there is such a
disconnect between the real statistics and the rhetoric [regarding the
safety of autonomous vehicles]?''
There is a significant gap between the promises being made about
AVs and the reality of this technology today. While manufacturers and
software developers have focused exclusively on the potential future
benefits of these vehicles, the technology available today is not as
safe as the average human operator even in personal vehicles.
AVs operate on public roads through a series of waivers and
exemptions from safety rules. The expected result of these waivers is
exactly what we're seeing: more accidents for the vehicles that have
the most exemptions from safety requirements. Whatever the public
perception may be, it is up to our elected leaders in Congress and the
safety professionals in the administration to hold all technology
accountable to our safety standards rather than bow to marketing
campaigns.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and questions. I look
forward to working with you on these issues.
Sincerely,
John Samuelsen,
International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO.
cc: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit staff
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Garrick Francis, Vice President,
Federal Affairs, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 1, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC 20515.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC 20515.
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
On behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto
Innovators), I appreciate your attention to the importance of
developing a national strategy to support the incorporation of
automated vehicles (``AVs'') and technologies into our nation's
transportation networks, services, and infrastructure. The U.S. has an
opportunity to advance its leadership role in developing these
revolutionary technologies and new mobility business models that have
the potential to contribute to a safer, cleaner, more accessible, and
equitable transportation future.
Auto Innovators was formed in 2020 to serve as the singular,
authoritative, and respected voice of the automotive industry in the
United States. Our members include auto manufacturers producing nearly
99 percent of the cars and light trucks sold in the U.S., along with
original equipment suppliers, technology companies, and other
automotive-related value chain partners. In total, our industry
supports roughly 10 million jobs in America, accounts for approximately
5.5 percent of our country's gross domestic product and represents our
country's largest manufacturing sector.
As a global leader in the development of AV technologies, the U.S.
is at the forefront of innovations that will transform transportation
in a number of ways. Safety, of course, is a critical component in the
development of AVs. Another benefit of these vehicles is the promise to
provide life-changing opportunities for those who are not adequately
served by existing mobility options, such as seniors, persons with
disabilities, and those who require more affordable transportation.
Further, the benefits of these vehicles extend to other roadway users,
not to mention the benefits that AV's have shown various communities
and individuals in need during the COVID-19 pandemic.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., Jane Lanhee Lee, Nathan Frandino, Reuters, ``Self-
driving vehicles get in on the delivery scene amid COVID-19,'' (April
29, 2020) available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-
coronavirus-self-driving-deliv/self-driving-vehicles-get-in-on-the-
delivery-scene-amid-covid-19-idUSKBN22B2LZ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has the opportunity to drive AV innovation. According to
KPMG, the U.S. is home to the headquarters and testing locations of
more than 425 AV companies, nearly half of all companies tracked for
their annual Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index.\2\ In fact, AV
companies continue to safely test vehicles in California, Arizona,
Nevada, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states to
further research and validation of key technologies, bringing with it
not only technological leadership, but jobs, investment, tax revenue
and local economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/07/2020-
autonomous-vehicles-readiness-index.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As these technologies mature, including companies today on the cusp
of initial commercialization in the U.S., the nation needs updated
federal regulations and a pathway to scale their development with
appropriate oversight in order to realize many of the promises of this
technology. That is why a responsible federal framework for the safe
development, testing and deployment of AVs in the United States is so
important. Consistent with the Department of Transportation's newly
released principles for innovation, this will help to preserve U.S.
leadership in these potentially life-saving and life-changing
technologies and ensure U.S. innovations benefit the traveling public
and our economy for decades to come.
As we have witnessed in other technologies and sectors, the nations
that lead the development of AVs will have the potential to guide the
development of international standards, control supply chains, and
define international markets. With a technology like AVs, this could
have implications far beyond transportation. This is not simply a
question, therefore, of global or economic competitiveness. It is about
defining the future of this technology--and associated infrastructure--
in a manner that emphasizes safety, responsibility, and opportunity for
more citizens to benefit from this transformative shift in mobility.
While the U.S. is well positioned to continue its long-standing
leadership in automotive innovation, we cannot be complacent. Across
the globe, nations are backing bold commitments with government
investments and supporting policies. That is why in December 2020 Auto
Innovators released the AV Policy Roadmap. The Roadmap outlines the
auto industry's AV policy priorities and includes fourteen specific
recommendations that can be implemented by federal policymakers over
the coming years to facilitate the testing and deployment of AVs at
scale. These recommendations are focused on reforming regulations,
harmonizing policies, and laying the foundation to achieve longer-term
objectives--including expanding the number of exemptions that U.S. DOT
can provide on a case-by-case basis--with safety oversight and full
enforcement powers--which can then provide the data necessary to
support future Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for AVs.
We are approaching a pivotal moment in the evolution of this
technology and have an opportunity to work collaboratively to chart a
course that sustains U.S. leadership and innovation in these critical
safety and mobility solutions for decades to come. We look forward to
continuing to work with you and your colleagues in Congress, as well as
the Administration and other stakeholders, to realize the benefits of a
safer, more environmentally friendly, accessible, and equitable U.S.
transportation future.
Sincerely,
Garrick Francis,
Vice President, Federal Affairs, Alliance for Automotive
Innovation.
cc: The Honorable Peter DeFazio, Chairman
The Honorable Sam Graves, Ranking Member
The Honorable Frank Pallone, Chairman, House Committee on Energy
and Commerce
The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member, House
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Statement of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and Members of the
Committee:
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
thanks the Committee for holding its February 2nd hearing entitled,
``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.'' From the start, AAMVA and
its state-based membership have been leaders in describing how
automated vehicle technologies can make the transition from concept to
deployment. AAMVA has contributed our expertise for more than a decade
to finding the safest path forward for these life-saving technologies.
As Congress continues to contemplate the federal policy platform for
Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Advanced Driving Assistance Systems
(ADAS) AAMVA offers the following in support of the hearing.
AAMVA's state-based transportation experts have developed a
resource guide documenting their contributions in moving these
technologies to our roadways. AAMVA's ``Safe Testing and Deployment of
Vehicles Equipped with Automated Driving Systems Guidelines'' is now in
its second edition, and provides recommendations for ADS/ADAS program
administration, vehicle safety considerations, driver licensing
considerations, law enforcement considerations and additional
considerations for issues including cybersecurity, data collection,
low-speed automated shuttles, connected vehicles, and vehicle
platooning. Key amongst its finding is that no true path forward will
take place in a vacuum. The responsible management and rollout of new
technology takes input from a wide range of stakeholders, all of which
must play a role in heralding emergent vehicle technologies. AAMVA will
publish its updated third edition of this important resource in the
Summer of 2022.
Of primary importance in consideration of any federal legislation
is the key role state and local governments provide in the safe
integration of ADS and ADAS-equipped vehicles into existing
transportation networks. Implementation of a successful AV policy
requires finding the appropriate balance between cooperating partners,
delineating the respective responsibilities, documenting
accountability, and ensuring that appropriate funding and incentives
are in place for desired outcomes. Federal, State and local government
must approach these issues in a systematic and pragmatic manner to
ensure that safety on our nation's roadways and streets is paramount.
Key amongst those considerations is the fact that current federal
and state roles in safety are already prescribed. AAMVA urges that no
additional preemption over state authority to regulate vehicles of any
type be included in federal legislation. When something goes wrong with
any new technology, federal resources are not primary responders to the
scene of a crash. Should there be safety issues that need to be
rectified, permitting agile response to enforcement and regulation
without having to leverage the federal recall mechanism may be not only
warranted, but necessary to save lives. There are sure to be issues
between the design features of a vehicle on the assembly line, and how
those vehicles interact in a mixed fleet under dynamic circumstances.
For this reason, every stakeholder should play its part in safety, and
all state and local response options should be preserved.
The responsible path forward does not require any shift in the
current federal-state preemptive dynamic. States recognize federal
oversight of design features and the establishment of safety standards.
The work ahead simply requires adjusting those safety standards to
accommodate vehicles that are performing the dynamic driving task.
While the current regulatory structure does not contemplate a
vehicle as driver, AAMVA feels confident that the current preemption
precluding a state from enforcing against an identical federal standard
is all the preemptive authority the federal government needs to pursue
future ADS/ADAS continuity goals. In the lack of such standards, which
the states rely heavily on, the states must retain their ability to
regulate and enforce against unsafe products.
AAMVA has offered comprehensive comment on the issues we feel are
most important with respect to accommodating these technologies through
numerous USDOT regulatory dockets. Those comments are available at
www.aamva.org/AAMVA_Comments.
AAMVA again thanks the Committee for holding this important hearing
and stands ready to assist in describing the framework for getting
life-saving technologies on our roadways in the safest means possible.
Statement of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Automated driver assistance system (ADAS) and automated driving
system (ADS) technology is rapidly increasing automation of the driving
function. As these innovations fundamentally change the nature of
driving, property casualty insurers will have a key role to play in
encouraging the safe and efficient introduction of advanced vehicle
technology. To do so, insurers must have access to information and data
to innovate and develop services, products, and pricing to support the
new automotive technologies.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is the
primary national trade association for home, auto, and business
insurers. APCIA promotes and protects the viability of private
competition for the benefit of consumers and insurers, with a legacy
dating back 150 years. APCIA members represent all sizes, structures,
and regions--protecting families, communities, and businesses in the
U.S. and across the globe. Together, APCIA members write 54 percent of
the automobile insurance in the United States.
As the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure studies the
deployment of automated vehicles, it is important that members of
Congress understand the needs of the automobile insurance industry so
that insurers can continue to efficiently provide protection to vehicle
passengers and commercial vehicles. Today, the automobile insurance
industry faces disruption on several fronts. While car accidents have
been down during the pandemic with fewer drivers on the roads, the
trend in recent years has, unfortunately, been an increase in the
number of accidents, injuries, and deaths on our roads. These tragedies
come at a time when vehicles are safer than ever due to better
construction and crash avoidance technology. However, those same
improvements that make vehicles safer also significantly increase the
cost of repairs. The cost of medical care for auto accident victims is
also increasing much faster than the rate of inflation.
While navigating these issues, insurers will be challenged to make
fundamental changes in how they assess risk as the focus moves from the
human driver towards the technology that operates the vehicle. While
vehicle characteristics have always played a role in pricing auto
insurance, assessing accident risk has primarily focused on drivers.
Going forward, insurers will need to identify vehicles equipped with
autonomous technology and have that identification reflected in motor
vehicle records and crash reporting to assess the risk of different
automated or autonomous driving systems, just as they are able to
differentiate between drivers today.
Similarly, when determining liability in an auto accident claims
situation, the primary approach today is to interview the drivers. With
autonomous vehicles, insurers will need access to recorded vehicle data
to provide evidence of how an accident happened. APCIA believes that
our current state-based system of determining liability for accidents
and compensating victims should be able to adapt to the changing nature
of the driving risk if vehicle data is accessible and in a form that
allows for prompt accident investigation and resolution of claims.
Access to and sharing of automated or autonomous vehicle data is a
critical issue, not only for insurers but for automotive technology
developers, manufacturers, vehicle owners, and numerous other
stakeholders. At a minimum, vehicle owners or lessees should have the
ability to authorize access to vehicle data to third parties with whom
they wish to share data for any reason and APCIA urges the committee to
address this issue in legislation. This can be accomplished while
protecting an individual's privacy and protecting developers'
intellectual property. Also, establishing a single set of rules for
data access and sharing as well as a standardized set of data elements
that balances those interests, is critical.
Finally, APCIA supports the preservation of the current division of
federal and state regulatory responsibilities for motor vehicles, with
the federal government setting and enforcing safety standards for motor
vehicles and recalls and setting requirements for large vehicles. The
states should continue to have primacy on motor vehicle ``rules of the
road,'' liability issues, insurance requirements and regulation, as
they do today.
APCIA thanks the committee for the opportunity to share our
comments in connection with this hearing. In addition to these
comments, we would also like to share our comments made to the U.S.
Department of Transportation regarding DOT's Automated Vehicle
Comprehensive Plan in the letter below.
__________
March 19, 2021.
U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Submitted via Regulation.gov.
Re: Docket Number: DOT-OST-2021-0005
Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan, Request for Comments
To Whom It May Concern,
Automated driving technology, which from an insurers perspective
includes advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) and automated driving
system (ADS) technology, is rapidly increasing automation of the
driving function. As these innovations fundamentally change the nature
of driving, property casualty insurers will have a key role to play in
encouraging the safe and efficient introduction of advanced vehicle
technology. To do so, insurers must have access to information and data
to innovate and develop services, products, and pricing to support the
new automotive technologies.
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is the
primary national trade association for home, auto, and business
insurers. APCIA promotes and protects the viability of private
competition for the benefit of consumers and insurers, with a legacy
dating back 150 years. APCIA members represent all sizes, structures,
and regions--protecting families, communities, and businesses in the
U.S. and across the globe. Together, APCIA members write 54 percent of
the automobile insurance in the United States.
While the Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan makes no direct
mention of insurance, it does touch upon issues that are very important
to APCIA members that write automobile insurance, including safety,
information sharing, and appropriate division of oversight of automated
driving system technologies between the federal government and the
states.
Prioritization of Safety: Updating FMVSS and Standard Terminology for
ADS and ADAS Systems
It is entirely appropriate that the department places safety at the
center of its comprehensive plan. APCIA believes that safety standards
applicable to automated vehicles must set clear expectations for the
public and provide clear direction for technology developers and
manufacturers for compliance.
As such, we believe that the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) should be updated to address vehicles with both
automated driving systems (ADS) and advanced driver assistance
technology (ADAS). APCIA also supports the concept of requiring
manufacturers to submit self-certification of their technology and that
that recall authority applies to these systems, as it does for
conventional vehicles serving as the primary enforcement mechanism for
the FMVSS.
APCIA believes that exceptions to existing auto safety laws and
motor vehicle safety standards should be rare, limited to only the
highest levels (i.e., fully autonomous) of automated driving and should
clearly define the levels of automation to which the modification
applies. Exceptions should not be made for collision protection
standards.
APCIA strongly believes that there should be standardization of
terminology used to describe both automated driver assistance (ADAS)
and automated driving systems (ADS) used for highly automated or
``self-driving'' vehicles. Common terminology would also enable the
public to have a clearer understanding of the technology and allow
insurers to identify and differentiate systems by performance, a
critical element for insurance product development and pricing.
Standardized terminology would also facilitate education of the public
on the proper way to use automated driving systems on an ongoing basis
as the technology evolves should be a key element of any safety
framework for automated driving systems and automated driver assistance
systems.
Promoting Collaboration and Transparency: Data Access Standard and Data
Elements
Access to and sharing of automated or autonomous vehicle data is a
critical issue, not only for vehicle owners and insurers, but for
automotive technology developers, manufacturers, vehicle owners and
numerous other stakeholders. Safety, security, privacy, and protection
of intellectual property are all important, but must be balanced with
the need for third parties to access such data. At a minimum, vehicle
owners or lessees should have the ability to authorize access to
vehicle data to third parties with whom they wish to share data for any
reason.
When determining liability in an auto accident claims situation,
the primary approach today is to interview the drivers. With automated
vehicles, insurers will need access to recorded vehicle data to provide
evidence of how an accident happened. APCIA believes that our current
state-based system of determining liability for accidents and
compensating victims should be able to adapt to the changing nature of
the driving risk, but only if vehicle data is accessible and in a form
that allows for prompt accident investigation and resolution of claims.
The Comprehensive Plan continues to call for the private sector to
identify opportunities for voluntary data exchange, but it's becoming
clear that manufacturers are reluctant to do so absent clear guidance
on what their obligations are. Establishing a single set of rules for
data access and sharing at the federal level, and a standardized set of
data elements that balances the interests of all stakeholders is
critical. One suggestion that APCIA supports is updating the current
event data recorder (EDR) law to apply to automated vehicles with the
department working with state motor vehicle regulators, and insurance
regulators to develop a standard set of data elements.
Recognition of State Regulation of Insurance and Liability Issues
APCIA supports preservation of the current division of federal and
state regulatory responsibilities for motor vehicles, with the federal
government setting and enforcing safety standards for motor vehicles
and recalls, setting requirements for large vehicles. The states should
continue to have primacy on motor vehicle ``rules of the road'',
liability issues, insurance requirements and regulation, as they do
today.
Conclusion
Automated driving technology holds great promise for the future,
and implementing clear standards for safety, maintaining the current
federal and state roles in regulating automated vehicle technology and
ensuring that insurers have access to vehicle data on reasonable terms
to efficiently handle claims, develop products and underwriting methods
are an essential first step toward that future. APCIA and its members
stand ready to assist the Department of Transportation and look forward
to working together to establish a regulatory framework for automated
driving.
Robert Passmore,
Vice President, Auto and Claims Policy,
American Property Casualty Insurance Association.
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the
opportunity to submit a statement to the House Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit for the hearing on The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.
Thoughtful planning and safe deployment are critical as these
vehicles become a more prevalent part of the nation's transportation
landscape. ASCE recommends industry and government representatives work
cooperatively to establish national standards for the planning and
deployment of transportation infrastructure associated with automated
vehicles (AV). These standards will help guide the development of AV
systems by the private sector while establishing a framework for local
jurisdictions that plan and maintain infrastructure.
ASCE commends the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
hearing from a variety of vehicle industry leaders and transportation
experts. Federal, state, and local government officials need to balance
investments to preserve safety on existing systems while planning for
the roadways of the future with consideration of autonomous vehicles.
ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
Every four years, ASCE publishes its Report Card for America's
Infrastructure, which grades the nation's major infrastructure
categories using an A to F school report card format. The most recent
report card \1\, released in March 2021, evaluated 17 categories of
infrastructure and reflected an overall C- grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads earned a D on the report card, which recognized that the
introduction of connected and autonomous vehicles represents a major
technological shift. Although these technologies can provide an
opportunity to increase safety and mobility, reduce congestion and
carbon emissions, and improve land use, autonomous vehicles could also
lead to extra stress on the transportation system if implemented
incorrectly. Some 40 states have already either enacted legislation or
issued executive orders on autonomous vehicles, and a national
framework is necessary to prevent a patchwork of individual state-level
policies.
Safety
AV technologies have the potential to improve safety at a time when
roadway fatalities are a serious issue. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) released data \2\ in October indicating
20,160 people died in motor vehicle crashes between January and June
2021. This figure marks an increase of 18.4% compared to the first half
of 2020, in which 17,020 such fatalities were projected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813199
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a Human Factors for Connected Vehicles study by NHTSA
\3\, connected vehicle technologies have the potential to address up to
82% of crash scenarios with unimpaired drivers. These technologies
could save a significant number of lives and prevent crash-related
injuries, and help avoid tens of thousands of crashes each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/812068-
humanfactorsconnectedvehicles.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several areas where technology can fill in the gaps of
human performance and improve safety and mobility.
For example:
Technology improvements can provide stability control,
automatic braking, all-wheel drive, steering by wire, traction control,
collision avoidance, blind spot warning systems, lane control, and
automatic cruise control.
Infotainment systems linked to cell phone technologies
(e.g., Bluetooth and voice activated commands) in vehicles can reduce
distracted driving (e.g., from texting, looking down at a phone for
directions, searching for an address, etc.).
AVs possess hardware and software collectively capable of
performing some aspects of safety-critical control functions (e.g.,
steering, throttle, and braking) without direct driver input. AVs may
use vehicle sensors, cameras, GPS, and telecommunications to obtain
information to make decisions regarding safety-critical situations and
act appropriately by effectuating control at some level. In this way,
the AV infrastructure and the roadway infrastructure are
interdependent.
Vehicle to Everything (V2X) technologies are being
developed and tested to prevent or mitigate crashes. V2X technologies
must improve safety for the passenger and provide increased efficiency
for existing infrastructure. Connectivity to 5G systems will be
required and enough spectrum band must be preserved to support V2X
technologies.
ASCE has joined industry partners such as the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in
supporting the preservation of the 5.9 GHz wireless spectrum on which
connected vehicles using V2X technologies rely.
The recently enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
represents a substantial investment in surface transportation. The
legislation contains a five-year, $383.4 billion reauthorization of
federal surface transportation, highway safety, transit, and rail
programs and an additional $110 billion for road and bridge programs.
As this law is implemented, it will be important to make investments
that enhance growing technology.
Consideration should be given to the following:
As connected and automated vehicles (CAV) technology
continues to develop, cooperative systems must be achieved through
strong partnerships between vehicles manufacturers, infrastructure
owners and operators, government entities, freight transport and
logistics professionals, transportation safety groups, law enforcement,
first responders, and other private sector representatives.
Our nation's transportation infrastructure system needs
to meet the growth and demands of CAV technology. Strong and resilient
infrastructure must be in place to adopt new transportation technology.
It is important to invest in the infrastructure system to
ensure CAV technology is properly implemented. There must be a complete
and properly maintained infrastructure system in order to maximize the
safety benefits that CAV technology can provide.
Conclusion
ASCE thanks the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit for
hearing from a panel of experts on the subject of AVs.
AV technologies have the potential to improve safety and reduce
motor vehicle crashes. These vehicles will continue to be a part of the
nation's transportation landscape, and their appropriate use will be
facilitated by national standards developed by government and industry
leaders.
Statement of the American Traffic Safety Services Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
The American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA) welcomes
the opportunity to provide this Statement for the Record regarding
automated vehicles and roadway safety.
Established in 1969, ATSSA is an international trade association
which represents the manufacturers, distributors, and installers of
roadway safety infrastructure devices. Comprised of approximately 1,500
member companies, ATSSA's mission is to advance roadway safety and
achieve the policy priority of Towards Zero Deaths.
While the expanded use of connected and automated vehicle (CAV)
technology is an exciting technological advancement, it is important
for policy makers, automobile manufacturers, state departments of
transportation, local governments, and other stakeholders to recognize
that a critical focus needs to be the safe operation of these vehicles
on this nation's roadways. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) early estimate of traffic deaths in the first
nine months of 2021 showed a 12 percent increase in fatalities. ATSSA
members understand the potential safety benefits that can be realized
from the use of CAVs--but these benefits will only be realized after
thoughtful planning and strategic roadway safety infrastructure
investments.
Case Study
ATSSA has been on the forefront of examining specific types of
modifications to existing roadway safety devices and systems that will
be necessary to accommodate CAVs. For example, in 2018, ATSSA led a
case study evaluating pavement marking widths in order to determine how
they interact with CAV technology. This case study explored the effect
of longitudinal pavement marking width on the detectability of
preformed tape pavement markings by a machine vision (MV) based
advanced driver assistance system (ADAS). More specifically, this
research compared the performance of MV technology relative to 4-inch
and 6-inch-wide pavement markings. An aftermarket advanced driver
assistance lane departure warning (LDW) system was adapted such that
the pavement marking detection confidence rating that the LDW algorithm
assigned to each pavement marking was extracted. The detection
confidence rating assigned to each pavement marking served as the
measure of the detectability of the pavement markings. Variations of 4-
and 6-inch-wide preformed pavement marking tape were manufactured and
installed on a closed course testing area to simulate different levels
of in-service markings. The testing included various combinations of
lighting (daytime, nighttime, and nighttime with on-coming headlamp
glare) and environmental conditions (dry and wet recovery). This
research shows that the 6-inch-wide longitudinal preformed tape
markings consistently improved MV detection performance under wet
daytime conditions, which is critical since wet daytime conditions
provide a significant challenge for the MV technologies tested.
Much more work needs to be done to fully understand the
relationship between the vehicle and the roadway--and the potential
need for increased investments needed in roadway safety infrastructure.
Studies such as this should be part of an increased research and
planning effort that will be necessary to support the safe integration
of autonomous vehicles onto our roadway infrastructure system. Failure
to prioritize roadway safety in the development of CAV deployment
strategies could lead to an uptick in both motor vehicle crashes and
fatalities--which could be the reality if an automated vehicle should
fail to properly interact with a traffic signal, stop sign or pavement
marking.
Conclusion
The American commuting pattern continues to change--changes
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase in bicycle and
pedestrian traffic has highlighted the importance of safety for all
transportation system users, including vulnerable road users. Ensuring
that roadway safety infrastructure is in place to protect these
commuters and all who use our roadways must also not be overlooked.
While connected and automated vehicles are an exciting addition to
the roadway system, roadway safety needs to be considered every step of
the way in the planning, development and deployment process. ATSSA
stands ready to help make this technology a safe and successful part of
the transportation future in this country.
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Bill Sullivan, Executive Vice
President of Advocacy, American Trucking Associations, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 1, 2022.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chair,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives.
Dear Chairs DeFazio and Norton, and Ranking Members Graves and
Davis:
In anticipation of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit's upcoming hearing, ``The Road
Ahead for Automated Vehicles,'' the American Trucking Associations
(ATA) would like to provide the trucking industry's recommendations and
pillars for the establishment of sensible federal policy. ATA is the
largest national trade association representing the U.S. trucking
industry. Employing more than 7.9 million people and moving nearly 12
billion tons of freight annually, trucking is the industry most
responsible for moving America's economy. It is no coincidence that an
industry so essential to American productivity is at the forefront of
its most exciting innovations. America's truckers stood up and
delivered throughout the pandemic, ensuring the availability of life-
saving vaccines and personal protective equipment, and keeping our
grocery store shelves stocked. As we emerge from the pandemic,
Americans expect their goods delivered even faster, cheaper, and more
efficiently. Ongoing supply chain disruptions are exposing the need for
greater flexibility to meet these new challenges. ATA believes
automated driving systems (ADS) will significantly enhance the safety,
efficiency, and productivity of the U.S. freight and logistics system.
The benefits of automation can be accelerated by committing the
federal government to collaborations with private industry partners
that preserve the widest pathways to commercialization. ATA appreciates
the work of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to adapt
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards for automated trucks, and for their consideration of
the interaction between automated vehicles (AVs) and roadway
infrastructure. ATA believes that collaboration among stakeholders,
with leadership and guidance from DOT, is critical for developing a
unified national framework of laws and regulations to facilitate the
safe development, testing, deployment, and operation of commercialized
automated vehicles.
As work progresses on any such AV legislative or regulatory
framework, ATA encourages Congress and DOT to adopt a multi-modal
approach and prioritize commercial motor vehicles, heavy specialty
vehicles, trailer-combination vehicles, and passenger vehicles equally.
We strongly recommend that any legislation establishing federal
oversight of the development and deployment of AV technologies consider
all road users, including passenger vehicles, commercial trucks, buses,
as well as the supporting infrastructure. To that end, ATA offers
several guiding principles to promote the expeditious deployment of AV
trucks in the U.S.:
1. The federal government should take a leading role in setting
policies that will help foster the nationwide deployment of AV
technologies in trucking. The trucking industry relies on interstate
highways to facilitate the free flow of goods between states.
Accordingly, it is important that state and local laws do not
inadvertently create disparities that slow the adoption of these
safety- and productivity-boosting technologies. A clear process and
standards-setting role for the federal government that preempts state
efforts to regulate vehicle design is critical for commercial AV
development.
2. The federal government's approach should follow technological
maturity and industry best practices. AV technology in trucking is
developing rapidly--and demonstrations continue to show the promise of
enhanced safety and efficiency benefits. DOT should work with ATA,
including ATA's Technology & Maintenance Council, and other trucking
industry representatives to incorporate industry best practices when
developing guidance and regulations for ADS-equipped commercial motor
vehicles. Industry best practices provide a vital technical basis to
assist the evolution of legislative and/or regulatory frameworks.
3. The federal government should collaborate with industry to
create performance-based standards that focus on objective testing and
evaluation criteria for autonomous vehicles. Requiring AVs to achieve
an acceptable level of safety and performance, rather than requiring
the use of specific technology, will focus regulations on risk
management within specific operating environments. Government-industry
interactions through the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment (VSSA)
process and the AV TEST Initiative provide DOT with information on a
variety of approaches to ADS technology and operations from a cross-
section of organizations testing ADS-equipped vehicles. This
information will help DOT and other agencies develop policies,
regulations, and/or guidance without inadvertently picking
technological or operational winners or losers.
While some have raised concerns about the potential impacts of
automation on the workforce, ATA expects that there will continue to be
a significant role for drivers in trucking. Automation will iteratively
help build the capacity of the nation's transportation system, but
there will always be a need for professional drivers capable of
navigating the challenges of trucking. Because of the complexity and
diversity of the trucking industry, drivers will retain an essential
role in the deployment of automated vehicles while benefiting from
automated technologies that improve their safety and productivity.
Drivers will remain essential for monitoring automated driving systems,
manually driving outside the operational design domains of automation,
securing cargo and hazardous materials, and interacting with customers,
shippers, and receivers. With improved quality of life through these
new technologies that enhance driver safety and productivity, more
people will be attracted to the trucking industry and will help close
the driver shortage gap, which is now 80,000 drivers and expected to
top 160,000 by 2030.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Trucking Associations. ``ATA Chief Economist Pegs
Driver Shortage at Historic High.'' October 25, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA thanks the Highways and Transit Subcommittee for holding this
important hearing and welcomes the opportunity to engage Congress on
this critical issue. As policymakers contemplate AV policies and
regulations, it is critical that the trucking industry's perspective is
considered and that industry best practices are taken into account. ATA
looks forward to continuing its engagement with stakeholder advisory
groups and governmental entities, including the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) and other operating administrations
within DOT on automated vehicles. ATA will also continue working with
state trucking associations, state legislators, and transportation
officials as policies, regulations, and research emerge at all levels
of government and academia nationwide.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and continued
leadership.
Sincerely,
Bill Sullivan,
Executive Vice President of Advocacy, American Trucking
Associations.
cc: U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Members
Letter of February 14, 2022, from Jimmy Christianson, Vice President,
Government Affairs, Associated General Contractors of America,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 14, 2022.
The Honorable Peter DeFazio,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
RE: Hearing entitled, ``The Road Ahead for Autonomous Vehicles''
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)--
the leading association in the construction industry representing more
than 27,000 firms, including America's leading general contractors and
specialty-contracting firms--thank you holding this important hearing
on the future of autonomous vehicles. Now, more than ever, in order to
prepare for autonomous vehicles (AVs) and electric vehicles (EVs), we
must strategically invest in road and bridge infrastructure to ensure
that it is safe and ready for this emerging technology. States partners
need flexibility in addressing unique transportation challenges,
including the ability to prepare the nation's roadways for vehicle
technology of the future. In addition, we must protect the user-fee
system to ensure adequate funding for our nation's infrastructure.
As you know, funding for federal surface transportation programs is
supported by revenues from motor fuels user fees, and other trucking
user fees, which are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. However,
Congress has not adjusted the motor fuels user fees since 1993, and the
purchasing power of these user fees has fallen significantly. In
addition, improved vehicle fuel efficiency and the growing number of
alternative fuel vehicles are further reducing revenues. These revenues
are now insufficient to support current levels of funding.
In 2009, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Commission concluded that the U.S. needs a new approach to
transportation infrastructure financing. The commission specifically
notes that ``direct user charges are the most viable and sustainable
long-term, user pay option for the Federal government.'' There, the
commission recommended moving to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee or
mileage-based user fee (MBUF). The VMT is a user charge based on miles
driven in a specific vehicle as opposed to the current excise tax on
fuel consumed. At its simplest, the fee would be cents per mile. A VMT
would ensure that all users are paying their ``fair share'' to keep
roads and bridges in a state of good repair regardless of the type of
vehicle they drive. In the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act, Congress provided nearly $95 million to states to undertake
pilot programs to look at implementation of a VMT fee.
Last year, President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which provided historic funding for our
nation's infrastructure. Recognizing that it was now time to pilot this
VMT concept at the national level, Congress included a national VMT
pilot program in the IIJA. Many lessons were learned from these state
pilots, and the national VMT pilot will continue to help answer
questions including privacy protection, equity by income, geography,
and vehicle type, cost of administration, and complexity of
implementation. Advancement of a VMT system in the U.S. must include
adequate system development, promotion of national awareness and
improvement of public opinion, combining state and federal efforts into
a unified national concept, demonstration of national leadership, and
resolution of the key issues learned from the initial pilot programs.
Autonomous vehicles will require state and local governments to
make additional investments in our infrastructure to ensure they can
operate safely. This makes it even more important, as the country looks
to advance to AVs and EVs, that we protect the user-fee system to
ensure that we can adequately fund our nation's infrastructure for the
future. If we do not, the solvency gap in the Highway Trust Fund
between revenues and expenses will continue to increase, making it
harder for Congress to pass long-term surface transportation
reauthorizations. Congress will continue to struggle to piece together
a multitude of pay-fors to cover the necessary general fund transfer in
the absence of an innovative and reliable user-fee.
As stated, the rise in autonomous vehicles will require significant
investment, including roadway safety enhancements that decrease
dangerous traffic bottlenecks and improve pavement and marking
conditions on roadways. As such, it is paramount that state and local
governments are able to maintain needed flexibility in Congressionally
directed transportation funding to address and prioritize this matter.
We applaud Congress for the passage of the IIJA. However, we must
prepare for the next reauthorization to ensure that the investment in
our infrastructure, like IIJA, becomes the new normal--not a once in a
lifetime accomplishment. The most sensible way to transition from the
motor fuel taxes would be to start these early adopters of AVs and EVs
on VMT or another user fee. We thank you for the opportunity to weigh
in on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Christianson,
Vice President, Government Affairs, Associated General Contractors
of America.
Letter of February 17, 2022, from Michael Robbins, Executive Vice
President of Advocacy, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 17, 2022.
Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2167 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Ranking Member Rodney Davis,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2164 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairwoman Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
Thank you for holding the hearing titled ``The Road Ahead for
Automated Vehicles'' on February 2, 2022. Congress has been in sore
need of an update on the status of the automated vehicle industry, and
I appreciate the oversight your Subcommittee conducted during this
hearing. On behalf of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI), thank you for the opportunity to submit the
following statement for the record.
AUVSI is the world's largest nonprofit organization dedicated to
the advancement of unmanned systems and robotics across domains and
represents corporations and professionals from more than 60 countries
involved in industry, government and academia \1\. Included in our
membership are companies in the vehicle automation sector, and
specifically those businesses dedicated to automated goods movement
technologies. Specifically, AUVSI represents companies working in
automated trucking, automated low-speed delivery devices, and automated
warehouse yard and internal warehouse robotics \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.auvsi.org/member-organizations-list/all
\2\ https://www.auvsi.org/commercial-ground-advocacy-initiatives
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, we were excited about the inclusion of industry
witnesses who were able to update the Subcommittee on the status of the
full range of automated vehicles (AVs), including automated trucking.
Testing and deployment of automated commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
are continuing to gain traction in various states across the country,
which is testament to the technology's ability to streamline and
strengthen the domestic supply chain, augment the human workforce, and
increase efficiencies \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.auvsi.org/our-impact/level-4-cmv-deployment-map
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of the witnesses raised the ever-worsening scourge of
roadway fatalities and accidents. We too are saddened by the continued
and heightened loss of life suffered by all road users. AVs can and
should play a larger role in reversing that trend, coupled with other
safety enhancement technologies and regulations. We urge this
Subcommittee to take seriously the numerous safety benefits AVs
represent; they will never drive drunk, speed, or get distracted from
texting and as a result they will save lives \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-
safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that said, it is critical for all stakeholders to delineate
between AVs and vehicles that are equipped with advanced driver
assistance systems (ADAS). The latter technology also has a role to
play in increasing roadway safety. However, it is important to
distinguish that automated driving systems (ADS) and ADAS are not the
same thing \5\. In fact, inaccurately conflating the two will lead--and
has led--to injury and death. The terminology around these systems can
be confusing and there is no doubt we all need to do a better job
explaining why and how ADS and ADAS differ. We ask that this
Subcommittee join other AV stakeholders in insisting that the
technologies are characterized correctly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.cars.com/articles/what-does-adas-mean-442753/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent Standing General Order (SGO) issued by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was also mentioned by
witnesses. However, what was not mentioned was that the agency itself
has not determined how and when the data companies are submitting will
be made public. Their intent to release the information is clear,
however any implications that industry is hindering public release of
the information are untrue and delivered in bad faith. AUVSI, along
with a number of other industry stakeholders, has requested clarity
from NHTSA on how officials plan to release collected information. Yet,
to date, NHTSA has not shared any information with us or any other
stakeholders. We would strongly suggest that this Subcommittee
encourage the agency to be more forthcoming on this point, since
consumer awareness and trust is of paramount importance to AV
companies.
Finally, we were heartened to hear the labor representatives'
express interest in working collaboratively with AV companies and
associations to shape the future transportation workforce during the
hearing. AUVSI is eager to continue conversations already in progress
with labor unions, and we share their overarching goal of preparing
today's workers for good-paying and long-lasting jobs of the future.
In fact, the industry already has meaningfully pursued
relationships with career and technical education (CTE) providers to
begin the process of transitioning existing skillsets. Nuro recently
announced a groundbreaking initiative with De Anza College \6\, and
TuSimple established an innovative program partnership with Pima
Community College to train safety operators \7\. Over the last several
years, Aurora has partnered closely with Montana State University's
Gallatin College on their Associate of Applied Science (AAS) in
Photonics and Laser Technology on their curriculum, and company
representatives currently serve on the program's industry advisory
board. AUVSI is working to enable other companies to pursue similar
relationships with CTE providers and would encourage this Subcommittee
to examine these examples further, and push for more like them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.deanza.edu/autotech/av
\7\ https://www.pima.edu/news/press-releases/2019/201906-tu-
simple.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, we ask that this Subcommittee sustain the momentum
generated by this hearing and we would implore you to continue engaging
with industry stakeholders on how Congress can create safe and
responsible guidelines around the testing and deployment of AV
technologies. This industry holds immense promise to positively affect
every aspect of American life, and, on behalf of AUVSI and our member
companies, I thank you for your leadership on this issue and look
forward to future hearings and conversations. If AUVSI or any of our
members can ever be a resource, please do not hesitate to contact me at
any time.
Sincerely,
Michael Robbins,
Executive Vice President of Advocacy,
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
Letter of February 2, 2022, from Koustubh ``K.J.'' Bagchi, Senior
Director, Federal Public Policy, Chamber of Progress, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 2, 2022.
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio,
Chairman,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Ranking Member,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representatives DeFazio, Norton, Graves, and Davis:
Chamber of Progress appreciates the opportunity to submit a
statement for the record for the hearing entitled, ``The Road Ahead for
Automated Vehicles,'' held by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on February 2, 2022. Chamber of Progress is a new
progressive tech industry group fighting for public policies that will
build a fairer, more inclusive country in which all people benefit from
technological leaps. Our partners include a number of autonomous
vehicle (AV) companies, but our partner companies don't have a vote or
veto over our positions.
AVs Will Reduce Traffic Fatalities, Expand Access to Seniors and
Disabled, Improve Emissions
There are many benefits that AVs can provide to society. AVs can
provide access to people with disabilities and the elderly. A Bureau of
Transportation Statistics survey found that six million people with
disabilities lack access to the transportation they need, limiting
their ability to find job opportunities and see loved ones.\1\ AV
companies have the opportunity to make transportation much more
accessible from the start by accounting for a number of impairments,
including visual and mobility, in their design within all of their
fleets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/
special_reports_and_issue_briefs/issue_briefs/number_03/entire
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, studies forecast that AVs could reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from cars and trucks--the biggest source of transportation
emissions--by 80 percent.\2\ Most AVs will be electric, and many others
are hybrids. That's largely because electric vehicle (EV) technology
and AV technology complement one another. Electric vehicles are easier
for computers to control than traditional vehicles, and combining EV
and AV technology maximizes cost and fuel savings. Plus, AVs drive more
efficiently than humans can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://e360.yale.edu/features/will-self-driving-cars-usher-in-
a-transportation-utopia-or-dystopia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, deploying AVs on the road now could save hundreds of
thousands of lives over the long term as the technology continues to
become more advanced every year.\3\ Research shows that 90 percent of
car crashes are caused by human error. By eliminating human error, AVs
can make our roads safer. Studies suggest that putting AVs on the road
now could save hundreds of thousands of lives over the long term.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2017/11/why-waiting-for-
perfect-autonomous-vehicles-may-cost-lives.html
\4\ https://www.rand.org/blog/articles/2017/11/why-waiting-for-
perfect-autonomous-vehicles-may-cost-lives.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Support for AVs is Strong
The time is now to support robust AV deployment. In fact, a survey
commissioned last fall by Chamber of Progress found that there is
support for the deployment of AVs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://progresschamber.org/morning-consult-poll-dems-biden-
voters-union-members-support-autonomous-vehicles/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The survey found that 53% of voters are ready to increase
autonomous vehicle testing and deployment, and 53% are ready to ride in
an AV either now or in the next five years. A larger majority of those
surveyed (63%) believe there are major benefits to AVs including
accessibility and independence for non-drivers, including wheelchair
users, the blind, seniors, and those living in transportation deserts.
In fact, the same polling showed that a majority of adults support
AVs being tested in their state. Narrowing the results to respondents
in Western states including California, the poll found that 58% of
respondents favored local AV testing.
For Democrats and union members, support was even higher; 60% of
Democratic voters and 75% of labor union members support AV testing in
their state.
AVs Have the Potential to Spur New Job Creations and Fill in Turnover
Gaps
In addition to the jobs created by increasing efficiency in the
transportation and logistics industries, widespread use of AVs can
increase demand for maintenance and IT professionals. To meet this
demand, companies like Nuro have partnered with community colleges to
create technician training programs.\6\ Additionally, companies like
Waymo, Zoox, and Cruise have hired remote human operators to assist
their vehicles and improve passenger experience.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.losaltosonline.com/schools/de-anza-college-
introduces-autonomous-vehicle-training-program/article_ffbd1d4c-57b6-
11e c-b9db-3f562772a842.html
\7\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-08-10/
driverless-cars-are-proving-to-be-job-creators-at-least-so-far
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Transportation also predicts that AVs can improve
working conditions in existing transportation jobs by reducing the risk
of accidents and shifting demand toward last-mile services and short
trips.\8\ For long-haul truckers, this could mean fewer nights spent
sleeping in truck cabs and more time on deliveries close to home.
Driverless vehicles would also cut down the amount of turnover the
trucking industry faces as most drivers are of retirement age or close
to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-01/
Driving%20Automation
%20Systems%20in%20Long%20Haul%20Trucking%20and%20Bus%20Transit%20Prelimi
nary
%20Analysis%20of%20Potential%20Workforce%20Impacts.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Department of Labor and its state partners have
created job transition and retraining programs to assist those affected
by the introduction of autonomy. These entities help drivers adapt to
new technologies and market conditions, helping them find gainful
employment. By utilizing these driverless vehicles, involuntary job
losses would be reduced.
Government Investment Is Needed To Ensure a Robust Future With AVs
The timeline to a full transition to fully autonomous driving is
unknown and difficult to predict, but the importance of ensuring a
robust skilled workforce is critical to realizing the full benefits of
AV technology. Governments at all levels have a real opportunity to not
only ensure that innovation in this field flourishes, but also to help
secure the future for current commercial drivers who are prepared to
enter new roles. Furthermore, any new entrants should have robust
opportunities to gain necessary training and skills.
There is real opportunity for governments to play a major role in
helping commercial drivers prepare for an autonomous vehicle future.
For example, Congress could establish grant programs to incentivize new
entrants into training programs focused on roles established by
evolving AV technology. As referenced in Senator Gary Peters' Workforce
DATA Act,\9\ Congress could also pass a provision that measures the
impact of automation on the workforce in order to inform workforce
development strategies in the AV industry. Finally, Congress could pass
legislation to direct the National Academies to study how to measure
the impact of automation on the workforce, including job creation, job
displacement, job retention, and skill shifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1738
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As industries evolve, it is important to build incentives for
interested individuals to begin training for future positions that will
be established under an AV workforce; however it is just as important
to enhance or establish relevant programs that will respond to any
potential job loss or job displacement.
Furthermore, the full array of roles that will be available under
an AV workforce have yet to be determined. Therefore, fully
understanding what potential positions may be created through industry
evaluations and studies will be important in bolstering training
programs and incentivizing new workers to join the industry.
Our country has undergone industrial change based on technological
innovations for over a century. Now is the time to apply those lessons
and develop creative and efficient avenues of ensuring that workers are
prepared for a future with fully utilized AV technology.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue and for
holding this hearing.
Sincerely,
Koustubh ``K.J.'' Bagchi,
Senior Director, Federal Public Policy, Chamber of Progress.
Letter of February 17, 2022, from Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities Transportation Task Force Cochairs, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 17, 2022.
Via electronic mail.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
United States House of Representatives,
2136 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
United States House of Representatives,
2079 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Transportation
Task Force Co-Chairs write to provide comment on issues addressed in
the February 2, 2022 Highways and Transit subcommittee hearing ``The
Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.'' CCD is the largest coalition of
national organizations working together to advocate for Federal public
policy that ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment,
integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in
all aspects of society free from racism, ableism, sexism, and
xenophobia, as well as LGBTQ+ based discrimination and religious
intolerance.
The CCD Transportation Task Force developed Autonomous Vehicle (AV)
principles in December 2018 \i\. Signatories to the Principles included
22 national organizations. The Principles were submitted to the US
Department of Transportation (USDOT) in response to its request for
comment on its AV 3.0 guidance. The Task Force also submitted detailed
feedback in 2019 on issues to be addressed in a bi-cameral, bipartisan
self-driving car bill. Please find the feedback attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Transportation Task
Force Autonomous Vehicle Principles. December 3, 2018. Available at
http://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-Transp-TF-AV-Principles-120318.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the February 2nd hearing there was acknowledgement that AVs
could expand mobility access for people with disabilities. Nearly 1 in
5 people in the U.S. has a disability (more than 57 million). In 1990,
Congress passed the bipartisan Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In enacting the ADA, Congress sought to ``provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination
against individuals with disabilities.'' As a result, 99% of public
buses are equipped with ramps, far more curb ramps benefit the public,
and there is improved provision of accessible transit to people with
sensory disabilities. Yet, significant barriers to accessible,
affordable transportation remain across modes.
Many people with disabilities are currently unable to obtain a
driver license, and cannot afford to purchase an accessible vehicle.
Without affordable, accessible transportation people with disabilities
are unable to travel to work, to school, to contribute to and
participate in their communities, to support and spend time with family
and friends, and live their lives to the fullest.
AVs have the potential to drastically improve access for people
with disabilities, including members of the blind and low vision, deaf
and hard of hearing, intellectual, developmental and cognitive
disability communities, people with physical disabilities, including
wheelchair users, and people with neurological conditions including
epilepsy and seizure disorders. However, the promise and safety of AVs
will only be realized if the vehicles and the surrounding
infrastructure are fully accessible, and the safety elements consider
the needs of all people with disabilities.
We ask you to consider the following priorities, and to refer to
our full responses submitted in 2019:
First and foremost, legislation should require full
accessibility for all types of common and public use electric and
autonomous vehicles. Full accessibility, or inclusive design of a
vehicle, ensures usability by people with sensory, physical, cognitive
and neurological disabilities, including wheelchair users.
Licensing discrimination on the basis of disability must
also be prohibited.
Infrastructure must be improved for AVs to maximize their
benefits. Walk and rollability and access to vehicles for all will
require accessible public rights of way such as sidewalks, curb cuts,
accessible pedestrian signals, drop-off/pick-up points and cross walks.
Funding for these improvements should prioritize underserved
communities with the greatest need, and would provide much needed
access and mobility for travelers with disabilities in the short and
long term.
Passenger safety should be protected by ensuring health
and disability status and locations visited is not shared or used for
commercial or tracking purposes without permission of the individual.
We encourage studies examining the potential impacts on
transportation and land-use patterns, congestion, pollution, road
safety and public transit, members of low income, disability and
Indigenous communities and communities of color.
Finally, as you take seriously the needs of workers who
may be impacted by the transition to both electric vehicles and AVs,
and consider funding for training and new jobs, we ask you to ensure
inclusion of workers with disabilities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments regarding
the road ahead for AVs. Please do not hesitate to contact Carol Tyson
with any questions. We look forward to supporting the work of the
Committee on this important topic. Thank you for your commitment to
ensuring people with disabilities benefit from, and are included in,
the future of mobility.
Sincerely,
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Transportation Task Force Co-Chairs
Sarah Malaier, American Foundation for the Blind.
Swatha Nandhakumar, American Council of the Blind.
Claire Stanley, National Disability Rights Network.
Carol Tyson, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund.
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Gary Shapiro, President and CEO,
Consumer Technology Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 1, 2022.
Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2167 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Ranking Member Rodney Davis,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2164 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairwoman Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
Ahead of the February 2, 2022, Highways and Transit Subcommittee
hearing examining ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles,'' we
highlight how self-driving vehicle technology is improving American
lives and advancing U.S. competitiveness.
The Consumer Technology Association's (CTA) members are the
world's leading innovators--from startups to global brands--helping
support more than 18 million American jobs, including many who are
working to make the transportation system safer with self-driving
vehicles. Our membership includes a wide range of companies working to
bring self-driving vehicle innovations to America's roadways. This
includes vehicle and component manufacturers, software developers and
transportation platforms engaged in a multidisciplinary approach to
this emerging and growing industry.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Self-Driving Vehicles: Consumer Sentiment 2021--Consumer
Technology Association (cta.tech)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-driving technology benefits have become clearer over the past
few years. As our nation continues to feel the impact of COVID-19,
self-driving vehicles help provide safe and contactless deliveries of
food, medicine, and medical prescriptions to Americans in need.\2\
Self-driving shuttle vehicles transport COVID-19 tests at major
hospitals and clinics.\3\ Additionally, many self-driving truck
companies provide a free service for food banks in Texas, Arizona, and
Ohio.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/coronavirus-resources-nhtsa/coronavirus-
innovative-automotive-technologies
\3\ Id.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits and usage of self-driving vehicles has gone way beyond
the applications to assist during the pandemic. The self-driving
vehicle industry has made incredible advances in technology and
deployed more vehicles in a safe, thoughtful and measured manner.
Companies are safely deploying vehicles in California Michigan,
Colorado, Texas, Florida, and many other states across the country.\5\
Consumers can use ride-hailing self-driving vehicle services in
Arizona.\6\ Self-driving truck companies are operating on public
roads.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/117199-2/; https:/
/www.nhtsa.gov/automated-vehicle-test-tracking-tool;
\6\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-14/my-rides-in-
a-fully-driverless-waymo
\7\ https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/29/tusimple-completes-its-first-
driverless-autonomous-truck-run-on-public-roads/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-driving vehicles will improve productivity, cut road
congestion and make transportation cleaner and more efficient. They
will provide undreamed of independence, accessibility and mobility to
seniors and people with disabilities. Most importantly, they will
reduce roadway fatalities, the vast majority of which (94%) are caused
by human error.
Americans want these benefits. CTA research illustrates that
consumers desire safety improvements, better mobility and less time
wasted in traffic. Almost two-thirds of Americans surveyed are
interested in replacing their cars with self-driving vehicles.\8\ Also,
a recently study on automated trucking by the Volpe Center made clear
the economic benefits of the technology.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Supra, note 1.
\9\ https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Congress discusses competitiveness legislation, automated
transportation is key to America's future economic success. Self-
driving technology is the subject of fierce global competition. China
prioritized autonomous transportation in its high-tech infrastructure
program. The EU and other nations are also aggressively moving forward.
The nation that wins this race will claim the economic benefits and
high-skill jobs that self-driving vehicles produce--from the
manufacturing of advanced sensors to the development of new artificial
intelligence technologies. Our infrastructure must allow for the
advancement of self-driving vehicles.
Realizing the rewards of self-driving innovation will require
thoughtful, forward-thinking and targeted policies. However, even as
self-driving applications advance, American national testing and
deployment are thwarted by a maze of conflicting state rules, legacy
testing restrictions and federal limitations. That is why CTA worked
with the U.S. House on the SELF DRIVE Act and the House Energy and
Commerce Committee on legislative initiatives to promote the safe but
robust American rollout of self-driving vehicles.
Creating rules to capture the benefits of automated transportation
will require commitment, vision and flexibility. We encourage the House
to prioritize innovation and safety to allow this cutting-edge
technology to flourish.
Congress recently passed infrastructure legislation--which CTA
wrote to the President in support of the principles within the
legislative framework \10\--and we encourage you to consider ways to
support American innovation, remove unnecessary roadblocks and create a
clear and practical regulatory path that allows this next-generation
technology to advance in the U.S. Such efforts could include directing
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to revise outdated
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and encouraging states to
harmonize their self-driving and traffic regulations to avoid a state
patchwork of conflicting laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ cta-letter-to-wh_bipartisan-infrastructure-goals-7-22-
21_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTA offers the House its resources and comprehensive expertise in
this effort. We welcome the opportunity to participate in conversations
about advancing automated transportation and putting America in the
driver's seat for global technology leadership.
Sincerely,
Gary Shapiro,
President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association.
cc: Members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce
Statement of Kenneth W. Stuebing, BHSc, CCP(f), FO IV, President and
Board Chair, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
As President and Board Chair of the International Association of
Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I am grateful to the subcommittee for holding this
important and timely hearing on autonomous vehicles (AV). I appreciate
the opportunity to submit the following statement on the IAFC's behalf.
The IAFC represents the leadership of over 1.1 million firefighters
and emergency responders. IAFC members are the world's leading experts
in firefighting, emergency medical services, terrorism response,
hazardous materials (hazmat) incidents, wildland fire suppression,
natural disasters, search and rescue, and public-safety policy. Since
1873, the IAFC has provided a forum for its members to exchange ideas,
develop best practices, participate in executive training, and discover
diverse products and services available to first responders.
America's fire and emergency service is an all-hazards response
force that is locally situated, staffed, trained, and equipped to
respond to all types of emergencies. There are approximately 1.1
million men and women in the fire and emergency service--consisting of
approximately 300,000 career firefighters and 800,000 volunteer
firefighters--serving in over 30,000 fire departments around the
nation. They are trained to respond to all hazards ranging from
automobile accidents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods to
acts of terrorism, hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues,
fires, and medical emergencies. We usually are the first on the scene
of a disaster and the last to leave.
The IAFC has been active in examining the effects of the deployment
of AVs on the nation's roads and highways. Both IAFC members and staff
have attended multiple Federal Highway Administration National Dialogue
meetings. The IAFC has met with National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), AV manufacturers and state officials to discuss
traffic safety and other issues relating to AV deployment issues.
With numerous statistics stating that most traffic accidents are
caused by human error, the IAFC sees great promise in the deployment of
AVs. However, the IAFC also wants to better understand how AVs will
interface with emergency responders. The IAFC recommends that the House
of Representatives' Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure work
to develop national standards to address interactions between AVs and
emergency responders along with AV actions during traffic accidents.
Specifically, the committee should focus on establishing national
standards for AV manufacturers to ensure AVs yield to emergency
vehicles on the highways and recognize the many different local and
state regulations that may be in place in the various jurisdictions
through which AVs travel. AVs should be able to react properly to
malfunctioning traffic signals and preemption systems, poorly marked
roads or vandalized road signs. AVs must also be able follow hand
signals by emergency responders that are meant to control or direct
traffic.
The committee should also focus on establishing national standards
for AV manufacturers to ensure that an AV can be properly identify when
it has been involved in an accident, and whether the accident involves
another AV or non-AV vehicle, animal, bicyclist or pedestrian.
Standards also should be enacted to ensure an AV's engine shuts off
automatically in such accidents and the ability for emergency
responders to physically disable the vehicle if needed. AV
manufacturers should also be required to dialogue with first responders
on their interactions with AVs and develop emergency response guidance
for first responders to address the unique response challenges AVs may
present, especially when there are lithium-ion batteries involved.
Manufacturers also should provide education to first responders and
help them prepare for the deployment of these vehicles in their
communities. AV manufacturers also should take steps to educate the
public on the various autonomous capabilities of an AV they may
operate, whether these capabilities consist of basic driver assist
features or more automated systems with little or no human control
needed.
For areas where AV manufacturers intend to deploy fleets for
transportation, the IAFC would like AV manufactures to notify local
fire, EMS and law enforcement organizations before deploying vehicles
in their jurisdictions. These notifications should include where the
AVs will be deployed, the number of AVs being deployed, the hours the
AVs will operate, the level of automation the AVs will have, their
expected performance in inclement weather, how the AVs are expected to
respond to various traffic incidents, how accidents involving AVs will
be handled, and how the public will be notified about such accidents.
If AVs are used for freight transportation, the IAFC would like to
see special protocols and training be developed for transporting
hazardous materials shipments. Additionally, AVs transporting hazardous
materials should have electronic shipping papers, so first responders
can be aware of the type and quantity of hazardous materials they may
encounter at an emergency scene involving an AV.
Both AV manufacturers and first responders will have to be prepared
to invest a lot of time and effort to ensure the proper rollout of AVs
within each emergency jurisdiction. Fire departments will have to
ensure that all fire stations in the operational area (and their mutual
aid partners) are trained to recognize and respond to emergencies
involving AVs. AV Manufacturers and local responders will have to work
on closed courses to test the AVs and help the AVs to learn to
recognize human directions and even the sound of the various sirens
employed by local emergency responders' vehicles.
The IAFC is also concerned about potential false alarms where an AV
will call a 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) accidentally to
inform them of an accident that didn't occur. To ensure against these
false notifications the IAFC recommends that AV operations centers
reach out to PSAPs if there is a traffic accident.
Finally, the IAFC is pleased to see the committee's engagement
regarding 5.9 GHz spectrum and recommends that the committee continue
to monitor and oppose the FCC's decision to reallocate usage of the
lower 45 MHz of the 5.9 GHz band to unlicensed operations. It is
important that the FCC reconsider this decision and retain 75 MHz of
5.9 GHz spectrum for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications. The
retention of this spectrum for V2X will be key in facilitating the
technologies that will enable AVs to properly communicate with
roadways, emergency vehicles and other AVs. The IAFC strongly believes
that the safe and successful deployment of AV technology will directly
depend on there being sufficient spectrum available for V2X
applications.
On the behalf of the IAFC I thank the subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit this statement on the key issues to consider as
AV technology advances and more AV vehicles are tested and introduced
on America's roadways. The IAFC looks forward to continuing to work
with the subcommittee to ensure that AV deployment and development will
involve the active consultation of first responders, so this promising
technology can realize its full potential in improving the safety of
America's roadways.
Thank you, Merci, Wela'lioq.
Statement of ITS America, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor
Holmes Norton
ITS America: Equity, Climate, Safety, and Infrastructure Principles for
Automated and Autonomous Mobility
Introduction
More than 38,000 people died on US roads in 2020. Our cities, the
engine of the U.S. economy, are revving once again, leading to
increased congestion. Some interstates divide our communities. The
transportation sector is responsible for 29 percent of the country's
greenhouse gas emissions. Our highways and bridges, built largely
between the mid-1950s to 1970s, are crumbling and struggling to move
goods and people with the efficiency required by the technology-driven
global economy.
Twenty-one years into the 21st century, automated and autonomous
vehicles (AVs) present us with a generational opportunity to reimagine
our transportation system and transform outcomes--saving tens of
thousands of people, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and congestion,
and leading to more vibrant, equitable places.
Critical to achieving this future is the federal government putting
in place national regulatory frameworks and investments for the
physical and digital infrastructure with developers of AV technology
around areas such as equity, climate, safety, and intelligent
infrastructure, as the technology moves from expanded pilots to full
deployment of AV fleets. AVs present significant opportunities to
expand mobility for people who currently have limited transportation
options and increase access to mobility more broadly.
ITS America's Automated Vehicle Standing Advisory Committee
established task forces on equity, climate, safety, and infrastructure
to develop a set of principles to ensure AV benefits are broadly
realized. The resulting principles are intended to inform federal
programs, regulations, and recommend best practices that can be
implemented today and in the future.
Principle Recommendations
Improving Transportation Safety
1. Laying the groundwork for the transformation of our nation's
transportation systems and communities starts with safety. ITS America
supports enacting a federal regulatory framework to accelerate and
guide AVs' continued safe development and deployment, establishing a
national AV pilot program, and enacting innovative regulatory
approaches while ensuring compliance with state and local traffic laws
and rules, and an improved exemption petition process. We urge the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) to promote comprehensive public
education that can be uniformly messaged across industry, research, and
government sectors to advance responsible public education and
marketing, including awareness of the capabilities and limitations of
AVs and the transition from Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)
to Automated Driving Systems (ADS). We call on the USDOT to provide the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with adequate
resources, funds, staff, and public message resources to guide the safe
development and deployment of AVs, including funding to work with
industry, state, and local governments on regulations and laws that may
need to be updated to address AVs, and work with industry, government,
and research sectors to develop shared AV terminology for engineers,
policymakers, and consumers with precise definitions that the public
can understand.
Expanding Transportation Equity
2. Both the public and private sectors' thoughtful integration of
AVs can lead to more affordable, accessible, and equitable mobility
access and delivery options for underserved and low-resourced
communities. ITS America supports conducting or encouraging pilot
programs and research activities in Areas of Persistent Poverty (APP)
within state and local AV testing and deployment sites, which will
allow these communities to experience the technology and develop a
thorough understanding of opportunities for AVs to deliver more
equitable transportation outcomes.
3. ITS America supports the integration of AVs with other pilot
programs focused on enhancing equity, such as programs that provide
subsidized access to transit and transit-integrated Mobility on Demand
(MOD) and Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) programs, and Universal Basic
Mobility (UBM), including mobility wallets. This integration should
include a focus on increasing job access or increasing investment in
public transit services and providing transit agencies with increased
flexibility to fund smart transit technologies that support first-mile/
last-mile connections, including integrating shared ride services and
flex routes to increase access in APP. ITS America supports increased
federal and state research for AV pilot funding for rides and
deliveries that demonstrates innovation and learnings, with an emphasis
on programs that enhance mobility for areas of persistent poverty,
individuals with disabilities, older adults, communities of color,
tribal communities, unbanked and underbanked populations, rural
communities, food deserts, and pharmacy deserts.
4. ITS America supports developing criteria to evaluate and
prioritize AV pilot program selection on the priorities identified in
USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) grants funding directives.
Accessible Transportation
5. ITS America supports accelerating the modernization of federal
regulations to allow for the implementation of new vehicle designs,
technologies, and capabilities that improve accessibility and equitable
access while complying with state and local traffic laws and rules.
ITS America urges NHTSA to modernize federal motor vehicle
safety standards (FMVSS) to allow for the safe introduction of AVs with
innovative designs, including vehicles that are designed from the
ground up for purposes such as accessible personal transportation,
connections to mass transit, and facilitating deliveries. ITS America
urges NHTSA to use its statutory authority while FMVSS are being
updated to issue exemptions for vehicles with novel designs that are
safe. NHTSA should streamline the process for considering FMVSS
exemption petitions. Reducing regulatory uncertainty and providing
greater clarity will enable manufacturers to introduce new types of AVs
that will enhance USDOT's base of knowledge on the safety, efficiency,
and equity benefits of AVs with novel designs--while informing ongoing
and future rulemakings and complying with state and local traffic laws
and rules.
6. ITS America supports accessible and barrier-free universal
design practices for AVs and infrastructure. USDOT should work with
automakers, wheelchair devices manufacturers, and stakeholders to
advance the development of design standards that will provide
regulatory clarity and guidance to assist in building accessible AV
designs for wheelchair securements including wheelchair self-
securement. Ultimately, USDOT should work to increase the overall
number of vehicles that can be operated and ridden by wheelchair users
without extensive modification. It should also convene relevant
government agencies to explore ways to modify existing regulations to
allow for greater access to crash tested and transit compatible
wheelchairs. USDOT should work with AV developers and infrastructure
owners and operators to coordinate vehicle and infrastructure design.
AVs can significantly enhance mobility options for individuals without
a driver's licenses--especially people with disabilities and older
adults. However, many states require a licensed driver to be present
when a vehicle is being operated. USDOT should work with states to
ensure that unlicensed individuals are not prevented from using fully
automated vehicles that do not require human intervention (SAE Level 4
and 5) while complying with state and local traffic laws and rules.
7. ITS America supports disseminating best practices to ensure
that learnings from publicly funded pilot programs are broadly shared.
ITS America supports the exchange of best practices and learnings
pertaining to vehicles' design and development, transportation
operators and providers, impact on communities, and impacts on
underserved and vulnerable populations where AVs are in a position to
enhance management of mobility, promote the creation of innovative
planning tools, and create positive outcomes.
Sustainable Transportation
8. ITS America supports AVs and alternative and sustainable fuels
policies that support and supplement, not replace, high-efficiency
modes of transportation such as public transit; it also supports
multimodal, growth management, and transportation demand management
(TDM) objectives. ITS America supports AV policies that will prioritize
higher occupancy trips and modes made by AVs that will reduce vehicle
miles traveled, including ride-hailing AV fleets and policies that
increase vehicle utilization rates, decrease the need for vehicle
parking to reclaim and repurpose real-estate for other purposes, and
doesn't require roadway expansion. ITS America supports combining AV
technology with V2X connectivity, according to well-developed technical
standards, to save energy and reduce emissions through more efficient
driving speed profiles and aerodynamic drag reductions for AVs,
regardless of their powertrain technology.
Advancing Electrification Goals
9. ITS America urges Congress to eliminate the statutory
obstacles to electric vehicle charging on federal-aid highway right of
way and increase funding for publicly accessible electric vehicle
charging infrastructure and the electric grid that will be accessible
to all drivers of electric vehicles. ITS America supports the
development of recyclable and environmentally-friendly battery
technology, incentivizing a domestic recycling industry, reducing the
amount of rare-earth materials needed to build batteries, and research
into renewable recyclable materials that are still crash-worthy and
produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. ITS America supports policies
that encourage widescale adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)
including tax credits for manufacturing of ZEVs; incentives for
consumers, especially low-income consumers, to purchase ZEVs; tax
credits for the purchase of EV charging equipment, including for
residential, commercial, multi-family condo, and apartment complexes;
funding for zero-emission infrastructure; and credits for AV/ZEVs that
are shared use.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It is noted that for item nine, under Advancing Electrification
Goals, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Arizona
Department of Transportation (AZDOT) are not positioned to support
language regarding tax credits or incentives for consumers, as these
are not issues over which they have jurisdiction or oversight.
Therefore, TxDOT and AZDOT should be considered to have abstained from
item nine as included in ITS America's ``Automated Vehicle Standing
Advisory Committee Equity, Climate, Safety, and Infrastructure
Principles for Automated and Autonomous Mobility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernizing America's Infrastructure
10. ITS America supports increased digital infrastructure
investments, including broadband, 5G, and intelligent transportation
systems, to support human drivers and AVs. ITS America prioritizes
state of good repair investments for transportation infrastructure to
support a mixed fleet of AVs and human-driven vehicles. ITS America
does not believe AV-specific infrastructure programs are needed as long
as AVs are being designed to operate under current nationwide
infrastructure standards, not just areas with specific AV
infrastructure improvements. ITS America supports including
infrastructure improvements in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) update as a more prescriptive standard for
infrastructure investments that benefit AVs and human-driven vehicles.
As the MUTCD evolves to become more multimodal, with a more balanced
focus on vehicles and active transportation modes (e.g., walking and
biking), ITS investments, including V2X applications, that support
improvements in transportation services will be more fully realized.
Letter of February 2, 2022, from Tara Lanigan, Head of Policy, May
Mobility Inc., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 2, 2022.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Hearing on ``The Road Ahead for
Automated Vehicles''
Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on the future
of autonomous vehicles (AVs). May Mobility was pleased to see a well-
rounded panel and list of witnesses on this important subject.
About May Mobility
May Mobility is a Michigan-based company that develops autonomous
technology for use in shared vehicles. May Mobility does not focus on
the technology stack alone: we provide shared mobility solutions that
can complement existing public transit. Partnering with cities, transit
agencies, businesses, and states, May Mobility has deployed nine
autonomous vehicle pilots to-date, eight of which have been open to the
general public, and four of which are currently active in Michigan,
Texas, and Indiana. Our AVs have safely provided over 300,000 rides and
traveled over 400,000 miles on public roads.
Opportunities for AVs
As with any new technology, automated driving systems are merely a
tool for achieving tangible outcomes, and it is up to all of us to
ensure that this tool is used to make our communities safer, cleaner,
more accessible, and more equitable. While the potential of AV
technology is enormous, not every use case is a good fit for an
equitable and sustainable future of autonomous transportation. It is
essential that we get it right. This is particularly true when it comes
to safety, equity, the environment, accessibility, the workforce, and a
collaborative approach. As several witnesses testified in the hearing,
the future of AVs and our communities is not preordained. The policies,
planning, pilots, and partnerships that are initiated over the coming
years are critical to maximizing the benefits and minimizing the
negative externalities imposed by this promising technology.
Safety: May Mobility's mission is to make transportation safer,
greener, and more accessible. Safety is the foundation of a successful
autonomous future, both in development and implementation of AVs. It is
essential that the AV industry work hand in hand with cities and
transit agencies to ensure the appropriate public safety entities are
part of this conversation. This provides critical data on deployments
and understandings for regulators to ensure we can appropriately
monitor and develop standards for safety guidelines.
Complement existing transit: Public transportation is the backbone
of our nation's transportation system, and is the most important
foundation for a truly equitable and sustainable mobility system. In
many of the nation's largest and oldest cities such as New York,
Washington, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco,
transit delivers on this central role for large shares of trip mode
shares. However, for too many medium and small-sized cities that are
less densely planned, large gaps of service and frequency leave
potential riders with few choices outside of owning and driving a
personal vehicle. Purpose-built automated transit shuttles have the
potential to bring reliable service to areas that higher capacity,
lower frequency services are not able to provide.
Equity: With the right supportive policy choices, integration of
AVs into public transit services can contribute to a more equitable
future of transportation. As then-Mayor Pete Buttigieg described in his
last State of the City Address, the ``trap of being a low-income worker
who lacks reliable transportation to work'' is one that continues to
ensnare far too many Americans \1\. Just as the City of South Bend
looked to innovative new approaches to tackle their persistent mobility
challenges, so too should all cities and transit agencies have the
flexibility and federal support to pilot new ideas with clear outcomes
at the center of the planning from the start. Whether it's reaching
underserved communities, providing transportation to jobs, or creating
more accessible microtransit solutions, automated transit vehicles are
a new tool for transit agencies to utilize in further meeting the needs
of their communities. However, if actual or de facto regulatory and
policy barriers are applied to transit deployments of AVs, this
potential will be blocked and equitable service will be at the mercy of
private services or unattainable personally owned AVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://southbendin.gov/mayor-pete-buttigieg-remarks-for-the-
2019-state-of-the-city-address/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessibility: AVs also have the potential to provide more
accessible transportation at the outset of their wide adoption. May
Mobility offers wheelchair accessible vehicles in all of our pilot
cities today, and we look forward to releasing a new ADA compliant
vehicle platform later this year. We are also a semi-finalist team
member of the USDOT Inclusive Design Challenge, in which we're working
with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to
prototype their automated wheelchair securement system and create a
roadmap for scale. With accessible solutions incorporated early, AVs
could provide more options for the disability community to get around
more safely, comfortably, and efficiently.
Workforce development: We thank the TWU for publishing its ``New
Technologies in Transit Systems'' report. This is an important step in
the conversation. The report notes, ``how significant these impacts
are--and whether they are positive or negative--will depend on choices
made by transportation decision-makers and what policies are in place
to protect and assist workers through the transition.'' As the industry
matures, May Mobility is thinking about these long-term perspectives
when it comes to workforce development, training, and integration. In
the long term, transit agencies will be the owners and operators of
automated vehicles, as much as they are with traditional public transit
buses and other rolling stock. While we do not need to retrain the
entire workforce today for a technology in the pilot stages, we support
and are actively engaged in understanding and defining what the future
of this integration looks like, hand-in-hand with transit agencies and
their workforces.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Transport Workers Union of America, ``New Technologies in
Transit Systems'': 2019. https://www.twu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/
04/INNOVATION-WHITE-PAPERV2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Barriers to Shared AV Transit: Achieving the greatest
benefits, while reducing and avoiding the most potential negative
impacts, of AVs is made more difficult by a series of overlapping
regulatory, policy, and other impediments that appear to push the
industry toward the most harmful deployment models. In 2015, this
Committee and the Congress passed the FAST Act, in which Section 24404
of amended Section 30112(b) of title 49, United States Code, to
restrict the use of non-compliant vehicles for research, testing, and
evaluation to automakers that have sold compliant vehicles in the past.
This provision creates a moat for legacy manufacturers against
competition from technology companies like May Mobility and others for
any unique, purpose-built vehicle designs.
Furthermore, the process for seeking an exemption from the FMVSS
for even low volume, pilot deployment use cases has proven to be an
unworkable path. Companies that seek to deploy innovative vehicle
designs for automated passenger vehicles have not been granted a
waiver, while others have received a waiver after 18 months for cargo-
only design. This has allowed foreign companies in the industry to have
an advantage over domestic companies because they have been able to
utilize the Part 591 importation process that allowed the deployment of
non-compliant shuttles in the US for testing and evaluation. Several US
companies were then forced to take their domestically built and
manufactured vehicles, drive them across the Ambassador Bridge to
Canada, then apply for an importation approval from NHTSA and the EPA,
and then drive the vehicles back into the country. This process is not
only illogical and counter to US policy priorities, it is extremely
costly and time consuming. These delays and added costs have already
forced several once-promising companies out of business.
While May Mobility does not manufacture vehicles, these limitations
have limited the variety of options available to us when selecting a
vehicle platform to either our initial low-speed vehicle platform, the
Polaris GEM, or to use traditional automobiles like the Lexus RLX
Hybrid that we have currently deployed. Without the ability to travel
at normal roadway speeds and to offer purpose-built vehicle designs for
shared AV usage, we are not able to fully maximize the best case
deployment model of shared, autonomous, accessible, and electric
vehicles.
For this vision to become a reality, we urge the Committee and the
Department of Transportation to provide pathways for innovation to be
piloted and safely tested that does not dramatically and unnecessarily
delay such processes with contradictory policies and requirements.
Recommendations
Take a collaborative, scalable approach: Publicly available, shared
and electric AV shuttles are critical to ensuring that we maximize the
tremendous potential benefits of autonomous vehicles. Deploying AVs in
collaboration with cities and states also provides the public with a
safe first experience with a new technology. But funding pilots for
just one or two years will not allow for the learnings nor the
scalability that both the private and public sectors need for AVs to be
a successful addition to the transportation landscape.
Grant funding for pilot deployments are more essential now than
ever: We were pleased to see the SMART program included in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provides robust and consistent
funding opportunities for these pilots in cities of all sizes and
environments. To meet the evolving transportation needs of cities,
transit agencies must be enabled to innovate, iterate, and adapt the
way that they serve their communities. Without federal grant programs,
transit agencies will have no funding to try new approaches or
technologies without taking money from core services and functions
funded through traditional formula funds and local sources. FTA grants
also ensure the equally important involvement of FTA for distributing
lessons learned and best practices so that the entire industry is aware
of ideas and lessons emanating across the nation.
Facilitate a productive, holistic conversation on workforce
development: There is an opportunity for transit agencies and AV
providers to figure out a long-term workforce plan together. This does
not mean purely automating every vehicle in public transit; this means
figuring out how a new technology and the possibilities for vehicle
design and deployment models offer great new tools for transit agencies
and mobility managers to provide a better, more equitable, more
sustainable, and ultimately more utilized public transit system.
We know that labor, industry, transit agencies, and the DOT must
begin working together to assess and plan for the just and inclusive
workforce transition. We stand eager and ready to be active in that
discussion. Today's hearing was an important step in advancing these
conversations, but it is even more important that this Committee and
the Department further the conversation among all stakeholders beyond
the questions this technology may raise, and toward working together to
solve them.
Conclusion
Thank you for holding this important hearing and for your
leadership on these issues. We look forward to being an active and
engaged participant in future conversations and legislative efforts to
ensure the best outcomes from introducing new and exciting technologies
that best meet the mobility needs of the public.
Sincerely,
Tara Lanigan,
Head of Policy, May Mobility Inc.
Letter of February 16, 2022, from Ben Siegrist, Director,
Infrastructure, Innovation, and Human Resources Policy, National
Association of Manufacturers, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor
Holmes Norton
February 16, 2022.
The Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chairwoman,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
The Hon. Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the largest
manufacturing association in the United States representing
manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states,
appreciates your focus on addressing autonomous vehicle (AV)
regulations and potential legislation by holding the recent hearing
entitled, ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.''
The NAM shares the committee's interest in the safe deployment of
AVs across the United States and believes that there is ample
opportunity to advance important legislation to safely support the
deployment of new vehicle technologies. The expansion of A Vs into our
national transportation system is an opportunity to lead by enhancing
safety on our roadways and increasing efficient goods movement across
our strained supply chains. By holding the recent hearing focused on AV
regulation, safety, workforce and societal impacts, the committee is
reaffirming its commitment to a comprehensive review of outstanding
regulatory concerns and federal oversight. Manufacturers look forward
to supporting the legislative process to get safer vehicles, utilizing
innovative technology, on the roads for the benefit of all.
Legislation that would provide a necessary national regulatory
framework has repeatedly stalled in Congress and this inaction has
slowed our global leadership in the AV marketplace. America's AV
innovators require a regulatory regime that allows the continued
pursuit of safe, data-driven development of vehicle technology. Under
current regulations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) can issue no more than 2,500 exemptions per year, per
manufacturer, for AVs that do not utilize existing approved safety
equipment to operate on America's roadways. By their very nature, the
most advanced AVs do not or will not require the same equipment
standards as even the most modern, non-automated vehicles. By
restricting NHTSA exemptions, the current regulatory paradigm prohibits
the collection and synthesis of data that is vital for AVs to further
develop safety enhancements. As your committee considers legislation,
the NAM encourages you to expand NHTSA's ability to grant AV exemptions
in order to further develop safety technology.
Additionally, NHTSA is currently pursuing a variety of rulemakings
related to AV deployment and safety oversight. Along with industry
stakeholders, the NAM wrote to Secretary Buttigieg last year urging for
the timely publication and processing of those ongoing regulations. The
uncertainty surrounding potential regulatory action presents an
impediment to innovation at a crucial juncture in AV development. The
NAM and related equipment manufacturers and suppliers share the goal of
safe and responsible AV deployment and we encourage the committee to
work closely with agency regulators to clear any rulemaking backlog.
Lastly, as with all safety-related vehicle regulation, NHTSA plays
a vital role in establishing a federal standard that will allow for
safe vehicle operations across all jurisdictions. While states should
rightfully be partners committed to enacting vehicles rules for safe,
local road use, the U.S. Department of Transportation must pursue the
comprehensive and preeminent regulatory framework necessary for
national AV deployment. A nationwide standard that supersedes any
efforts for patchwork regulatory compliance will ensure the highest
performing technological advances are commercially viable and available
for all consumers.
The development and deployment of AVs into the larger fleet of
vehicles on American roads will require a partnership between
automotive innovators, manufacturers and regulators to meet
technological and safety challenges. Manufacturers are on the cutting
edge of vehicle development, but also related road markings, signage,
equipment, and systematic components that are needed to grow the
domestic AV industry into a global economic engine. We encourage your
committee to consider expanding NHTSA's exemption capabilities, pursue
timely regulatory development and ensure the establishment of a
national regulatory framework necessary for safe AV deployment.
Sincerely,
Ben Siegrist,
Director, Infrastructure, Innovation, and Human Resources Policy,
National Association of Manufacturers.
Statement of the National Safety Council, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Thank you for allowing the National Safety Council (NSC) to submit
this statement for the record. NSC is a nonprofit organization with the
mission of eliminating preventable deaths from the workplace to any
place through leadership, research, education and advocacy. Our 15,500
member companies represent employees at nearly 50,000 U.S. worksites.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) projects
that an estimated 31,720 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in
the first nine months of 2021 between January and September.\1\ These
entirely preventable crashes have a tremendous human toll and cost the
American economy over $463 billion a year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813240
\2\ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/
introduction/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor vehicle deaths, United States, 1913 2020
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2022 National Safety Council. All rights reserved.
NSC would like to add information to the hearing record on the
following topics:
1. Automated vehicle (AV) technologies have the potential to save
thousands of lives each year but will require federal leadership to set
minimum national safety standards and requirements.
2. Consumers are confused about the advanced driver assistance
system (ADAS) safety features vehicles currently have. As such,
consumer education about these safety features should be enhanced and
manufacturers should be required to clearly communicate the limits of
existing safety technologies.
3. Connected vehicles are an important part of safe implementation
of AVs, and federal Communications Commission (FCC) action could
undermine full implementation of connected vehicles.
4. There will be a range of technologies on the roads for decades,
representing everything from existing non-automated vehicles to the as
yet unseen full autonomous, which will bring yet unknown additional
safety issues to the fore.
Understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction is commercial
vehicles, NSC uses the term vehicle to refer to both personal and
commercial throughout the statement.
Federal Leadership Needed to Advance the Lifesaving Potential of
Advanced Technology
NSC believes advanced vehicle technology, up to and including fully
automated vehicles, can provide many benefits to society if deployed
responsibly and with safety as a primary goal. Most importantly,
advanced vehicle technology has the potential to greatly reduce the
number of fatal crashes on our roadways. However, federal leadership
and action on motor vehicle safety is required to realize these
benefits and ensure one level of safety across the United States
regardless of the technology enjoyed by consumers. Consumers need
confidence in the safety of their vehicles regardless of where they
reside, and manufacturers need certainty in order to invest in design
and production. States do not possess the expertise or resources to
replicate design, testing and reporting programs. Further, a patchwork
of requirements will result in confusion for consumers and an increase
in cost for manufacturers and operators. Finally, the absence of safe,
workable standards will drive development, testing and deployment
overseas, resulting in the flight of innovation and the jobs that
accompany it to locations outside of the U.S. The absence of these
standards also contribute to avoidable safety risks and could
contribute to the already high number of preventable deaths on our
roadways.
Transparency
As Congress evaluates potential legislation on AVs and other
automated safety advances, transparency regarding this technology is
key. Previous bills have included requirements for reporting to DOT by
AV developers on safety metrics. NSC supports such required reporting.
Congress should add this level of transparency and require topics
including, but not limited to, crashworthiness, human-machine interface
data, post-crash behavior, capabilities and limitations of the vehicle,
operational design domain, and consumer education efforts to be
reported. This information should be reported regularly and presented
clearly in a way for the public to be able to digest.
Data are key to transparency and safety. NSC believes that data on
electronic logging devices (ELDs) and electronic data recorders (EDRs),
which provide a window into the human-machine interface with advanced
vehicles, can be key to improve safety. The knowledge gained from these
devices allows manufacturers to be nimbler and make adjustments in near
real time to improve safety based on what is actually occurring in
operation, rather than making changes based on assumptions and
estimations that must be accommodated in a later model year. To this
end, Congress should facilitate data sharing as widely as possible and
require that manufacturers provide accessible, standardized data to law
enforcement, state highway safety officers, investigators, insurers,
and/or other relevant stakeholders. Collecting and sharing de-
identified data about near misses and other relevant problems could
also help to aggregate useful information for the motor vehicle
industry. It will allow the industry to take proactive steps based on
leading indicators, rather than waiting for a crash or a series of
crashes to occur. Finally, the data will be useful to researchers and
the safety community in analyzing the safety benefits--and potential
drawbacks--of these technologies as they continue to mature.
Acquiring an understanding of what happens when systems perform as
intended, fail as expected, or fail in unexpected ways yields valuable
information for manufacturers--some of whom have common suppliers.
Further, in-service data, near miss and post-crash information sharing
can help civil engineers and planners design better and safer roadways.
It will also help safety and health professionals design better
interventions to discourage risky driving or affect the behaviors of
other roadway users.
NSC has long supported de-identified data sharing similar to what
the aviation industry does, and we are pleased to see the PARTS
(Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety) proceeding.
Analysis of de-identified data in the vehicle industry will provide
windows into leading indicators, increasing the potential to save
lives.
Enhancing Consumer Understanding of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
The potential safety benefits of automated vehicles and other
advanced safety technologies could be incredible. However, to be clear,
it will be decades before there is meaningful AV fleet penetration on
U.S. roadways. In the meantime, there are significant safety
technologies currently available in vehicles today that should be made
more widely available. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) can
prevent or mitigate crashes, and NSC is working to expand consumer
education around these new technologies, which is critical in realizing
their full potential. NSC created the first and largest ADAS national
education campaign, MyCarDoesWhat.org. The purpose of MyCarDoesWhat.org
is to educate the public about these assistive safety features in order
to maximize their potential lifesaving benefits. Visitors to
MyCarDoesWhat.org learn about dozens of existing safety features on
their vehicles, including lane departure warning, blind spot
monitoring, backup cameras, and automatic emergency braking.
In 2019, NSC, in collaboration with AAA, Consumer Reports, and J.D.
Power, released ``Clearing the Confusion: Recommended Common Naming for
Advanced Driver Assistance Technologies.'' \3\ Since release, more
organizations have joined in support of standard, simple, and specific
names for ADAS technologies in an effort to reduce consumer confusion.
Safety features may change over time as software and hardware updates
in turn modify the operational parameters for vehicle systems.
Providing education throughout the life of vehicles can help consumers
better understand how these features can advance safety. Today, 93
percent of new vehicles offer at least one ADAS feature, and the
terminology often seems to prioritize marketing over clarity.\4\ DOT
endorsed the naming recommendations, and we urge other safety
organizations, automakers, journalists and lawmakers to join us in
adopting these terms.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/
miscellaneous/adas-nomenclature.pdf
\4\ https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/ADAS-Technology-Names-
Research-Report.pdf
\5\ https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-
secretary-elaine-l-chao-announces-new-initiatives-improve-safety
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSC recommends that, at the very least, systems that are not fully
automated (level five), should not be described as such. ADAS, with
emphasis on ``driver assist,'' are the only technologies commercially
available in vehicles today and each and every one of those vehicles
requires the driver to remain fully engaged in the driving task. That
fact is often lost in marketing, media reports and consumer
expectations. Labeling a motor vehicle as ``automated'' or
``autonomous'' today, or even using terms such as ``autopilot'' or
``self-driving,'' only confuses consumers and can contribute to loss of
situational awareness around the driving task. Marketing is not
education. It will take a commitment to standard nomenclature and clear
performance outcomes promulgated by DOT to ensure that consumers better
understand how to engage with and what to expect from these
technologies.
5.9 GHz
Connected vehicles are an important part of safely implementing AVs
to provide safety redundancy. FCC actions to reallocate the 5.9GHz
``safety band'' away from its intended use for transportation safety to
unlicensed use, such as Wi-Fi derail this effort to save lives. NSC
strongly believes that FCC action to diminish the safety band to be a
grave mistake. The federal government, numerous automakers and
suppliers have proven this band is viable for vehicle communications,
and some are beginning to deploy to this dedicated spectrum.
Improvements in technology and safety in transportation have
historically gone hand-in-hand. Setting aside this spectrum for
transportation safety was done with the goal of reducing or mitigating
fatal transportation incidents, some of which were at least partially
attributable to predictable and preventable human behavior. The FCC
action nullifies this foresight and removes the full benefit that
technology provides.
Motor vehicle crashes are an epidemic in the U.S., and operating a
motor vehicle remains one of the deadliest things we do on a daily
basis in spite of much improved, safer vehicle designs and record-
setting seat belt use rates across the nation. The FCC should be part
of the solution to saving lives. NSC urges the Subcommittee to seek
answers from the FCC about the safety impacts of this proposal and
ensure that roadway safety remains our top priority.
Conclusion
Today, we have millions of drivers behind the wheel and spend
millions of dollars on education and enforcement campaigns. Yet, we
still recognize billions in economic loses as a result of motor vehicle
crashes. The integration of automated vehicle technologies will likely
be messy as we deal with a complex and ever-changing human-machine
interface. That is why federal leadership is needed. There is no need
to repeat mistakes of the past.
NSC appreciates this Committee's leadership on vehicle technology
and safe roadway transportation. If safety for the traveling public is
the ultimate goal, advanced technology provides a promising opportunity
to achieve that outcome and will go a long way to take us down the road
to zero.
Letter of February 1, 2022, and Autonomous Vehicles Policy Guide, from
Rick Guerra, P.E., F.NSPE, President, National Society of Professional
Engineers, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 1, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairwoman,
The Honorable Rodney Davis, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
NSPE Public Comment RE: House Highways and Transit Subcommittee
Hearing: The Road Ahead for Autonomous Vehicles
On behalf of more than 23,000 members of the National Society of
Professional Engineers, these comments are submitted for consideration
of inclusion into the public record for the House Highway and Transit's
February 2 hearing on ``The Road Ahead for Autonomous Vehicles.''
NSPE's commitment to the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare warrants a seat at the table in the discussion around
autonomous vehicles (AVs).
The National Society of Professional Engineers is committed to
creating a world where the public can be confident that engineering
decisions affecting their lives are made by qualified and ethically
accountable individuals. NSPE Position Statement No. 03-1772 states
that the testing and deployment of AVs must include a licensed
professional engineer. The rationale for the position is rooted in a
professional engineer's ethical obligation to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare.
The duty to protect the public goes beyond an ethical obligation,
however; every state licensing board has a system of laws and
regulations that holds professional engineers accountable for
protecting the public. Professional engineers also must complete
continuing education (the number of hours varies by state) to maintain
their license. By fulfilling a continuing education requirement,
professional engineers are able to stay abreast of new developments in
AV technology and can use that knowledge to inform decisions around the
development and deployment of AVs. By virtue of their ethical duty to
protect the public and technical expertise, professional engineers are
uniquely positioned to contribute to this conversation.
With this role in mind, the National Society of Professional
Engineers recommends the Subcommittee utilize the voice of professional
engineers when considering policy around AVs, as well as follow the
recommendation found in NSPE's Autonomous Vehicles Policy Guide.
NSPE would like to highlight its recommendation on creating a
third-party verification system found in the Autonomous Vehicle Policy
Guide. A third-party verification process should establish that the
automated vehicle technology under review meets a minimal level of
safety, as determined by an assessment of risk. This can be done
through the submittal of risk assessments audited by a professional
engineer who is in responsible charge of the third-party verification
process. When using the expertise of a PE as a third party, one can be
sure that their decisions are being made with the utmost consideration
for the public health, safety, and welfare rather than out of loyalty
to the manufacturer or owner of the Automated Driving System (ADS). By
suggesting this guide rail of third-party verification, we ensure
responsible innovation in ADS technology.
I thank the Subcommittee Chair and Ranking Member for scheduling a
hearing on this important topic, and for their consideration of these
comments.
Sincerely,
Rick Guerra, P.E., F.NSPE,
President, National Society of Professional Engineers.
Attachment: Autonomous Vehicles: A Regulatory Policy Guide
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Autonomous Vehicles: A Public Regulatory Policy Guide
With the introduction of autonomous vehicles, automation is poised
to become a much larger part of our transportation environment. Much of
the discussion to date has focused on the technology, its capabilities,
and the perceived public benefits. However, many questions remain
unanswered by industry, which has led to uncertainty within the public
regulatory environment. To address this uncertainty, NSPE proposes the
outcome-based standards below, based on careful consideration and
deliberation, as a starting point for adopting standards that protect
public safety.
This policy guide provides public policy decision makers,
regulators, manufacturers, and others with guidelines to measure safety
readiness of autonomous vehicles under consideration for deployment.
1. Risk Assessment
Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should adopt a risk assessment
and/or hazard severity model. What is an acceptable amount of risk? In
order for industry and the public to properly assess risk,
manufacturers should be required to report all incidents involving
autonomous vehicles. An industry standard for risk assessment needs to
be established.
2. Ethics Compliance Disclosure
Autonomous vehicle manufacturers' safety concerns cannot, nor
should, be limited solely to the vehicle's occupants. A human driver
will assess the immediate environs to determine the best possible
outcome for an operating action.
3. Self-Sufficiency
Autonomous vehicles should be able to operate safely and correctly
without the support of additional public infrastructure and investment,
such as dedicated AV lanes and vehicle-to-infrastructure investments.
4. Accountability
Autonomous vehicles manufacturers should be required to maintain an
expanded ``black box'' (event data recorder) of data inputs for post-
incident evaluation and should include the following:
Reference to a time standard so all recorded events
refer to a known point in time.
The service brake data event should also include
braking intensity from 0 to 100%, not just ON/OFF.
A series of recordings from the outside object
detection sensors, both forward and lateral looking--invaluable
information for accident reconstruction.
Outside conditions (temperature, weather conditions,
posted speed limits, and traffic intensity) should also be recorded.
Any received driving condition alerts that may have
been broadcast via the GPS or traffic control signals.
5. Third-Party Verification
Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be required to demonstrate
capability for safe driving before further expansion and rollout.
Third-party verification should be performed by a licensed professional
engineer or others who are appropriately qualified.
6. Redundancy
Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should provide back-up operating
systems. Redundancy can ensure that critical operating systems will
function while maintaining passenger and occupant safety.
7. Map Standardization
Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should work toward a standardized
mapping system that ensures the correct location of the vehicle and
that provides necessary and timely changes to the system's maps.
8. Security
Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should demonstrate, before
widespread deployment, a certain level of security to prevent jamming
and hacking.
9. Training/Operational Licensing
Autonomous vehicle manufacturers should provide training and
operational support beyond the regular driver's license, educating
drivers about the limitations of self-guiding features.
10. Maintain Manual Controls
Manual driver controls should be maintained for autonomous vehicles
for all levels of autonomy. Eliminating the ability of vehicle
occupants to move the vehicle to a position of safety is
counterintuitive to safety principles.
11. Safety Features
The current level of automotive safety devices/features should be
maintained. Vehicle safety devices and features should remain until
sufficient historical data is compiled on the accident history and
safety record of autonomous vehicles and can justify otherwise.
12. Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connectivity
As part of autonomous vehicle operation and to enhance safety,
vehicle-to-vehicle connectivity should be included as part of
autonomous vehicle operation.
Licensed professional engineers should play a critical role as part of
the autonomous vehicle design and manufacturing process because of the
breadth and depth of the professional engineers' understanding of
engineering issues as well as their obligation to hold paramount the
public health, safety, and welfare.
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Todd Spencer, President and CEO,
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 1, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 2165 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 2165 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hearing, ``The Road Ahead for
Automated Vehicles''
Chairman Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
Since 1973, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA) has been advancing and protecting the rights of small-business
motor carriers and professional drivers. OOIDA is a critical
stakeholder for all issues affecting trucking, with a unique focus on
those directly impacting small-business truckers. As the Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit meets to discuss the future of automated
vehicles (AVs), we urge you to consider how these technologies will
impact the trucking industry, especially the vital role of professional
drivers and independent owner-operators.
Professional truckers have a keen interest in the development of
AVs as these technologies have the potential to drastically change the
trucking industry, in particular its workforce. While we are still
years away from fully automated trucks, decisions made today will have
a significant impact on how AV technologies are deployed, and
ultimately, on the livelihood of truck drivers and the economy at
large. Elected officials, federal regulators, and our industry partners
must ensure AV policies are developed in a safe and responsible manner
that takes commercial drivers' perspective into account.
We understand the desire to swiftly unleash American ingenuity in
multiple transportation sectors and agree the federal government must
play an integral role in balancing safety and innovation on our roads.
But Congress should not pursue a one-size-fits-all legislative approach
that implements the same policies for autonomous passenger and
commercial vehicles. The safe operation of an automobile contrasts
greatly with that of a heavy vehicle. The introduction of autonomous
technology to both classes will present distinct safety challenges that
should be addressed and regulated on separate paths. Naturally, the
equipment and technology that works well on an automobile weighing
3,000-4,000 pounds is far different from what is needed for trucks
weighing 80,000 pounds. As various Committees consider AV legislation,
Congress must develop separate policies that better reflect the
different safety challenges facing automobiles and heavy vehicles.
OOIDA members and millions more working in other segments of
trucking face a particularly uncertain future as technology may first
diminish the quality of their jobs and then threaten to displace them
completely. Given the economy's reliance on the trucking industry,
Congress must consider the potential displacement of jobs, expected
changes to the skills and training necessary for drivers to safely
operate autonomous trucks, and how these changes would affect driver
compensation. OOIDA also recommends that Congress examine the specific
impact AVs would have on small trucking businesses, which account for
96% of all U.S. motor carriers. Lawmakers must also evaluate the costs
associated with the introduction of various technologies, how these
costs would affect the price of new and used trucks, and how price
changes would impact the ability of a small businesses to purchase new
vehicles.
OOIDA strongly believes that any process to advance automated
technology should be met with mandatory data transparency from
manufacturers. This will help educate consumers, the industry, and
regulators about the actual reliability of autonomous technology.
Despite the various claims that AVs will lead to zero deaths, there
have been real-world situations in which automation has devastatingly
failed. While AVs might improve safety under certain conditions, they
create new risks with dangerous and often unknown outcomes.
Regrettably, U.S. Department of Transportation proposals such as AV
4.0, the AV Comprehensive Plan, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) AV TEST Initiative have maintained a self-
certification approach and promoted voluntary reporting as the way to
balance and promote safety and innovation.
We supported NHTSA's 2021 General Standing Order that now requires
AV trucking companies to report crashes on public roadways. However,
this safety data should be made available throughout the deployment
process, not just after a crash occurs. The use of unproven automated
technologies on our highways poses a significant threat to small-
business truckers, and we urge you to take action to protect all road
users with greater transparency and oversight of their development.
Without such measures, we will never know how or why AV technology is
causing crashes and fatalities. In fact, some developers have already
used the legal system in hopes of keeping safety data from public view.
The potential introduction of AVs on the nation's highways invites
more questions than answers. As autonomous technology develops, OOIDA
is concerned that federal regulators will push for more technology as
the solution to the industry's safety and workforce issues without
considering the negative impacts of these technologies. Regardless of
their potential, it is important to understand exactly how well these
AVs perform. Beyond ensuring that legislation provide appropriate
standards for the safe operation of AVs, Congress must consider
practices and unintended consequences that might offset the potential
safety, mobility, and sustainability benefits from the technology.
Thank you,
Todd Spencer,
President and CEO, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc.
cc: Members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
Letter of February 1, 2022, from Jordan Crenshaw, Vice President,
Chamber Technology Engagement Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
February 1, 2022.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Chair,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, United States House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, United States House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chair Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Technology Engagement Center (C_TEC)
respectfully submits the following statement for the record for the
House Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit hearing titled ``The Road Ahead for Automated Vehicles.''
America's future economic success, growth, and competitiveness
depends on a thriving and innovative private sector. Every company is a
tech company, and data-driven innovation is the foundation of
businesses across the country. The transportation sector is no
different, and the private sector is leading the way on advancing new
technologies to increase motor vehicle safety and security, enhance
Americans' mobility options, and bolster American leadership abroad.
In particular, automated vehicles (AVs) are a significant and
transformative transportation technology, impacting industry sectors
ranging from insurance to trucking while providing enormous benefits to
consumers and the public at large. We advocate for Congressional action
to advance a national framework for legislation and caution
policymakers against advancing policies that would hinder U.S.
leadership and the benefits of AVs.
The introduction of AVs will bring several important benefits.
First, the most critical benefit is the potential for the technology to
reduce traffic fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), 38,680 Americans lost their lives in
2020 due to motor vehicle crashes, a significant portion of which can
be attributed to human error.\1\ Second, AVs will empower more
Americans to be mobile. Currently, more than six million Americans have
a disability impairing their ability to obtain the transportation they
need to get to work, shop, and travel.\2\ AVs are expected to empower
two million Americans with disabilities to become employed as well as
save $9 billion in healthcare costs from reducing missed medical
appointments stemming from transportation challenges.\3\ Finally, the
economic potential of automated vehicles is substantial. It is
estimated that the annual U.S. customer and public benefits from full
AV deployment will reach $796 billion by 2050.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alexa Lardieri, Traffic Deaths Increased in 2020 Despite Fewer
People on Roads During Pandemic, U.S. News and World Rep. (Jun. 4,
2021), https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-04/
traffic-deaths-increased-in-2020-despite-fewer-people-on-roads-during-
pandemic.
\2\ Henry Claypool et al., Self-Driving Cars: The Impact on People
with Disabilities, Ruderman Fam. Found. & Securing Am.'s Future Energy
(Jan. 2017), https://rudermanfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/
Self-Driving-Cars-TheImpact-on-People-with-Disabilities_
FINAL.pdf.
\3\ Id.
\4\ Richard Mudge et al., America's Workforce and the Self-Driving
Future, Securing Am.'s Future Energy (Jun. 2018), https://
avworkforce.secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Americas-
Workforce-and-the-Self-Driving-Future_Realizing-Productivity-Gains-and-
Spurring-Economic-Growth.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the United States currently remains the leader in developing
AV technology, American leadership is not guaranteed and faces
challenges from our economic competitors. By 2025, China plans that 30%
of all cars sold in China will have some level of automation and is
projected to emerge as the largest market for self-driving vehicles at
$500 billion by 2030.\5\ Also, Europe is not far behind. According to
KPMG's 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index, six of the top ten
ranked countries are in Europe.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Chris O'Brian, China's Drive To Dominate Autonomous Cars,
Medium: The Innovator (Oct. 22, 2019), https://innovator.news/chinas-
drive-to-dominate-autonomous-cars-84894b95961f.
\6\ KPMG International, 2020 Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index
(Jul. 2020), https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/uk/pdf/2020/07/2020-
autonomous-vehicles-readiness-index.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure continued U.S. global leadership in AV technology, C_TEC
encourages Congress to enact legislation to facilitate safe AV
development and deployment. In the 115th Congress, the House of
Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act, which
would establish a safe and effective regulatory framework for AVs.\7\
In October 2020, C_TEC published a comprehensive policy agenda for
emerging transportation technologies, including AVs, which could serve
as a basis for Congressional and Executive action.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Aarian Marshall, Congress Unites (Gasp) to Spread Self-Driving
Cars Across America, Wired (Sept. 6, 2017), https://www.wired.com/
story/congress-self-driving-car-law-bill/.
\8\ U.S. Chamber's Technology Engagement Center (C_TEC), America's
Next Tech Upgrade: Building the Foundation for the Future of
Transportation (Oct. 2020), https://americaninnovators.com/wp-content/
uploads/2020/10/CTEC_TechUpgrade_Transportation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While C_TEC believes that these policy solutions will create a
regulatory environment to further enable widespread AV deployment,
Congress should avoid pursuing policy proposals that would
inadvertently hinder innovation and impede the benefits provided by
AVs. Lawmakers should be especially cautious of policies that impose
unnecessary regulatory burdens or expand legal liability.
The United States must not cede its competitive edge in the AV
revolution, nor limit the ability for this technology to save lives and
increase mobility for millions of Americans. C_TEC stands ready to work
with Congress to further AV adoption.
Sincerely,
Jordan Crenshaw,
Vice President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
cc: All members of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee
Statement of the American Alliance for Vehicle Owners' Rights,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri
The undersigned organizations and companies of the American
Alliance for Vehicle Owners' Rights (``AAVOR'') respectfully submit
this statement to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
and ask that it be made part of the official hearing record for the
February 2, 2022 hearing entitled ``The Road Ahead for Automated
Vehicles.''
Background on AAVOR
AAVOR is a diverse group of stakeholders united by the common goal
of guaranteeing the right of all vehicle owners and users to have
access to, and control of, the data generated by their vehicles.
AAVOR's members represent interests from across the mobility ecosystem,
including consumer advocates, fleet owners and operators, shared
mobility service providers, automotive repairers, insurers, automotive
recyclers, and telematics providers.
Connection Between Vehicle Data Access and Autonomous Vehicles
The policy issue of the control--or ``ownership''--of, and access
to, the data generated by a motor vehicle--whether a car or a truck--by
the owner of that motor vehicle is not solely an autonomous vehicle
(AV) issue. It applies to the motor vehicles on the road today as well
as those that will be deployed in the coming decades. From AAVOR's
point of view, getting a vehicle data access bill done and reaffirming
the rights of vehicle owners to control vehicle generated data is a
goal the members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee--and the entire Congress--should embrace. Whether vehicle
data access for vehicle owners and those who have the owners'
permission to access that data is addressed through AV legislation or
another legislative vehicle is less important than achieving the goal
of enactment of such an important new law.
The ``Road Ahead'' for Vehicle Data Access
Vehicle generated data is the new frontier for the development of
the future of mobility. Today's connected vehicles (cars, trucks and
buses) offer consumers innovative new services, and bring significant
downstream business development potential for all stakeholders in the
on-road transportation sector, including, but not limited to,
navigation (real-time localization/traffic information), infotainment
(access to online movies/music), maintenance (fleet management/remote
diagnostics/vehicle recovery), insurance (pay-as-you-drive/claim
investigation), traffic efficiency (reduced congestion), sustainability
(reduced fuel consumption), and safety.
However, this requires the right legal framework, which enables all
stakeholders to access data generated by vehicles, starting with
individual consumers and fleet owners, and extending through Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), parts suppliers, vehicle repairers, and
the other many players across the entire transportation sector. This
vehicle-generated data is related to nearly every aspect of the
vehicle's operation and has been historically accessed through a
physical ``on-board diagnostics'' (e.g., OBD-II in passenger cars)
port. A growing number of vehicles are transitioning to wireless
access, bypassing the in-cabin, wired-access port and restricting
access to vehicle-generated data by vehicle owners and third parties.
Vehicle-generated data--whether accessed through a wired port or
wirelessly--already provides many benefits to both consumers who own
individual cars and companies that own dozens or thousands of vehicles.
But these benefits will only be realized if vehicle owners: (1) retain
the ability to securely access and control the data their vehicles (and
equipment attached to their vehicles) generate, collect and store; (2)
without artificial barriers that reduce consumer choice or competition;
(3) in real-time through secure, technology-neutral, standards-based,
in-vehicle access; and, (4) without obtaining consent from an entity
that does not own or lease the vehicle.
AAVOR is convinced that Congress must take a lead role in
guaranteeing vehicle owners and lessees access to and control of all
data generated, collected and stored by vehicles. AAVOR supports
enactment of federal policies that safeguard the rights of vehicle
owners to:
securely access and control their vehicle data (including
authorizing access by third parties);
directly, through in-vehicle access, in real-time;
through a technology-neutral, standards-based, secured
interface;
that provides interoperable and bi-directional
communication with the vehicle.
The rights of vehicle owners to control and access the data
generated by their vehicles is too important to be left unaddressed by
federal legislation. AAVOR supports federal efforts to establish a
framework for securing the continued rights of vehicle owners--and
entities that secure the express permission of vehicle owners--to
control and access vehicle-generated data on a real-time, secure and
competitive basis.
AAVOR appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement to the
Committee today and looks forward to working with its leadership and
members to secure enactment of federal vehicle data access legislation
in the near future. If you have questions about AAVOR's views on the
issues covered in these comments or other policy matters related to
vehicle data access, competition, consumer protection or privacy,
please do not hesitate to contact Greg Scott.
American Bus Association.
American Car Rental Association.
American Property & Casualty Insurance Association.
Automotive Recyclers Association.
Automotive Service Association.
Consumer Action.
NAFA Fleet Management Association.
National Consumers League.
National Motor Freight Traffic Association.
Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association.
Geotab, Inc.
Lytx.
Privacy4Cars.
Safelite Group.
Article Entitled, ``Kansas Man Struck, Killed on I-70 in Kansas City
Early Saturday, Police Say,'' by Kaitlyn Schwers, fox4kc.com, August
30, 2021, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sharice Davids of Kansas
Kansas Man Struck, Killed on I-70 in Kansas City Early Saturday, Police
Say
by Kaitlyn Schwers
fox4kc.com, posted Aug. 28, 2021, and updated Aug. 30, 2021
https://fox4kc.com/news/kansas-man-struck-killed-on-i-70-in-kansas-
city-early-saturday-police-say/
KANSAS CITY, Mo.--A Kansas man died early Saturday morning after he
was struck by a tractor-trailer on Interstate 70 in Kansas City, police
said.
The crash happened just before 3:30 a.m. in the westbound lanes of
I-70 near Pittman Road. According to a crash report from Kansas City
police, the victim's car, a Chrysler sedan, was stopped in the outside
lane of traffic after experiencing a tire blowout.
Police said the driver of a westbound tractor-trailer tried to
swerve around the Chrysler and then struck the man, who was standing
nearby. The tractor-trailer then ran off the right shoulder and
overturned.
The driver of the Chrysler died at the scene. He has been
identified by police as a 28-year-old man from Osawatomie, Kansas. He
has been identified as Mark A. Johnson.
The driver of the tractor-trailer was not reported to be injured. A
passenger in the tractor-trailer was taken to a hospital with injuries
that were not considered to be life-threatening.
I-70 was closed at Blue Ridge Boulevard for about two hours as
police investigated early Saturday. The interstate has since been
reopened.
Article Entitled, ``Grim Reminder: Latest Roadside Tragedies Underscore
Need for Drivers to Slow Down, Move Over,'' by Ellen Edmonds, Manager,
AAA Public Relations, AAA, September 29, 2021, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Sharice Davids of Kansas
Grim Reminder: Latest Roadside Tragedies Underscore Need for Drivers to
Slow Down, Move Over
AAA Research Reveals That Some Drivers May Not Grasp the Danger They
Pose To Those at the Roadside
by Ellen Edmonds, Manager, AAA Public Relations
AAA, September 29, 2021
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2021/09/grim-reminder-latest-roadside-
tragedies-underscore-need-for-drivers-to-slow-down-move-over/
ORLANDO, Fla. (Sep. 29, 2021)--The recent deaths of two AAA tow
providers, killed while assisting motorists, highlight just how
dangerous it is for individuals who regularly work along the shoulders
of America's busy and congested roads.
Glenn Ewing, 32, was killed July 4 near Cincinnati, OH, while
placing a disabled vehicle on the back of a flatbed on the side of the
road. He leaves behind a fiancee and two children. Only three weeks
later, 30-year-old David Meyer was assisting a driver on the left-hand
shoulder in Castle Rock, CO, when he was also struck and killed. As of
August of this year, 14 tow providers have been killed while helping
others at the roadside in 2021.
``Deaths like these can be avoided if drivers slow down and move
over to give these people room to work safely,'' said Marshall Doney,
AAA President and CEO. ``We can't stress enough how important it is to
pay attention so you have time to change lanes when you see AAA, an
emergency responder, or simply anybody along the side of the road.''
Startling new data from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
[https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/download/18733/] finds that
among drivers who do not comply with Move Over laws at all times:
42% thought this behavior was somewhat or not dangerous
at all to roadside emergency workers. This demonstrates that drivers
may not realize how risky it is for those working or stranded along
highways and roads close to moving traffic.
An average of 24 emergency responders including tow providers are
struck and killed by vehicles while working at the roadside each year--
meaning someone in this line of work is killed, on average, every other
week.
To protect these individuals, AAA and other traffic safety
advocates have led the way in getting Move Over laws passed in all 50
states and the District of Columbia. Yet, the AAA Foundation finds
that--
nearly a quarter of those surveyed (23%) are unaware of
the Move Over law in the state where they live, and
among those who are aware of their state's Move Over
laws, about 15% report not understanding the potential consequences for
violating the Move Over law at all.
In Colorado, for instance, drivers face a $70 ticket, four penalty
points, and a misdemeanor charge for failure to move over or slow down
when approaching an emergency vehicle, tow truck, utility vehicle, or
road maintenance vehicle with flashing lights on the side of the road.
Ohio's Move Over law requires all drivers to proceed with caution and
if possible move over one lane when passing an emergency vehicle, tow
truck, municipal vehicle, or road maintenance vehicle with flashing or
rotating lights parked on the roadside, and violators can face fines up
to $300 for a first offense.
It's not just tow providers and other emergency responders being
killed on the side of the road. Since 2015, over 1,600 people have been
struck and killed while outside of a disabled vehicle. The reality is
that drivers are increasingly distracted while driving. Previous AAA
Foundation research has found that drivers are up to four times as
likely to crash if they are talking on a cell phone while driving and
up to eight times as likely to be in a crash if texting.
``If you see something, anything, on the shoulder ahead, slow down
and move over,'' said Jake Nelson, AAA's director of traffic safety
advocacy and research. ``It could literally save someone's life.''
About Slow Down, Move Over
Since 2007, AAA has been instrumental in passing Move Over laws
[https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/download/18736/] in all states,
including advocating for those laws to cover tow providers and other
emergency responders. Additionally, AAA clubs have participated in
educational and advocacy initiatives, creating public service
announcements and reaching out to state officials. But, there is more
work to be done. AAA is committed to raising awareness of the Move Over
laws and the dangers associated with working at the roadside.
These laws require motorists to move over one lane or slow down
when approaching an incident where tow providers, police, firefighters
or emergency medical service crews are working at the roadside. Many
states have also expanded their laws to cover other vehicles, such as
utility and municipal (e.g. sanitation vehicles) fleets, as well as any
disabled vehicle on the side of the road.
To protect roadside workers, drivers with disabled vehicles, and
others, and to improve highway safety, AAA offers these precautionary
tips:
Remain alert, avoid distractions and focus on the task of
driving.
Keep an eye out for situations where emergency vehicles,
tow trucks, utility service vehicles or disabled vehicles are stopped
on the side of the road.
When you see these situations, slow down and if possible
move one lane over and away from the people and vehicles stopped at the
side of the road.
Last year NHTSA and DOT committed to protecting first responders at
the roadside [https://newsroom.aaa.com/2020/12/aaa-commends-nhtsa-and-
dot-on-commitment-to-protecting-first-responders-at-the-roadside/] and
it's important we all do our part to further this effort.
About the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety: Established in 1947 by
AAA, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety is a nonprofit, publicly
funded, 501(c)(3) charitable research and educational organization. The
AAA Foundation's mission is to prevent traffic deaths and injuries by
researching their causes and by educating the public about strategies
to prevent crashes and reduce injuries when they do occur. This
research develops educational materials for drivers, pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other road users.
About AAA: AAA provides more than 62 million members with automotive,
travel, insurance, and financial services through its federation of 30
motor clubs and more than 1,000 branch offices across North America.
Since 1902, the not-for-profit, fully tax-paying AAA has been a leader
and advocate for safe mobility. Drivers can request roadside
assistance, identify nearby gas prices, locate discounts, book a hotel
or map a route via the AAA Mobile app. To join, visit AAA.com.
Article Entitled, ``Your Car's Emergency Flashers Could Get a Major
Upgrade Soon--and Here's Why,'' by Mark Phelan, Detroit Free Press,
December 5, 2020, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sharice Davids of
Kansas
Your Car's Emergency Flashers Could Get a Major Upgrade Soon--
and Here's Why
by Mark Phelan
Detroit Free Press, December 5, 2020
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2020/12/05/car-
emergency-flashers-upgrade-help/3821201001/
One of the oldest--and possibly least effective--auto safety
features may be getting a 21st-century upgrade.
A new system to improve the visibility of vehicles stranded by the
side of the road could help reduce thousands of collisions and hundreds
of deaths a year. The system could be available nearly immediately, if
supplier Emergency Safety Solutions (ESS) gets regulatory approval.
``Vehicles on the side of the road pose a significant danger,''
said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports
magazine. Fisher hasn't evaluated Houston-based ESS's system, but he
liked the idea of updating emergency flashers quickly and
inexpensively.
``We should absolutely look to see if emergency flashers are
optimized,'' he said. ``There's a big push for complicated auto safety
systems. There are simple things we can do to save lives and make
driving safer.''
More than 64,000 people have been involved this year in the United
States in crashes with disabled vehicle, according to an ominous real
time ticker on ESS's website [https://www.ess-help.com/].
70,000-plus crashes, 500-plus deaths
Every year from 2016 through 2018, nearly 72,000 people in the U.S.
were involved in a crash that included a disabled vehicle, according to
research ESS commissioned.
More than 14,000 people were injured and an average of 566 killed
each year, according to the study. This year is tracking below those
figures, possibly because pandemic shutdowns and precautions affected
travel patterns.
``Our objective is to completely change how people receive
information about roadside hazards,'' ESS co-founder and COO Stephen
Powers said. The company hopes to start that with a patented system
that uses software to speed up emergency flashers from the current
pace, which was set in in 1951, when the U.S. National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration wrote the regulation that still governs the
lights.
The 70-year-old regulation was written when the speed at which
incandescent bulbs could be switched on and off was the limiting factor
and there'd been no research into what kind of lights work best to warn
drivers, Powers said.
A deceptively simple solution
Current emergency flashers blink at the same rate as turn signals,
about 1.5 flashes per second. About 5 hertz--five flashes a second--is
best, according to research ESS used to develop its system, which it
calls the Hazard Enhanced Lighting Package (HELP). Even then, faster is
better but only up to a point. Rates faster than five flashes per
second become less effective for alerting people without distracting
them.
ESS uses software to change how the vehicle's existing lights work.
HELP works on any vehicle with LED lights and electronic controls that
are common on new vehicles. It could be beamed into existing vehicles
in a smartphone-style over the air software update, or built into
vehicles' body control computer, Powers said. The over the air update
could happen as soon as the feature gets NHTSA's approval.
That could come quickly if HELP is classified as a modification to
an existing safety system rather than an all-new feature. That's
possible because vehicles with the ESS system retain their old-style
slower flashers for use when the vehicle is moving--going slowly up a
long hill, for instance.
``We don't want to become a nuisance or something people ignore
because they see it all the time on moving vehicles,'' Powers said.
The 5 hertz flashes can only be activated when the vehicle is
motionless. Pressing the existing flasher control once activates old-
style flashing. A second push in a motionless vehicle accelerates to
five cycles per second.
The fast lights are automatically activated if the vehicle's air
bags deploy.
NHTSA is evaluating the system. There's no announced schedule for a
decision, but Powers said it's a ``front burner'' item at the
regulator. The company also is talking to European regulators.
Why are police flashers distracting?
ESS also is working on digital alerts that could alert navigation
systems like Waze when a vehicle is disabled on the side of the road.
``We're working with tech companies to make that communication
widespread, even without (direct) vehicle-to-vehicle communication,''
Powers said.
ESS will license its intellectual property to manufacturers who
want the feature. The company has 46 patents, covering its concept and
technology in every major automaking and auto buying country.
The quicker flashes do not mimic the sometimes disorientating
pattern of lights on police cars, Powers said. The police lights flash
the lights on a rooftop lightbar and conventional lights at different
times, a pattern that's reserved for emergency vehicles.
HELP is less distracting because of its flash rate, single color
and the ``outlining effect,'' which Powers said allows people to
identify the shape and location of a vehicle more easily when all the
lights flash at the same time.
No automaker has committed to using the system, but ESS is talking
with several and expects quick implementation when it gets regulatory
approval.
Article Entitled, ``Stopped-vehicle Crashes Result in Hundreds of
Fatalities Per Year,'' Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway
Loss Data Institute, June 3, 2021, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Sharice Davids of Kansas
Stopped-vehicle Crashes Result in Hundreds of Fatalities Per Year
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute,
June 3, 2021
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/stopped-vehicle-crashes-result-in-
hundreds-of-fatalities-per-year
Hundreds of people are killed and thousands are injured each year
in crashes involving stopped or disabled vehicles that may not have
stood out enough to alert drivers to the danger they pose, according to
a new study commissioned by a company that makes enhanced hazard
lighting systems.
Using federal crash statistics, transportation data analysis firm
Impact Research estimated that 566 people were killed and 14,371
injured each year over 2016-18 in crashes on all types of roads
involving a disabled vehicle in which visibility was likely a factor.
The annual societal cost of those crashes totaled around $8.8 billion
in medical payments, lost wages, and the less easily quantified costs
of death or disability.
``This study identifies a part of the road safety equation that
doesn't get much attention, despite the size of the problem,'' says
David Zuby, executive vice president and chief research officer at the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The federal crash databases include codes denoting crashes that
involve stopped or disabled vehicles. To estimate how many of those
might have resulted because the stationary vehicle wasn't conspicuous
enough, the authors analyzed detailed police reports from a subset of
Florida crashes to determine the percentages of different types of
collisions that involved a stopped vehicle that was too difficult for
other drivers to see. Then they applied those percentages to the
broader data set.
They found that 95 percent of these inconspicuous-vehicle crashes
occur when a vehicle traveling down the roadway collides with a
stationary one. However, more than half the deaths and almost 1 in 5
serious injuries occur when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian who is
leaving, working on, or returning to a stopped vehicle. On average,
this type of crash kills 300 pedestrians a year, a number that has
risen by more than a quarter since 2014.
That increase comes amid a steady rise in pedestrian fatalities,
generally. Overall, 6,205 pedestrians were killed on U.S. roads in
2019, up from just 4,109 a decade earlier. An earlier IIHS study
[https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/land-use-plays-a-role-in-pedestrian-
freeway-fatalities] found that around 800 pedestrians a year are killed
on U.S. interstates and other freeways--about 18 percent of them due to
a disabled vehicle.
``These crashes illustrate the potential value of stopped-vehicle-
ahead warnings, which are already provided by some navigation apps and
could be integrated to work with advanced driver assistance features
and more advanced driving automation,'' Zuby says. ``They're also a
reminder of why we put so much emphasis on good headlights as a vital
crash avoidance technology.''
Crashes like these could potentially be eliminated with vehicle-to-
vehicle communication, which enables vehicles to wirelessly exchange
information about their speed, location, and heading. But long before
that technology becomes commonplace, several simpler countermeasures
could help, the report suggests.
Earlier research indicates that improving hazard lights so they
flash brighter and more frequently and are triggered automatically in
the event a vehicle is disabled could reduce crashes. Nearly a third of
the collisions in that study involved a stationary vehicle that had its
hazards on. Emergency Safety Solutions, which commissioned the Impact
Research report, makes one such enhanced hazard lighting system.
Adjustments to the ``move over'' laws that require drivers to
change lanes to give police and emergency services vehicles more room
to operate could also help, Impact Research concluded. Such laws are
now in place in all 50 U.S. states. But first responders continue to be
killed and injured in secondary crashes, prompting the U.S. Government
Accountability Office to announce in June 2019 that it would conduct a
study to review what might be done to make these laws more effective.
Better traffic management practices could also make a difference.
Under one such policy, first responders dispatch two vehicles to every
highway incident and use one vehicle primarily to shield the personnel
working on the disabled vehicle from oncoming traffic, increasing the
visibility of the scene with flares, safety cones and flashing lights.
However, more research is needed there, as well. The most recent
Federal Highway Administration report on the subject was written in
2010, before many relevant technologies became available, and its
authors were unable to identify specific traffic management procedures
that were most effective in preventing secondary crashes.
Appendix
----------
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Martha
Castex-Tatum, Vice Mayor Pro Tempore, Houston, TX, and Councilmember,
District K, Houston, TX, on behalf of the National League of Cities
Question 1. African Americans make up the majority of pedestrian
and cycling fatalities. Furthermore, both pedestrian and cycling
fatalities are skyrocketing due to numerous factors, including
distracted driving and a shift toward SUVs, which create greater blind
spots and heavier impact from collisions. That said, we know that
relatively cheap and quick infrastructure improvements such as building
sidewalks and protected bike lanes can help prevent cycling and
pedestrian fatalities, and the disproportionate loss of Black and
minority lives.
Why not invest in existing safety measures to save lives,
especially for people of color who are disproportionately impacted,
rather than rely upon the potential for safety that may or may not
transpire from the usage of AVs?
Answer. Congressman Johnson, we absolutely should be investing in
proven safety solutions on our roads to save lives today, and cities
like Houston are continuing to do that with our Vision Zero efforts and
our transportation investments across our neighborhoods. We're also
looking forward to doing more with the new ``Safer Streets and Roads
for All'' program once USDOT is able to stand that up. While AVs may
help with safer driving in the near future, we have to use a full
``Safe System'' wrap-around approach to combat the rising deaths on our
roads and that means doing far more--on roads, with vehicles and with
our communities.
Question from Hon. Sharice Davids to Scott Marler, Director, Iowa
Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials
Question 1. Conversations around AVs are important, but I also
don't want to lose sight of the need to address critical safety issues
now. For example, crashes involving disabled vehicles are happening
regularly. Anyone that's ever had a flat tire or had to walk to get
help knows just how frightening it can be. And sadly, tragedies
continue.
Just this last August, a Kansas man was killed after he had a tire
blowout on I-70 just over the border in Missouri. An oncoming vehicle
wasn't able to stop in time and he was tragically struck and killed.
This is just one example of the thousands of injuries and fatalities
happening every year. In fact, every seven minutes, a disabled vehicle
is struck by an oncoming driver on U.S. roadways. I'd like to include
for the record a few articles highlighting the significant safety
challenge of these crashes and how technology that is available today
can help oncoming drivers see these vehicles before it's too late to
react.
I'm wondering whether we're doing enough to address this challenge
in the interim before AVs are prevalent.
Mr. Marler, are you seeing these types of crashes in your state?
What is the impact?
Answer. Thank you, Representative Davids, for your question.
Unfortunately, Iowa is experiencing crashes like the one you describe
where there is a vehicle (disabled or not) stopped on the side of the
roadway and then another vehicle moving at speed collides with it,
resulting in a serious injury or fatality. All fatalities are
unacceptable on our roadways and Iowa DOT is doing everything we can to
eliminate the crashes you described and all crashes for that matter.
There are a range of actions that a state can take to mitigate and
eliminate these types of crashes. First, states can enact and then
educate drivers about laws requiring them to move over or slow down to
provide room to vehicles and people who are stopped on the side of the
roadway. These laws are designed to protect motorists, including
motorists stranded by the side of the road, persons being transported
in emergency vehicles, and personnel at high risk while performing
their duties on Iowa's roadways. A good rule of the road is to change
lanes or slow down anytime you are approaching a vehicle that is slow
moving, stopped or stranded on the shoulder, if you can safely do so.
Iowa enacted its Move Over or Slow Down \1\ law in 2018 and now has an
aggressive campaign to educate the public about the law and impose
penalties to motorists who do not follow the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://iowadot.gov/rules
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, states can further improve the infrastructure so that
motorists can better perceive lane markings on roadways, maintain
variable message signs so motorists know a disabled vehicle is ahead,
and install static signs to educate and remind motorists of the Move
Over or Slow Down law.
Third, technology will play an important role in mitigating and
eliminating these types of crashes. More vehicles are being equipped
with advanced driver assistance systems, including technologies that
warn drivers of lane deviation, display upcoming roadside hazards to
the driver, and prevent and reduce the severity of crashes through
automatic emergency braking.
All of these efforts are happening now and will prevent many
crashes from occurring until such time as connected and automated
vehicles (CAVs) are operating on our roadways. In the future, CAVs will
be an important tool in preventing these types of crashes. A connected
vehicle should know the precise location of a disabled vehicle, with
this information being relayed to the driver and/or the automated
systems on board to help prevent a collision with the disabled vehicle.
In fact, this technology and application could be used for other
situations as well, such as informing drivers of an unexpected vehicle
queue and work zones to better indicate where there is active and
inactive construction occurring.
Question from Hon. Sam Graves to Scott Marler, Director, Iowa
Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials
Question 2. Please explain some of the safety and mobility
improvements Automated Vehicles (AVs) can bring to rural areas.
Answer. Thank you, Representative Graves, for your question. CAV
technologies have the potential to improve mobility, access, and equity
and help engage disadvantaged and marginalized communities regardless
of their geographic location. State DOTs, like Iowa DOT, and their
partners recognize the role transportation plays broadly in society,
its ability to connect communities, as well as inequities from the 20th
century when building out the nation's transportation system. In the
United States, CAV technologies need to benefit all users of the
transportation system regardless of their income levels or geographic
location.
Specific to rural areas, I would like to draw your attention to
recently completed research that answers your question in greater
detail. Consideration of Automated Vehicle Benefits and Research Needs
for Rural America, provides information regarding the safety and
mobility improvements AVs bring to rural areas.\2\ The authors consider
the importance and magnitude of improved: a) safety, b) mobility and
accessibility, and c) traffic operations and energy efficiency--three
commonly cited benefits attributed to automation--for rural areas in
the continental United States. They focus on the benefits that are
inherent to vehicle automation and thus can be achieved with any shared
or private ownership and use schemes, and I would like to utilize their
report to explain some of the safety and mobility improvements that may
be expected from CAV's in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dowds, Jonathan, et. al., Consideration of Automated Vehicle
Benefits and Research Needs for Rural America, pages 2-4, July 2021.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt4v25q5n9/qt4v25q5n9.pdf?t=qxoumb.
Accessed March 10, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this report, the authors state that rural crash fatality and
serious injury rates are nearly three times as high in rural versus
urban areas. There are a wide variety of factors that contribute to
this statistic including speed and risk-taking behavior; the nature of
rural roads with undivided opposing direction traffic streams that make
head-on collisions more likely; and driver behavior concerns which
include more frequent inebriation and an older population that
experiences a higher crash involvement rate than middle-aged drivers.
All of these factors could be addressed through automation. In
addition, crash avoidance could be especially beneficial since there
are longer response times for emergency personnel.
For mobility, the authors focus on the limited accessibility that
rural populations have to various destination types, low density
development patterns, and a population that is, on average, older than
those in suburban and urban areas. These factors all contribute to a
significant car dependency in rural areas and lead to long distances
that are hard to serve by walking and biking and also lower total
demand that is more difficult to serve with transit, ride-hailing, or
ride-sharing. In these situations, eliminating the burden of driving
longer distances and the ability to send a vehicle on an unoccupied
errand may be particularly important in rural areas.
Finally, for traffic operations and energy efficiency, near-
universal AV adoption, especially with connected automated vehicles,
could lead to reduced vehicle size and weight without adversely
impacting safety outcomes. This could result in closer following
distances, smoother traffic flows, and reduced crash rates, thereby
increasing lane capacity and reducing congestion at high-volume rural
locations and intersections.
In Iowa, we are specifically addressing the mobility and
accessibility aspect head-on where our research partners at the
University of Iowa's National Advanced Driving Simulator were awarded
one of the eight Automated Driving System (ADS) demonstration grants
from USDOT.\3\ While 19 percent of Americans live in rural areas, 68
percent of our nation's total lane miles are in rural areas, and 45
percent of all traffic related fatalities occur on rural roadways.\4\
Iowa's population is aging, and it remains paramount that older
individuals have the ability to get to the important services they
need, such as healthcare which is being regionalized. The ADS for Rural
America project is a demonstration project that involves a highly
automated shuttle bus with advanced sensors. This automated vehicle is
now being driven on all types of rural roads in Iowa including gravel
roads and paved unmarked roadways. The goal is to understand the unique
challenges that rural roadways present for automated vehicles as well
as identify opportunities for advancing automation so that it improves
safety and mobility for everyone, especially the mobility challenged
populations in rural America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.transportation.gov/av/grants. Accessed January 28,
2022.
\4\ https://www.bts.gov/rural. Accessed January 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Scott Marler,
Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Question 3. Are you aware of efforts by states around the country
to preempt local authority over AV operations? These laws undermine
local control and make it difficult for local communities to ensure the
safe operation of AVs in their communities, and therefore the safety of
their residents.
Mr. Marler: Do you support such efforts and why? Do you agree the
consequences of these laws can be dire?
Answer. Thank you, Representative Johnson, for your question. The
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) maintains a robust and
curated database of self-driving vehicles enacted legislation that
provides up-to-date, real-time information about state autonomous
vehicle legislation that has been introduced in the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and territories \5\. The legislation passed to
date includes a wide range of laws that enable the safe testing and
deployment of automated vehicles on public roadways. And, there are
examples where state legislatures have passed laws that preempt local
jurisdictions from regulating AVs, including Illinois, Nevada, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-
vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx. Accessed March
12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The enactment of laws regulating automated vehicles at the state
level is an issue of serious importance to our local partners and the
state DOTs as infrastructure owners and operators recognize this
concern. Speaking from the perspective of a state DOT, we believe that
the traditional framework that has laid out specific responsibilities
among federal, state, and local authorities regarding the
certification, titling, licensing, and development/enforcement of
traffic laws should not be changed. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the design and
safety of vehicles through the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has the authority,
via the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD), to define the standards used by road managers
nationwide to install and maintain traffic control devices on all
public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public
travel. States have the authority to title and license vehicles on
roadways.
States and local jurisdictions have a shared responsibility to
develop and enforce traffic laws that govern the safe operation of
vehicles on our roadways. In fact, many states, including Iowa, do have
provisions in their state law for local jurisdictions to make certain
decisions. This framework has worked well since it was first
established, and the state DOTs intend to maintain this distribution of
responsibilities going forward. We do recognize that this framework may
need to be revisited in some aspect in the future once Level 4 and 5
autonomous vehicles are ready for deployment (not development or
testing) on roadways. The state DOTs, working through the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project 20-102(7)
Implications of Automation for Motor Vehicle Codes, has started to
research and assess what changes, if any, may need to be made in the
future.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/
TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4006. Accessed March 10, 2022.
Question 4. For example, in 2018, Elaine Herzberg was killed when a
self-driving car crashed into her. It was later reported that the
vehicle had numerous safety flaws--its software was designed not to see
people who were ``jaywalking'', and the safety drivers were found to
have been distracted. Arizona state laws, under Governor Ducey, adopted
a more lenient approach to regulating AVs, so that car makers were not
held to the highest safety standards.
Mr. Marler: Should there be a federal role in ensuring a minimum
level of regulation of AVs so that no state level preemption could
endanger people's safety?
Answer. Thank you, Representative Johnson, for your question. The
situation you refer to regarding the tragic death of Elaine Herzberg
occurred when the self-driving car was being tested on the public
roadway. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA) has published, and updated, their Safe Testing and Deployment
of Vehicles Equipped with Automated Driving Systems Guidelines, which
provides important guidelines for jurisdictions to consider in the
testing and deployment of automated vehicles. As stated in this
document, a successful path to the safe testing and deployment of
technology in vehicles must include appropriate government oversight
developed in coordination with strong stakeholder engagement formed
through partnerships with the many entities engaged in or affected by
these rapidly developing technologies. These partnerships should be
formed to address the far-reaching impacts of the technologies and
should include representatives from a broad spectrum of government
organizations, government support associations, and industry and
advocacy groups.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Safe
Testing and Deployment of Vehicles Equipped with Automated Driving
Systems Guidelines, Edition 2. September 2020. https://www.aamva.org/
getmedia/66190412-ce9d-4a3d-8b6e-28c1b80e3c10/Safe-Testing-and-
Deployment-of-Vehicles-Equipped-with-ADS-Guidelines_Final.pdf. Accessed
March 10, 2022.
Question 5. What would that regulation look like?
Answer. The state DOTs believe that the traditional framework that
has laid out specific responsibilities among federal, state, and local
authorities regarding the certification, titling, licensing, and
development/enforcement of traffic laws should not be changed. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the
authority to regulate the design and safety of vehicles through the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has the authority, via the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), to define the
standards used by road managers nationwide to install and maintain
traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and
private roads open to public travel. States have the authority to title
and license vehicles on roadways as well as limit and authorize the
testing and deployment of AVs on their roadways. The role of the
federal government should be to continue updating the FMVSS to ensure
the safety of the vehicles, be they automated or non-automated, and to
continue to define the standards used by road managers nationwide.
Another role that the federal government can play is to continue
updating of the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System
(NMVTIS). The NMVTIS is designed to protect consumers from fraud and
unsafe vehicles and to keep stolen vehicles from being resold and is
also a tool that assists states and law enforcement in deterring and
preventing title fraud and other crimes.
As vehicles change and more information is needed to title a
vehicle, this should be updated as part of the NMVTIS. Specifically, if
a vehicle is known to be an automated vehicle, it should be captured on
the vehicle title such that if the vehicle moves state-to-state, the
new state knows it. The NMVTIS is set up as a national system, but the
states contribute the data on individual vehicle transactions. This is
another example of a federal-state partnership or shared responsibility
that needs to continue and be strengthened for the future as AVs are
deployed.
Question from Hon. Nikema Williams to John Samuelsen, International
President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
Question 1. Mr. Samuelsen, in your testimony, you mentioned the
need to protect equity and accessibility for consumers when it comes to
technological innovation.
What are the key policy considerations for Congress in this area
when it comes to automated vehicle technology?
Answer. As we have seen from other recent transportation
innovations, unregulated industries tend to ignore equity and
accessibility until the are forced to address these issues.
Transportation Network Companies like Uber and Lyft are actively
arguing in court that they are not bound by federal requirements to
provide accessible services.\1\ At the same time, these ride-hailing
companies ``deepen the desperation of workers who have been excluded
from traditional employment'' \2\, specifically people of color, by
both selling a product significantly more expensive than other
competing modes of transportation and undermining the value of work
disproportionally performed by historically disadvantaged groups.\3\
There is no doubt that, left unregulated, the nascent AV industry will
follow a similar path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fastcompany.com/90343921/lyft-claims-its-not-a-
transportation-company-to-avoid-ada-compliance
\2\ https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/People-v.-Uber-Lyft-
Application-Amici-Curiae.pdf
\3\ https://ttd.org/the-cost-of-doing-business/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid this outcome, Congress should focus on the following
considerations as you prepare AV legislation and oversight actions:
Hold AVs to existing standards. AV companies have already
submitted exemption and waiver requests from hundreds of federal
standards. These standards, including equity and accessibility
requirements, are established in law to prevent unequal and unsafe
outcomes. Any new technology that seeks federal approval should be
required to meet these standards before widespread deployment.
Prioritize the voices of working people. Most frontline
workers employed by public transportation agencies are people of color.
The good, union jobs these workers have are well-established pathways
to the middle class and towards creating generational wealth. These
workers have an essential role to play in technology development that
maintains and expands their existing employment.
Build standards now for the industry to grow around. As
mentioned above, unregulated industries will inevitably undermine
equitable outcomes and reduce accessibility. Congress has the
opportunity now, before the AV industry deploys a significant number of
vehicles into our transportation systems, to establish clear standards
and expectations for the industry to grow around. Requiring these
companies to develop technology towards equitable outcomes is much
easier today than it will be in ten years.
Additionally, the TWU's comments in response to the DOT's recent
RFI on Transportation Equity Data \4\ include more policy suggestions
applicable to the entire transportation system. These recommendations,
while more general, would also buoy efforts to ensure AVs are developed
inclusively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2021-0056-0291/
attachment_1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to John Samuelsen,
International President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
Question 2. Mr. Samuelsen, the commercial aircraft industry has had
some version of autopilot for many years; however, two pilots are still
required in the cockpit and those pilots routinely take over to
manually fly our planes.
Do you believe that we should also require human operators in
commercial vehicles on our roads as this technology advances?
Answer. Yes. Automations fail on a regular basis. We have to expect
and plan for those failures if we are going to maintain a safe
transportation system. Both the FAA and FRA acknowledge this fact and
require human oversight of automated systems. These agencies also
required well-trained, well-qualified workers to be ready to take
control of their vehicles at all times, as needed. The same approach
should be taken for automations on commercial vehicles travelling our
roads.
Human judgement from a well-trained operator saves lives. This is
especially true during crises which, by their nature, are unexpected
and impossible to program solutions to. For example, on September 11,
2001, TWU members were ordered by management to stop service to
downtown Manhattan--effectively trapping thousands of people under the
World Trade Center. Subway and bus operators ignored that order and
returned time again, risking their own lives and their jobs, to shuttle
people out of the area. The last subway pulled out of the World Trade
Center station just minutes before the towers collapsed, filled to
capacity with people who might not otherwise have been able to get
away. Without the compassion and ingenuity demonstrated by TWU members
that day, capacities that AVs will never posses, we would have lost
many more lives in that attack.
Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to John Samuelsen, International
President, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
Question 3. Are your members opposed to AV legislation or to
transportation innovation generally?
Answer. No, on the contrary we are active and enthusiastic
supporters of pro-worker innovation. Our members regularly spend their
own bargaining power during contract negotiations to force our
employers to upgrade to new technology. Transit agencies across the
country would still be waiting to implement blind spot detection, lane
assist, and other recent innovations if not for the TWU forcing these
agencies to buy and install these vital systems. We would love to see a
bill passed into law this Congress that establishes a regulatory regime
that the AV industry can grow around; one that maintains safety
standards, protects workers, and ensures that this technology creates
jobs in America.
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 1. Ms. Chase, your testimony notes that automated driving
technology has the potential to improve roadway safety and reduce
deaths and injuries. However, your testimony also notes that there's
often confusion between the potential safety benefits of commercial AVs
and safety benefits offered by partial automation convenience features,
such as automatic emergency braking.
Can you elaborate on this distinction?
Answer. Currently there are no federal performance standards for
autonomous vehicles (AVs), advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS),
or partial automation convenience features. Understandably, there is a
great deal of confusion among the public about these different
categories. In an actual AV, the car is taking over the entire driving
task, unlike ADAS and convenience features where a driver always must
be engaged in the driving task. There are no AVs available to consumers
at this time. ADAS include safety features presently offered in some
vehicles such as automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure
warning (LDW) and blind spot detection (BSD). The Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS) has found that equipping large trucks with
forward collision warning and AEB could eliminate more than two out of
five crashes in which a large truck rear-ends another vehicle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large trucks
too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-front-
crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversely, partial automation convenience features, such as
adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane centering used together, have
not been proven to improve vehicle safety. According to IIHS President
David Harkey, ``[T]here is no evidence that [partial automation
systems] make driving safer . . . In fact, the opposite may be the case
if systems lack adequate safeguards.'' \2\ Misuse of and overreliance
on some technologies already have led to numerous fatal crashes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ IIHS, IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation
(Jan. 20, 2022).
\3\ Collision Between Vehicle Controlled by Developmental Automated
Driving System and Pedestrian, Tempe, Arizona, March 18, 2018, Accident
Report NTSB/HAR-19/03 (Nov. 19, 2019); NHTSA Office of Defects
Investigation Preliminary Evaluation PE21-020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates commends this Subcommittee and the full Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for including numerous provisions in
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law last
November, that will improve safety and strengthen our nation's
infrastructure.\4\ The law requires the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to issue a final rule within two years for AEB in
large commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and the issuance of a Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) to require drivers use AEB.\5\
We urge the U.S. DOT to meet the statutory deadline for this standard
and not delay regulatory action. However, this directive must be
expanded to include all CMVs and the U.S. DOT has the authority to do
so. Based on new truck sales data, limiting the installation of AEB to
Class 7 and 8 trucks will potentially exclude over half a million Class
3-6 trucks every year. These vehicles travel on local streets and
through neighborhoods everyday making millions of deliveries. Equipping
these trucks with AEB will make neighborhood streets safer for
pedestrians, bicyclists, children, older adults, people in wheelchairs
and other vulnerable road users. Advocates also has consistently
supported the use of speed limiting devices for CMVs because high speed
crashes involving large trucks have the potential to be far deadlier
than those that occur at lower speeds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
\5\ Id. at Sec. 23010.
\6\ Docket: FMCSA-2014-0083, Comment ID: FMCSA-2014-0083-4459.
Question 2. How should Congress treat automated vehicle
technologies that can be adopted today to improve safety on U.S. roads
versus more advanced levels of automation which supersede the need for
a human driver?
Answer. While autonomous vehicle (AV) technology continues to be
developed, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are available to
immediately improve public safety. These safety technologies can
address a range of crash causes including impaired, distracted and
drowsy driving. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) has included increasing implementation of collision avoidance
technologies in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety
Improvements since 2016.\7\ However, the widespread use of these
technologies and realizing their significant lifesaving benefits are
hampered by their limited availability to consumers typically in higher
end models or in luxury packages with non-safety features at a
significant additional cost. Moreover, there are currently no minimum
safety standards to ensure the technologies perform as expected and
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the near term, regulations must be promulgated for elements of
autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) including but not limited
to the autonomous driving system (ADS), human machine interface,
sensors, privacy, software and cybersecurity. ACMVs must also be
subject to a ``vision test'' to guarantee they properly detect and
respond to other vehicles, all people and objects in the operating
environment. Also, a standard to ensure ACMVs do not go outside of
their operational design domain (ODD) should be issued. Standards for
ACMVs must be required to be issued by specific deadlines, with a
compliance date, set by Congress before deployment.
For the foreseeable future, regardless of their level of
automation, ACMVs must have an operator with a valid CDL in the vehicle
at all times. Drivers will need to be alert to oversee not only the
standard operations of the truck but also the ADS. Therefore, the
Secretary must issue a mandatory safety standard for driver engagement.
In addition, critical safety regulations administered by FMCSA such as
those that apply to driver hours of service (HOS), licensing
requirements, entry level training and medical qualifications must not
be weakened.
Drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional endorsement or
equivalent certification on their commercial driver's license (CDL) to
ensure they have been properly trained to safely oversee and understand
the ODD of the vehicle and, if need be, to operate an ACMV. This
training must include a minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel
training.
Each manufacturer of an ACMV must be required to submit a safety
assessment report that details the safety performance of its automated
driving systems and automated vehicles. Manufacturers must be required
to promptly report to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) all crashes involving ACMVs causing fatalities,
injuries and property damage, which the agency should make publicly
available shortly upon receipt.
ACMVs that do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) must not be introduced into commerce nor be subject
to large-scale exemptions from such. Any safety defect involving the
ACMV must be remedied before the ACMV is permitted to return to
operation. The potential for defects to infect an entire fleet of
vehicles is heightened because of the connected nature of AV
technology. Therefore, manufacturers must be required to promptly
determine if a defect affects an entire fleet. Those defects which are
fleet-wide must result in notice to all such owners and an immediate
suspension of operation of the entire fleet until the defect is
remedied.
The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Secretary
must be required to establish a public searchable database for ACMVs
that includes such information as the vehicle's identification number;
manufacturer, make, model and trim information; the level of automation
of each automated driving system with which the vehicle is equipped;
the ODD of each automated driving system; and the FMVSS, if any, from
which the vehicle has been exempted.
Motor carriers using ACMVs must be required to apply for additional
operating authority. In addition, FMCSA must consider the additional
measures that will be needed to ensure that ACMVs respond to state and
local law enforcement authorities and requirements, and what measures
must be taken to properly evaluate an ACMV during roadside inspections.
In particular, the safety impacts on passenger vehicle traffic of
several large ACMVs platooning on bridges, roads and highways must be
assessed.
NHTSA must be given imminent hazard authority to protect against
potentially widespread catastrophic defects with ACMVs and the
authority to impose criminal penalties to ensure manufacturers do not
willfully and knowingly put defective ACMVs into the marketplace.
NHTSA and FMCSA must be given additional resources, funding and
personnel, in order to meet demands being placed on the agency due to
the advent of AV technology. Without these necessary safety
protections, mandated by Congress to assure they are adopted with
prescribed deadlines, commercial drivers and those with whom they share
the road are at risk. Allowing technology to be deployed without
rigorous testing, vigilant oversight, consumer information and
comprehensive safety standards is a direct and unacceptable threat to
the motoring public.
Question 3. What can Congress do now to ensure the safe deployment
of commercial AVs, when the time comes?
Answer. Automated technology may have the potential to be
transformative in reducing our nation's mounting roadway death and
injury toll. However, we are deeply concerned about the future of
automated, or autonomous, vehicles (AVs) including trucks and buses
without targeted legislative directives requiring regulatory and
industry actions to address identified problems. The lack of
comprehensive federal performance standards, strong government
oversight, adequate consumer information, and effective industry
accountability imperils all road users who are currently unknowing and
unwitting participants in the testing of experimental autonomous
technology on public roadways. Therefore, Congress must exercise
stringent oversight, demand transparency from all stakeholders, ensure
industry accountability and advance comprehensive legislation directing
the issuance of minimum performance standards to ensure public safety.
Question from Hon. Sharice Davids to Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 4. Conversations around AVs are important, but I also
don't want to lose sight of the need to address critical safety issues
now. For example, crashes involving disabled vehicles are happening
regularly. Anyone that's ever had a flat tire or had to walk to get
help knows just how frightening it can be. And sadly, tragedies
continue.
Just this last August, a Kansas man was killed after he had a tire
blowout on I-70 just over the border in Missouri. An oncoming vehicle
wasn't able to stop in time and he was tragically struck and killed.
This is just one example of the thousands of injuries and fatalities
happening every year. In fact, every seven minutes, a disabled vehicle
is struck by an oncoming driver on U.S. roadways. I'd like to include
for the record a few articles highlighting the significant safety
challenge of these crashes and how technology that is available today
can help oncoming drivers see these vehicles before it's too late to
react.
I'm wondering whether we're doing enough to address this challenge
in the interim before AVs are prevalent.
Cathy Chase, why is it important to incentivize new technologies
now while we wait for full deployment of AVs?
Answer. Preventable crashes such as those involving disabled
vehicles are tragic especially when proven solutions are currently
available. Data recently released by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that 38,824 people were killed
in motor vehicle crashes in 2020. The fatality rate increased by 21
percent and is the highest annual total since 2007. This number is
especially stunning considering the estimated number of police-reported
crashes and injuries decreased, by 22 and 17 percent respectively. In
nearly half (45 percent) of the fatal crashes, speeding, impaired
driving and unbuckled drivers were involved. Fatalities of vulnerable
road users--bicyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists--also rose to
historic levels.
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) should be
issuing minimum performance standards for proven and available safety
technologies with urgency. NHTSA has estimated that between 1960 and
2012, over 600,000 lives were saved by motor vehicle safety
technologies.\8\ The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
included increasing implementation of collision avoidance technologies
in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety Improvements since
2016.\9\ In addition, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
has found that equipping large trucks with forward collision warning
and AEB could eliminate more than two out of five crashes in which a
large truck rear-ends another vehicle, and AEB can decrease front-to-
rear crashes with injuries by 56 percent for passenger motor
vehicles.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069
(NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5
endnote 1.
\9\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
\10\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large
trucks too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-
front-crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too; IIHS, Real world
benefits of crash avoidance technologies, available at: https://
www.iihs.org/media/259e5bbd-f859-42a7-bd54-3888f7a2d3ef/e9boUQ/Topics/
ADVANCED%20DRIVER
%20ASSISTANCE/IIHS-real-world-CA-benefits.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The widespread use of these technologies and realizing their
significant lifesaving benefits are hampered by their limited
availability to consumers. Often AEB is sold as part of an additional,
expensive trim package along with other non-safety features, or
included as standard equipment in high end models or vehicles. This
practice hinders mass dissemination and safety equity by providing
access only to those who can afford an upcharge of thousands of
dollars. Additionally, segments of the trucking industry have opposed
requiring AEB in small to medium-sized trucks.
There are currently no minimum safety standards to ensure the
technologies perform as expected and needed. When consumers walk into
auto showrooms to purchase a vehicle, a major expenditure for most
families, they expect the assurances of minimum safety standards to
protect them, as has been the case since the first federal vehicle
safety regulation was issued in 1966. Also, consumers are keeping cars
longer. In 2021, the average of age of vehicles operated on roads in
the U.S. was 12 years.\11\ As such, without federal regulations
requiring ADAS as standard equipment, it will take far longer for these
safety systems to be prevalent on our roadways. The current void of
regulations for ADAS renders all road users vulnerable to needless
dangers, including bicyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road
users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Robert Ferris, Cars on American roads keep getting older, CNBC
(Sep. 28, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 5. African Americans make up the majority of pedestrian
and cycling fatalities. Furthermore, both pedestrian and cycling
fatalities are skyrocketing due to numerous factors, including
distracted driving and a shift toward SUVs, which create greater blind
spots and heavier impact from collisions. That said, we know that
relatively cheap and quick infrastructure improvements such as building
sidewalks and protected bike lanes can help prevent cycling and
pedestrian fatalities, and the disproportionate loss of Black and
minority lives.
Ms. Chase: What regulation is needed to enforce traffic laws and
ensure that AVs don't drive recklessly?
Answer. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.
DOT) National Roadway Safety Strategy, fatalities among Black people
increased by 23 percent between 2019 and 2020 compared to an overall
increase of 7.2 percent.\12\ In addition, people who are American
Indian and Alaska Native have roadway fatality rates more than double
the national rate on a per population basis.\13\ Moreover, the 40
percent of counties with the highest poverty rates in 2019 experienced
a fatality rate 35 percent higher than the national average on a per
population basis.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. DOT, National Roadway Safety Strategy, pg. 11 (Feb.
2022).
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several actions can be taken to reverse these deeply troubling
figures. Restrictions on the use of federal dollars by local
communities to use automated enforcement (AE) should be removed.
Research has consistently demonstrated the safety benefits of AE.\15\
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) revised the misguided
limitation by permitting the use of federal funds for AE in work and
school zones but not elsewhere.\16\ This restriction should be stricken
in its entirety. In 2018, Advocates, the American Automobile
Association (AAA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
and the National Safety Council issued guidelines to help ensure red
light camera AE is used properly and equitably, and last year
guidelines for speed enforcement AE were added.\17\ We encourage all
localities to implement these recommendations. In addition, the IIJA
provides funding opportunities for states and localities to implement a
Safe System Approach that seeks to prevent traffic fatalities by
minimizing roadway conflicts and reducing crash forces when they do
occur.\18\ This is accomplished through measures such as reducing
speeds, road safety infrastructure improvements, vehicle safety
enhancements and better post-crash management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ IIHS, Safety groups create automated enforcement checklist to
encourage well-designed programs (May 6, 2021).
\16\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
\17\ IIHS, New guidelines for automated enforcement programs
emphasize safety amid rise in red-light-running crash deaths (Jul. 24,
2018)
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of AVs must be undertaken without jeopardizing public
safety. Advocates spearheaded the development of the ``AV Tenets,''
policy positions which should be a foundational part of any AV
policy.\19\ This comprehensive approach is based on expert analysis,
real world experience, and public opinion and is supported by 60
stakeholders representing safety, consumer, public health, labor,
bicyclists, pedestrians, individuals with disabilities, smart growth,
and others. It has four main, commonsense categories including: 1)
prioritizing safety of all road users; 2) guaranteeing accessibility
and equity for all individuals including those with disabilities; 3)
preserving consumer and worker rights; and, 4) ensuring local control
and sustainable transportation. Many promises have been touted about
AVs bringing reductions in motor vehicle crashes and resultant deaths
and injuries, lowering traffic congestion and vehicle emissions,
expanding mobility and accessibility, improving efficiency, and
creating more equitable transportation options and opportunities. As
Secretary Buttigieg recently acknowledged, these outcomes are far from
certain.\20\ The AV Tenets will be necessary if these goals are to be
achieved, as well as mitigate potential negative consequences. Among
the numerous recommendations in the AV Tenets, requiring that AVs meet
minimum performance standards, including for cybersecurity, and that
operations are subject to adequate oversight, including a comprehensive
database accessible by vehicle identification number (VIN) with basic
safety information, will be critical to putting safety first with
regards to this technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See: https://saferoads.org/autonomous-vehicle-tenets/
\20\ Nilay Patel and Andrew J. Hawkins, Pete Buttigieg is Racing to
Keep Up with Self Driving Cars. The Verge (Jan. 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 6. What impact will AVs deployment have on the number of
impaired driving crashes and fatalities?
Answer. If and when fully autonomous (SAE level four and five)
vehicles (AVs) are developed and comprise the entirety of vehicles
operated on U.S. roadways, the technology has the potential to reduce
impaired driving crashes and the resulting fatalities. In 2020,
according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), 11,654 people died in crashes involving impaired driving
across the nation.\21\ These crashes are 100 percent preventable, and
technology can help eradicate impaired driving. In fact, the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has released research showing that
impairment detection systems could save upwards of 9,000 lives each
year once widely deployed.\22\ Regrettably, impaired driving detection
technologies currently are not required as standard equipment. However,
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act compelled the U.S. DOT to
issue a final rule on advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention
technology by November 2024.\23\ Until these systems are standard
equipment, additional safety technologies, such as automatic emergency
braking (AEB), should be in all new vehicles subject to minimum federal
performance standards. AEB can address a number of the conditions
leading to crashes and can help to mitigate or prevent impaired driving
collisions until such time as the systems noted above are in all
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Stewart, T. (2022, March). Overview of motor vehicle crashes
in 2020 (Report No. DOT HS 813 266). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\22\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Alcohol-detection
systems could prevent more than a fourth of U.S. road fatalities (Jul.
23, 2020).
\23\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Eric A. `` Rick'' Crawford to Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 7. Your testimony states that, ``According to the U.S.
Department of Labor, truck driving is one of the most dangerous
occupations in the United States''.
How do you suggest we address the truck driver shortage? If truck-
driving is dangerous, how would AVs improve safety by reducing human
error?
Answer. The trucking industry is facing a retention crisis, not a
driver shortage. The U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL) has determined
that ``the labor market for truck drivers works about as well as the
labor markets for other blue-collar occupations'' and ``a deeper look
[at the truck industry labor market] does not find evidence of a
secular shortage.'' \24\ Additionally, states issue more than 450,000
new commercial driver licenses (CDLs) each year demonstrating that
there are candidates to fill vacancies.\25\ Until the harsh and unsafe
working conditions for interstate truck drivers are remedied, labor
issues will persist. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
has found that equipping large trucks with forward collision warning
and automatic emergency braking (AEB) could eliminate more than two out
of five crashes in which a large truck rear-ends another vehicle.\26\
In addition, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
included increasing implementation of collision avoidance technologies
such as AEB in its Most Wanted Lists of Transportation Safety
Improvements since 2016.\27\ The technologies can make operating a
truck a safer job as well as improve safety for everyone driving on our
nation's roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
\25\ Greg Rosalsky, Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage?,
National Public Radio (May 25, 2021).
\26\ IIHS, Study shows front crash prevention works for large
trucks too, available at: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/study-shows-
front-crash-prevention-works-for-large-trucks-too
\27\ NTSB Most Wanted List Archives, https://ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/
Pages/mwl_archive.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) may in the future
improve public safety but this potential remains far from certain. In
fact, this technology still faces significant operational challenges
such as responding to all participants in the transportation ecosystem
including traffic control officers and vulnerable road users as well as
differing weather conditions. While ACMV technology continues to be
developed, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) should be required
to immediately improve public safety.
Question 8. What are the national security implications and
resulting safety impacts if China gains a leadership position in the
global AV market?
Answer. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a
coalition of public health, safety, law enforcement and consumer
organizations, insurers and insurance agents that promotes highway and
auto safety through the adoption of federal and state laws, policies
and regulations. Advocates' mission is advancing safe vehicles, safe
motorists and road users, and safe infrastructure. Issues involving
national security and prognostications about the impact of China
gaining a leadership position in the global AV market are outside our
area of expertise.
Question from Hon. David Rouzer to Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 9. In North Carolina, as well as 15 other states, vehicles
must undergo a periodic safety inspection to check items like brakes,
tires, lights, etc. Autonomous vehicles will have all these features
plus a more advanced system of sensors, software, and electronics. It
is important that these vehicles be properly maintained from a safety
perspective once they are on America's highways.
How does your organization view state periodic vehicle inspection
programs for autonomous vehicles?
Answer. Advocates supports annual vehicle inspections such as those
required in North Carolina. Proper maintenance and inspection of
autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs) is critical to ensuring
the safe operations of these vehicles. The operation of trucks under an
autonomous mode raises serious questions as to the ability to properly
service vehicles continuously in use. Even without this potential new
regime, 21 percent of CMVs were placed out of service in 2021 for
maintenance issues.\28\ In addition, many of the issues with the
physical condition of the truck which would be identified by a human
driver during a pre- or post-trip inspection as well problems during a
trip such as the shift of a load or other emergencies noted by a human
driver may not be identified or corrected under this type of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)
data snapshot as of 12/31/2021. Available at: https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/
SafetyProgram/RoadsideInspections.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates supported the proposal issued by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in 2016 that would have required
the annual state inspection of passenger carrying motor vehicles (the
rulemaking was withdrawn in 2017) as doing so would serve to better
ensure that such vehicles are not transporting the public while in
disrepair.\29\ Current federal regulations require CMVs to undergo an
inspection every 12 months and carriers may perform those
inspections.\30\ With the heightened safety concerns and complexities
associated with ACMVs, requiring that the vehicles undergo an annual
inspection performed by a properly trained state authority or
independent party is prudent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 81 FR 24769 (Apr. 27, 2016).
\30\ 49 CFR 396.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question from Hon. Rodney Davis to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety,
Aurora
Question 1. With AV technology, the truck driver has less active
engagement, but must remain attentive and be ready to step in if
necessary.
Mr. Beuse, does Aurora use any technologies to address issues of
driver attention and distraction?
Answer. Yes, at Aurora we employ a variety of processes, training
protocols, and technologies for our vehicle operators to address issues
of driver attention, fatigue, complacency, and distraction to support
the overall safety of our operations while testing on public roads. We
also adhere to industry best practices such as those published by AVSC,
federal guidance issued by the U.S. DOT, and recommendations from the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
The Aurora Driver is a Level 4 autonomous driving system (ADS). As
defined by SAE, a Level 4 system is the hardware and software that are
collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task
(DDT) on a sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a
specific operational design domain (ODD). Level 4 ADS systems are
different from lower levels of autonomy that require humans to conduct
the dynamic driving task. We are building the Aurora Driver through our
development program which includes five stages: Lay the Foundation,
Define and Build, Refine and Pilot, Validate, and Launch and Expand.\1\
As I discussed with the Subcommittee during the hearing, we are in the
Refine and Pilot stage for several of our partnerships, which includes
on road testing with vehicle operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://aurora.tech/blog/the-aurora-driver-development-program-
a-structured
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to note that our vehicle operators play a key role
in the development of self-driving vehicles and are essential to the
collaboration between the safety, software, hardware, and product
teams. Our vehicle operators play an integral role in the development
of our technology and our overall approach to safe testing on public
roads. They ensure safe vehicle testing and commercial operations,
provide feedback to the development team, execute data collections for
mapping and labeling, and represent the single biggest source of public
interactions, since they are out in public with our vehicles.
Our vehicle operators are key to understanding and evaluating the
performance of our self-driving system. They support the feedback loop
for our developers by providing them with actionable insights and data
from closed course and public road testing. Proper training, continuous
education, and open lines of communication with our safety and
engineering teams help ensure our vehicle operators are able to do
their jobs safely, effectively, and efficiently. We also utilize the
safety programs that are embodied in our Safety Management System to
understand that our policies and programs are effective and appropriate
for our road operations.
Policies and Technologies
Recognizing key distinctions between conventional driving and
operating a developmental self-driving vehicle, we have implemented a
number of technologies and policies for vehicle operators to assist
with the safety of self-driving vehicle operations, which include but
are not limited to collision avoidance features potentially included by
OEMs, limiting cell phone and smartwatch use, and monitoring. Vehicle
operators are strictly prohibited from interacting with their mobile
devices and/or smartwatch while the vehicle is in motion or the self-
driving system is engaged. All of our self-driving vehicles are
equipped with a third-party driver monitoring system providing Aurora's
operations management with the ability to maintain ELD/HOS compliance
and review driver behavior and attentiveness. The system automatically
identifies possible violations such as speeding, harsh braking events,
seat belt usage, distracted driving, fatigue, and others. Trip data is
periodically reviewed and triaged for coaching opportunities on
sustained vigilance while operating or overseeing the Aurora Driver on
public roads.
Training
Our vehicle operators are required to complete a comprehensive
training program to prepare them to safely operate a self-driving
vehicle and protect its surroundings and occupants from harm. As part
of this intensive, multi-level training program, our vehicle operators
must complete classroom assignments, undergo defensive-driver
education, and be evaluated by driving with an instructor to confirm
mastery of both basic and specialized driving skills. Our training
program starts with safe manual driving training to ensure fluency and
comfort operating vehicles equipped with non-standard technology
features and physical equipment required for self-driving operations.
This training begins on a closed course before proceeding to public
road training. In order to move to the next level, vehicle operators
must also have demonstrated acute situational awareness for potential
nearby hazards, competence in conducting tests to confirm the safety of
proposed changes in software, fluency with post-incident procedures,
and mastery within each testing type. In addition to completing our
rigorous training program (including recertification for qualified
events), our truck operators must possess a valid Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) in order to pilot a truck.
Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
with any follow up.
Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Nat Beuse, Vice President
of Safety, Aurora
Question 2. While I was touring the Kodiak AV facility, we were
briefed on how autonomous vehicle developers analyze their decision-
making through a safety lens. I still have safety concerns with respect
to this technology.
How can we work together to help ensure that all autonomous vehicle
developers approach building this technology while maintaining safety
first?
Answer. We strongly agree with the premise of this question: we can
all work together to ensure safety across the AV industry and in turn
improve safety on our roadways from the tragic loss of almost 40,000
Americans every year.
To drive the adoption of self-driving technology, we believe
transparency and collaboration are critical. Sharing our own work and
progress pushes forward the standards of safety for the entire AV
industry; the transparency also ensures everyone, from regulators and
partners to the general public, understands Aurora's safety approach
and gives the rest of the industry tools to leverage in their own
operations. Recent examples of this commitment to knowledge sharing
include how we recently offered our perspective on standing up a Safety
Management System (SMS) and unveiled our Safety Case Framework, as well
as a Safety Case 101 on our blog.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Aurora, ``Aurora Unveils First-Ever Safety Case Framework
that Addresses the Safety of Both Autonomous Trucks and Passenger
Vehicles'' (Aug. 17, 2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-unveils-
first-ever-safety-case-framework; Aurora, ``Welcome to Safety Case
101'' (Mar. 8, 2022), https://aurora.tech/blog/welcome-to-safety-case-
101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Aurora, we approach safety as a continuous process, not a static
checklist of to-do items, and our evidence-based approach is critical
internally and externally. Within Aurora, our Safety Case Framework is
how we continuously review evidence and evaluate the company and our
operations, including the Aurora Driver's performance and development
against internal standards to ensure we are confident putting self-
driving vehicles on public roads both with and without a vehicle
operator. Externally, our Safety Case Framework enables us to
effectively share our approach and progress with partners, customers,
regulators, and the general public. This transparency is imperative and
helps us build trust, which we believe is vital when developing and
eventually deploying our technology. We also encourage other AV
developers to establish and publish their own safety case frameworks as
a tool to improve public trust in the AV industry.
Industry standards bodies also play a critical role in establishing
industry-wide best practices and common practices around safety
critical issues. As I mentioned in my testimony, it is worth noting how
far the industry has come in the last decade in the development of
standards for AVs. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) published AV 2.0, which lists exactly three standards (SAE
J3016, ISO 26262, and MIL-STD-882E) that should be considered by
automated driving system (ADS) developers. Fast forward to 2021, and
USDOT's comprehensive plan now lists 20 different standards that
automated driving system (ADS) developers should consider. And based on
Aurora's involvement in industry standards development, we know there
are over a dozen more standards and best practices currently under
development across the various standards organizations. This work is
critical to engage across the industry and various stakeholders to
ensure it is actually utilized.
We also see strength in the convening role of the government at all
levels to support the safe development of AV technologies. There are
tremendous opportunities for the federal government to continue
supporting the development of AV technology in the United States to
provide certainty that companies, including Aurora, need to continue
investing and building here. Creating a level playing field where the
rules are clear and conducive to realizing the benefits for safety,
mobility, and efficiency for AV technology is a necessary role of
government.
Aurora supports the work of Members of this Committee, Congress,
and USDOT to ensure that laws and regulations for AVs are performance-
based and technology and business-model neutral.
Federal regulatory leadership supporting the development of AV
technology here in the United States is critical. The work that started
many years ago at U.S. DOT under Secretary Foxx, continued under
Secretary Chao, and carries through today under Secretary Buttigieg.
USDOT's guidance, research, and rulemakings that have been initiated
specific to AVs, along with the Department's use of its convening
authority to bring stakeholders together, has laid the foundation for
the future. We would like to thank Secretary Buttigieg for raising
important safety issues in his six guiding principles for
transportation innovation and in the ``Comprehensive National Roadway
Strategy.'' We also believe the U.S. DOT should be considering the full
suite of potential solutions, including AVs, to address the rise in
highway fatalities.
Finally, we support NHTSA's efforts to modernize the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), such as NHTSA's recent final rule for
alternatively designed vehicles, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's (FMCSA) efforts to modernize the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSR) to encourage the safe development of new and
innovative AV technologies.
Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
with any follow up.
Question from Hon. David Rouzer to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety,
Aurora
Question 3. In North Carolina, as well as 15 other states, vehicles
must undergo a periodic safety inspection to check items like brakes,
tires, lights, etc. Autonomous vehicles will have all these features
plus a more advanced system of sensors, software, and electronics. It
is important that these vehicles be properly maintained from a safety
perspective once they are on America's highways.
How does your organization view state periodic vehicle inspection
programs for autonomous vehicles?
Answer. Aurora complies with federal and state inspection
requirements today in the states where we are operating, and we share
the same strong interest in the safety of our vehicles on the road.
In addition, Aurora is working closely with the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance, and its members, including the North Carolina Highway
Patrol, on the development of enhanced inspection protocols for AVs. As
currently proposed, an enhanced pre-trip inspection model would
transition en-route stops for random roadside inspections to
structured, higher frequency, and higher standard inspections of
autonomous commercial motor vehicles.
Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
with any follow up.
Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen to Nat Beuse, Vice President of Safety,
Aurora
Question 4. Mr. Beuse, can you share with this Committee what
Aurora is learning about your technology from your pilot with FedEx and
PACCAR?
Answer. We are thrilled to be in partnership with FedEx and PACCAR.
This industry-first collaboration is born out of mutual trust and
respect with industry leaders that share our vision to transform
transportation and realize the benefits of self-driving technology.
With PACCAR's Autonomous Vehicle Platform (AVP), we are creating a
deeply integrated self-driving truck with a manufacturer that delivers
hundreds of thousands of Class 8 trucks each year. And now, through
this pilot, we are extending that partnership to a key customer, FedEx,
to integrate those trucks into its massive network, which delivers
billions of packages each year.
We are regularly and autonomously hauling FedEx loads with a
vehicle operator between Dallas and Houston, a 500-mile round trip
along the I-45 corridor that our autonomous semi-trucks travel day-and-
night and with a 100 percent on-time record. Our pilot with FedEx and
PACCAR demonstrates how we are progressing and advancing through the
Aurora Driver Development Program as we are now in the exciting phase
of ``Refine and Pilot.'' \3\ In this phase, we build a handful of
vehicles on which we will test, refine, and validate the requirements
through on-road testing, virtual testing, and commercial pilots with
networks, carriers, and private fleets. In our trucking pilots, we pull
real loads in commercially representative ways to gain experience and
incorporate customer feedback into the final product. Throughout this
phase, we work closely with our platform partner to understand the full
scope of customer preferences, even as they relate to non-autonomy-
specific characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Aurora, ``The Aurora Driver Development Program: A Structured
Approach for the Creation of Aurora-Powered Vehicles'' (Sept. 10,
2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/the-aurora-driver-development-program-
a-structured.
Question 5. In your testimony, you mention the importance of
transparency and building trust with all stakeholders. What does that
look like in your day-to-day work?
Answer. Trustworthy is one of the five principles of our Safety
Case Framework because of its critical importance underpinning the
whole of our work at Aurora. Aurora's AV may be Proficient, Fail-Safe,
Continuously Improving, and Resilient, but without the trust of the
public and governmental regulators in our vehicles and company, we
cannot fully realize our top level claim that Aurora's self-driving
vehicles are acceptably safe to operate on public roads.\4\ The
Trustworthy principle addresses how Aurora plans to gain trust through
public, government, and stakeholder engagement, safety transparency,
safety culture, as well as external review and advisory activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Aurora, ``Aurora Unveils First-Ever Safety Case Framework
that Addresses the Safety of Both Autonomous Trucks and Passenger
Vehicles'' (Aug. 17, 2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-unveils-
first-ever-safety-case-framework; Aurora, ``Welcome to Safety Case
101'' (Mar. 8, 2022), https://aurora.tech/blog/welcome-to-safety-case-
101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While no day is the same in my role, my work to build trust and
transparency with all stakeholders includes meeting with safety-focused
advocacy groups, working with Aurora's Safety Advisory Board,\5\
leading Aurora's standards organization engagement, and supporting
engagement with our federal and state regulators, including routinely
publishing materials on many aspects of safety to share our progress
and insights from that work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Aurora, ``Our Updated Safety Report and First-Ever Safety
Advisory Board'' (June 2, 2021), https://aurora.tech/blog/aurora-
shares-safety-report.
Question 6. In your testimony you ask for performance-based law and
regulations for AVs. As we are considering various policies to support
AVs and improve safety on our roadways, what should we be aware of that
would impact Aurora and FedEx's ability to continue to do its work?
Answer. This is an incredibly important question at this time of
Aurora's development. In my testimony, I laid out several elements of
any AV policy that would be important to Aurora's continued work with
partners, like FedEx, including that the policy contains performance-
based and technology and business-model neutral requirements.
Legislation or regulation that is counter to any of those principles
could pose risk to our operations and partnerships and more broadly a
risk to AVs being able to deliver on their promise to impact safety for
the motoring public.
In my oral testimony, I described how Aurora is a regulated company
at all levels of government and cited some of the many federal and
state laws and regulations we are subject to as both a developer of AV
technology and an operator of a fleet of autonomous trucks and
passenger cars. For example, our AV technology is subject to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) motor vehicle
safety requirements and oversight and our motor carrier operations are
subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration safety
regulations and oversight. In addition, each state in which we operate
has its own approach to permitting and regulating our AV operations.
Current federal law, namely the Safety Act, federal regulations
promulgated by NHTSA and FMCSA, state AV-specific regulations, and
traditional tort and product liability law, provide the construct for
Aurora's duties and obligations as both a developer of AV technology
and a tester and operator of AVs. Any fundamental change to NHTSA or
FMCSA's well-established authority and jurisdiction may raise
compliance questions that could impair Aurora's work with FedEx. For
example, creating a bifurcated regulatory process at NHTSA for
establishing safety standards for vehicles above and below 10,000
pounds that does not exist today, mandating industry adoption of
specific types of technology, or restricting certain types of business-
models would impede our current work.
Please reach out to Melissa Froelich, [email address redacted],
with any follow up.
Question from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Doug Bloch, Political
Director, Joint Council 7, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Question 1. Thank you, Mr. Bloch, for highlighting a provision that
I fought to include in the INVEST Act regarding workforce retraining.
As you can imagine, I was more than disappointed the Senate deleted
this language from the final bill.
Would you be able to expand on what kinds of programs you would
like to see when you mention ``workforce retraining programs for
surface transportation workers whose jobs have been affected by
automation''?
Answer. While the impact that Automated Vehicles (AVs) will have on
transportation workers is not yet fully know, the development and
testing of AVs that has occurred so far has given us a look into the
future and a degree of certainty that current workers will need to be
retrained and up-skilled to remain in what will eventually be a fast-
changing workplace. The most important step that Congress can take is
to ensure that workforce development plans are in place and implemented
before workers begin to be replaced or lose their jobs altogether to
automation. Your Surface Transportation Workforce Retraining Grant
Program is the kind of forward-thinking policy that could go far in
mitigating these impacts to workers before they happen.
All too often, assistance to workers that lose their jobs to
automation comes after the fact. Most cannot afford to give up a
paycheck to attend a trade school, college classes or other forms of
education full time to learn a new skill. I noted in my oral testimony
to the Committee that when Campbell's Soup closed its Sacramento
cannery, the government swooped in to provide job training assistance,
but in one representative case, it took a worker three years to learn
to become an ultrasound technician and find a job. In the interim, this
worker experienced extreme financial hardship. We can and must do
better!
Financial grants, as in your proposal, must be tied to workforce
development programs that are aimed at retraining/up-skilling workers
while they are in their current jobs. It cannot be a secret to
manufacturers developing the technology to produce self-driving
vehicles what their workforce needs will be in the future and how their
current employees need to be trained to transition to those new jobs.
Instead of giving a worker a pink slip, give them an opportunity to
learn new skills. Labor-management partnerships, pre-apprenticeship and
registered apprenticeship programs are all proven ways to create the
types of workforce retraining programs that lead to real up-skilled
jobs. And most importantly, there needs to be a component in any
workforce development plan that places an emphasis on timely job
placement, should there be a need for employment with new company.
The Teamsters Union does not foresee a time when human intervention
will not be part of the protocol in the operation of Commercial Motor
Vehicles (CMVs). Therefore, for Level 3.4 and 5 autonomous vehicles, we
see an opportunity to develop driver training programs that recognize
new driver skills needed to oversee the advancing technology that will
allow periods of vehicle self-driving, recognize and diagnose warning
signals, and prepare to take over driving tasks if and when the
autonomous driving systems malfunction or a need for other human
intervention. We also envision training programs that would allow
mechanics to upskill to meet the demands of automation, trading in
their wrenches for computerized diagnostic tools that could detect
problems with self-driving components. These are but a few of the
examples that come to mind.
It has been estimated by various sources that between 2.2 and 3.1
million car, bus and truck driving jobs in the U.S. would be eliminated
by the advent of self-driving vehicles. While that may be a staggering
prediction, we must be prepared make a transition no matter how many
workers are affected. Thank you for taking such an interest in making
sure that workers are not left behind in this race to deploy automated
vehicles.
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Nico Larco, AIA, Director and
Professor, Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon
Question 1. Dr. Larco, your testimony describes how policymakers
and the public should prepare for AVs not just focusing on the
technology, but based on the societal impacts of AVs. AVs have the
potential to expand mobility options for the traveling public and, in
turn, may have a significant effect on travel behavior.
Dr. Larco, how do you envision AVs fitting into the larger
portfolio of mobility options, including ride-share and public transit?
Answer. It is important to frame the answer to this question in the
context of societal and community goals. Nothing says we absolutely
need to have AVs as part of our transportation future. Instead, this
should only happen if AVs improve societal goals such as safety,
livability, sustainability, and equity. Our transportation system--
including a future system that may include AVs--should be designed and
optimized to increase safety, increase equitable mobility, increase
accessibility, and reduce GHG emissions while moving people and goods.
One thing that is becoming clear is that the best way to achieve
these goals is probably not through a transportation system based
primarily on individually owned or individually utilized AV cars and
trucks. Studies have shown that this will increase congestion and
vehicle miles travelled. Instead, one of the most effective ways to
achieve safety, livability, sustainability, and equity goals is to make
low-carbon options, walking, biking, and taking transit, the easiest
way for people to travel. AVs that help support these modes can
absolutely benefit communities. For example, AV technology applied to
transit could help increase transit frequency and coverage. AV shuttles
might pick-up and drop-off passengers at high-capacity transit stations
thereby supporting transit use while addressing first/last mile issues.
In some cases, in less dense areas, AV sedans might be used to serve
areas not easily served by transit, but if we are to achieve the goals
described above, this should be the exception, not the rule.
The risk is that we replace our personally-owned vehicles with an
autonomous vehicle, increasing the number of vehicles (both with and
without passengers) on the road and resulting in a large rise in
congestion (Green et al., 2019). I worry about a world of privately
owned AVs--or one dominated by rideshare AVs--that exacerbate many of
our existing transportation challenges while also creating the
problematic cascading impacts I discussed in my written and oral
testimony.
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Nico Larco, AIA,
Director and Professor, Urbanism Next Center, University of Oregon
Question 2. There's a perception that AVs are inherently greener
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that ignores the Jevons
Paradox--that as driving becomes less of a hassle, more people will
drive. This could cause people to take more and longer trips leading to
increased emissions, and tire and road erosion. In my district outside
of Atlanta, which struggles with urban sprawl, this would also result
in greater congestion and delays. As we know, the phenomenon of induced
demand has shown it is not possible to widen roadways to solve
congestion.
Mr. Larco: How can we ensure AVs do not incentivize additional
sprawl and congestion?
Answer. Throughout history, any increase in the ease of travel that
did not come about without some means of control has resulted in the
expansion of the metropolitan footprint and sprawl. While this has
facilitated the development patterns and lifestyles we see in suburbia,
it has also come at a cost to our environment and to equity. There are
four approaches communities can use to limit AVs incentivizing of
sprawl and congestion.
1. Create controls that increase the friction of unfettered AV
travel. Price signals are an effective way to incentivize behavior. If
communities want to limit the number of vehicles driving long-
distances, then a road usage charge (RUC) or vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) tax is one method to both increase the cost of sprawling
development and reducing congestion.
2. Build and locate housing, jobs, schools, and shopping closer
together. If communities don't want to encourage people to live on the
metropolitan fringe, they must provide housing and employment at closer
in locations. Land use is a critical component of reducing sprawl and
congestion. Too many communities across the U.S. have made it difficult
to build additional housing as they restrict missing middle housing
such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.
3. Improve walking, biking, and taking transit. Land use and
transportation planning work hand-in-hand. If communities want to
reduce sprawl and congestion, then they must design and build
communities with housing, jobs, schools and shopping closer together
and make it easy, safe, and affordable to walk, bike, e-scooter, or
take transit.
4. Constrain residential expansion into rural areas. Finally, if
communities want to reduce sprawling development into rural areas, they
can make it more difficult to develop in these areas while making
development closer in easier and more profitable. Oregon has done that
by requiring every city to adopt an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and
restricting the types of development that can occur outside of UGBs.
Question 3. Mr. Larco: How can climate effects be minimized if
Americans continue to rely on cars--AVs or otherwise--as their primary
mode of transportation?
Answer. History suggests it will be challenging, if not impossible,
to reduce GHG emissions if Americans continue to rely on cars as their
primary mode of transportation. Historically, we have increased our
vehicle miles travelled faster than we have improved fuel efficiency,
leading to a continued increase in GHG emissions since automobiles were
first mass produced in this country. The best scenario, if we continued
our reliance on cars, would be to have a fully electrified fleet that
is fueled solely by energy from renewable sources. Achieving this would
require overcoming significant technological hurdles as well as
significant political and market barriers. Even in this scenario,
however, there is no guarantee that GHG emissions would be reduced to
the levels necessary to curtail climate effects as the lifecycle costs
of electric vehicles (the energy and environmental effects of its
manufacturing/production) result in substantial GHG emissions
(Andersson & Borjesson, 2021; Hawkins et al., 2013). Less energy
intensive modes such as transit, biking, and walking continue to be the
preferred solution to our climate concerns around transportation.
I will also mention that energy and GHG emissions are not the only
concern of our continuing to have a car-dominated transportation system
and, more specifically, if we continued to promulgate land use and
development patterns that force us to use cars (namely sprawl). Even if
cars themselves were GHG and energy neutral, we would still have the
problems of continued land consumption, disruption and degradation of
natural water systems, disruption and degradation of critical
ecologies, and a continued increase in inequities.
References
Andersson, O., & Borjesson, P. (2021). The greenhouse gas emissions of
an electrified vehicle combined with renewable fuels: Life cycle
assessment and policy implications. Applied Energy, 289, 116621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116621
Green, W. H., Armstrong, R. C., Ben-Akiva, M., Heywood, J., Knittel,
C., Paltsev, S., Reimer, B., Vaishnav, C., Zhao, J., & Gross, E.
(2019). Insights into future mobility: A report from the mobility
of the future study. MIT Energy Initiative. http://energy.mit.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Insights-into-Future-Mobility.pdf
Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Stromman, A. H. (2013).
Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and
Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 53-64.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
This testimony was prepared by Nico Larco, Becky Steckler, and Amanda
Howell of the Urbanism Next Center at the University of Oregon.
Urbanism Next Center--http://urbanismnext.org/
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Ariel Wolf, Esq., General
Counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association
Question 1. Mr. Wolf, given that many autonomous truck companies
expect to begin commercial deployment within the next few years, I am
wondering in what ways the industry is working to ensure that our
workforce is prepared to be a part of this workforce and equipped with
the necessary skill sets to fill new roles created by AV technology?
Answer. The autonomous vehicle (``AV'') industry has already added
jobs in regions where it is most active. A study performed for the
Pittsburgh-based Regional Industrial Development Corporation found that
in the Pittsburgh region alone, the AV industry has created 6,500 new
jobs.\1\ The AV industry is providing opportunities for workers with a
wide array of expertise and educational backgrounds, including many
jobs that do not require a college degree. Today, in locations across
the country, AV developers and manufacturers are hiring auto
technicians, fleet managers, safety operations specialists, sensor
calibrators, transportation planners, engineers, and many others to
support the testing and deployment of AV technology. As the AV industry
continues to expand, delivery workers and grocery store employees will
be involved in selecting, packing, and delivering goods to consumers,
among other jobs and roles that will emerge. AVs can expand access to
affordable delivery while also creating over three million new jobs by
2035, as retailers and delivery providers expand their services,
according to a study by Steer.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ TEConomy Partners, Forefront: Securing Pittsburgh's Break-out
Position in Autonomous Mobile Systems ES-1-2 (2021), https://ridc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PGH-Autonomy-Report-Executive-Summary.pdf.
\2\ Steer, Economic Impacts of Autonomous Delivery Services in the
U.S. XV (2020), https://www.steergroup.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/
200910_%20Nuro_Final_Report_Public.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AV industry is investing in partnerships to create the
workforce needed to support the widespread deployment of AVs. For
example, Nuro's program with De Anza Community College will offer a new
career pathway to prepare the next generation of autonomous fleet
technicians.\3\ The initiative, which will extend to more locations in
the near future, includes a free tuition option, access to paid
internships and part time work, and preference for full-time and full
benefits jobs upon graduation. Another example is TuSimple's work with
Pima Community College, which established an AV certificate program to
prepare drivers for new jobs such as training AV systems as test
drivers, operating the AV in situations where autonomous driving is not
always suitable, and remotely monitoring the system from a command
center.\4\ In San Francisco, Cruise partners with a local non-profit
organization, Humanmade,\5\ to help build bridges between historically
underserved communities and the advanced manufacturing economy through
skills training, education, access to advanced tools and machinery,
interview workshops, and other resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Autonomous and Electric Vehicle Technician Pathway, De Anza
College, https://www.deanza.edu/autotech/
av#: :text=A%20New%20Career%20Pathway%20With,nation%20%
E2%80%94%20for%20De%20Anza%20students (last visited Jan. 28, 2022).
\4\ Linda Baker, TuSimple and Pima Community College Launch First-
Ever AV Certificate Program for Truck Drivers, Freightwaves (June 13,
2019), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/tusimple-and-pima-community-
college-launch-first-ever-av-certificate-program-for-truck-drivers.
\5\ Workforce Development Programs, Humanmade, https://
www.humanmade.org/workforce-development (last visited Mar. 13, 2022).
Question 2. While I was touring the Kodiak AV facility, we were
briefed on how autonomous vehicle developers analyze their decision-
making through a safety lens. I still have safety concerns with respect
to this technology.
How can we work together to help ensure that all autonomous vehicle
developers approach building this technology while maintaining safety
first?
Answer. The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association's (``AVIA'')
members are dedicated to the safe development and deployment of AV
technologies. One of the most important benefits of AV adoption is the
safety improvements the technology offers when compared to human
drivers. AV developers have publicized their safety policies and
development strategies in public reports to help the public understand
how developers are placing safety at the forefront of their
programs.\6\ One important action that Congress can take to help ensure
the continued safe deployment of AVs is to provide a clear regulatory
framework. With the regulatory certainty provided by such a framework,
AV developers would be better positioned to expand AV testing and
deployments, which would provide data and experience that can help
refine AV technology and enhance its already significant safety
capabilities, while also allowing the safety and mobility improvements
offered by AVs to be utilized by communities across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A few of the companies that have published safety reports
include Waymo, Aurora, TuSimple, and Nuro.
Question 3. Mr. Wolf, how can autonomous trucking help to relieve
supply chain backlogs, especially at ports and in districts like mine
that serve as freight and logistics hubs? And how can we prepare those
regions for the changes that autonomous trucking will bring?
Answer. AV trucks can increase long-haul efficiency and capacity,
which will in turn improve the efficiency of freight and logistics hubs
along with countless other industries that rely on moving goods on
trucks, such as agriculture, retail, and manufacturing. By
supplementing human drivers and increasing the time vehicles can spend
on the road, goods can be moved from port and freight hubs to final
destinations with greater speed and efficiency, cutting down the time
it takes to transport goods.
Importantly, AV trucks will be part of a comprehensive trucking
ecosystem that works with human drivers, not against them. Adoption of
this technology can lead to a positive lifestyle change for thousands
of truck drivers, allowing them to stay closer to home during the day
instead of driving routes that keep them on the road for weeks at a
time. A recent study funded by USDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration also indicated that adoption of AV trucking will
increase total U.S. employment by 26,400 to 35,100 jobs per year on
average and raise annual earnings for all U.S. workers by between $203
and $267 per worker per year.\7\ Given the timeline for AV truck
deployment, autonomous trucking is not likely to cause significant
displacement of jobs in the trucking industry,\8\ but it can serve as
one tool to reduce strains on the supply chain caused, in part, by the
longstanding truck driver shortage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Robert Waschik et al., John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Ctr.,
Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in Long-Haul
Trucking (2021), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
\8\ See Securing America's Future Energy, America's Workforce and
the Self-Driving Future Realizing Productivity Gains and Spurring
Economic Growth (June 2018), https://avworkforce.secureenergy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/Americas-Workforce-and-the-Self-Driving-
Future_Realizing-Productivity-Gains-and-Spurring-Economic-Growth.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Rodney Davis to Ariel Wolf, Esq., General Counsel,
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association
Question 4. During the hearing, you highlighted the safety record
of autonomous vehicles (AVs), however, there was some disagreement
among panelists on this topic. One panelist cited a statistic which
states that 9.1 accidents occur for every million miles traveled by an
AV, while only 4.1 accidents occur per million miles traveled by a
human driver.
How do you respond to claims that AVs are less safe than human
drivers, specifically the rate of accidents per million miles?
Answer. The statistic referenced comes from a study on AV crashes
that was produced in the fall of 2015, when the AV industry was
considerably smaller. The final statistics in that study were generated
from a data set that included 11 total crashes over a 4-year period and
in each of those 11 crashes, the drivers of the conventional vehicles
involved were found to be at fault.\9\ By comparison, the California
Department of Motor Vehicles (``DMV'') reported that AVs drove four
times as many miles on that state's roads in 2021 alone than during
that entire 4-year period studied.\10\ The AV industry and AV
technology has developed significantly in the last decade, and research
shows that even when an AV cannot avoid a collision, they are better
able to reduce the severity of a crash when compared to a human
driver.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak, A Preliminary Analysis of
Real-World Crashes Involving Self-Driving Vehicles (2015), http://
websites.umich.edu/ umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2015-34.pdf.
\10\ Press Release, Cal. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, AV Permit Holders
Report 4 Million Test Miles in California (Feb. 9, 2022), https://
www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/av-permit-holders-report-4-
million-test-miles-in-california/.
\11\ John M. Scanlon, et. al., Waymo Simulated Driving Behavior in
Reconstructed Fatal Crashes within Autonomous Vehicle Operating Domain
(2021), https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/documents/
Waymo-Simulated-Driving-Behavior-in-Reconstructed-Collisions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considering comparisons between AVs and traditional vehicles,
it is also important to note that AVs are often monitored much more
closely, both by AV developers and by federal and state regulators.
California requires AVs to report any collision that resulted in
property damage, bodily injury, or death within ten days of an
incident,\12\ while NHTSA's Standing General Order 2021-01 (``SGO'')
requires reports within one day for some serious incidents and monthly
reports for minor crashes.\13\ This is not true for incidents involving
traditional motor vehicles, with a 2015 NHTSA study estimating that
approximately 30% of crashes go unreported.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports, Cal. Dep't of Motor
Vehicles, https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/
autonomous-vehicles/autonomous-vehicle-collision-reports/ (last visited
Mar. 13, 2022).
\13\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
First Amended Standing General Order 2021-01 (Aug. 5, 2021), https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021-08/
First_Amended_SGO_2021_01_Final.pdf.
\14\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., DOT HS 812 183, National
Telephone Survey of Reported and Unreported Motor Vehicle Crashes,
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812183.
Question 5. How can autonomous trucking help to relieve supply
chain backlogs, especially at ports?
Answer. AV trucks can increase long-haul efficiency and capacity,
which will in turn improve the efficiency of freight and logistics hubs
along with countless other industries that rely on moving goods on
trucks, such as agriculture, retail, and manufacturing. By
supplementing human drivers and increasing the time vehicles can spend
on the road, goods can be moved from port to freight hubs, to final
destinations with greater speed and efficiency, cutting down the
transportation times of goods. This will allow for a more efficient
flow of goods into and out of ports, easing congestion and backlogs.
AVs can also move goods within a port, assisting port workers in
managing materials and helping prevent backlogs.
Question 6. You mentioned in your testimony that deployment of AVs
can expand mobility for seniors and people with disabilities, is a
regulatory framework necessary to maximize these benefits?
Answer. A regulatory framework for AVs that enhances public trust
in AV technology, maximizes AV deployments, and promotes innovation
will help ensure that everyone can enjoy the benefits of AV
technologies, including expansion of safe and affordable
transportation. A clear regulatory framework would encourage AV
deployment across the country, rather than having to target scaled
deployments to only those states that have created regulatory
environments authorizing AV deployments. The 25.5 million Americans
with travel-limiting disabilities do not live only in states like
Arizona, Nevada, or Texas where there are established paths to
widespread AV deployment. A framework that allows for deployments
nationwide will expand opportunities for millions of those people to
access the mobility benefits offered by AVs.
Question from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Ariel Wolf, Esq.,
General Counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association
Question 7. You stated in your testimony that the United States
leads the world in AV technology, but is in danger of ceding the lead
to other countries who are developing a framework for deploying AVs.
What type of competitive advantage does leading the world on AVs
give the United States? What does the United States risk by ceding the
lead?
Answer. As the center of global AV development, the United States
is poised to lead in a global market for AVs worth an estimated $1
trillion by the latter half of this decade.\15\ America's leadership
role is integral to securing the economic growth, job creation, and
many safety and societal benefits offered by AVs. If the U.S. can
maintain its lead in AV deployment, American automakers and AV
developers can create and export valuable gold standard AV technologies
to markets across the world. U.S. leadership in AV development and
deployment also means the significant mobility and safety benefits of
AV technology can be more easily shared among all Americans, as
communities and consumers can purchase and benefit from domestically
produced vehicles and technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ TEConomy Partners, supra note 1 at ES-1-2 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[all]