Amplified Work Plan - Transportation Research...

NCHRP PROJECT NO. 20-102 (01)

Policy and Planning Actions to Internalize Societal Impacts of CV and AV Systems into Market Decisions

Ginger Goodin, P.E.

Senior Research Engineer and Director, Policy Research Center Texas A&M Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System

Transportation Research Board

NAS-NRC LIMITED USE DOCUMENT

Shelley Row Associates LLC

Amplified Work Plan November 18, 2015

NCHRP 20-102(01) Amplified Work Plan 1

Note to NCHRP 20-102(01) Panel: This Amplified Work Plan is based on Section 4. Significant changes to material in response to panel comments are indicated by a vertical line in the left margin, as shown here, and revised text is underlined.

Panel Comments and Where Addressed in Amplified Work Plan:

Panel Comment Location

1. The proposal shows a good understanding of the panel’s intent for the project and does not set limits on the policy and planning actions that will be addressed. Table 4 is a good start. While the project is addressing both CV and AV technologies, the panel expects that they be handled differently during the project and in the deliverables, particularly due to the infrastructure investment needed for CV.

Discussed during 09/02/15 Panel Meeting. See comment #8.

2. The research team has a strong policy background and team members have dealt with legislators and state and local transportation agencies. The principals have a good commitment of time to the project. Most of this experience, though, has been in Texas and the research team must take full advantage of the interviews and other outreach efforts to ensure that the final deliverables are useful to state and local transportation agencies across the nation.

Section 4 Research Plan

Interviews are planned for Tasks 2, 3, and 5 and are anticipated to capture a national cross section of individuals.

3. The team is also relatively light in industry experience and the outreach should help to make sure that the project results are well grounded in the likely future of the technologies.


Interviews with industry are planned for Tasks 2, 3, and 5 and are anticipated to capture a broad cross section of industry representation.

4. While case studies can be informative, they are sometimes a weak approach for presenting the information. The panel looks forward to discussing their use further at the kick-off meeting.


Task 5 wording has been revised from “case studies” to “topically-focused white papers”

5. The described deliverables (including the policy briefing document) should be very useful and the panel appreciates the recommendation for an AASHTO presentation at their 2016 Annual Meeting.

No change.

6. Re-think table of private/public sector incongruences (09/02 Panel Meeting)


Table 3 has been removed and replaced with description

2 NCHRP 20-102(01) Amplified Work Plan

7. Emphasis on regulation and planning as key policy levers (09/02 Panel Meeting)


Task 3 wording reflects priorities

8. Scales of implementation of policy/planning actions (09/02 Panel Meeting)

Level of government – local, regional, state

Geographic – urban, rural

Timeframe – short, medium, long

Technology driver – AV, V2V, V2I, V2Other

Ownership model – private, subscription


Task 5 has been revised to reflect the scales of implementation

NCHRP 20-102(01) Amplified Work Plan 1-1

SECTION 1

UNDERSTANDING OF CONNECTED VEHICLES AND AUTOMATED

VEHICLES IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES

Introduction

The objective of this research is to identify and assess policy and planning actions that state, regional, and local agencies could take to help societal impacts of automated vehicle (AV) and connected vehicle (CV) technologies be internalized in market decisions made by individuals and organizations. While it is well known that the societal benefits of these technologies may be significant, it is possible that such technologies will not become widely adopted for lack of viable business models. Technology adoption typically progresses from early adopters, who are willing and able to accept higher risk and cost, to mass adoption through a series of incremental steps. Private- and public-sector stakeholders typically do not, or cannot, pursue new technologies if demand is not present. In this case, the enormous potential societal benefits stemming from AV and CV technologies might not be realized. Simultaneously, these technologies pose some new risks and may have drawbacks (e.g., contributing to costly urban sprawl), and it is not clear that existing market drivers in the private sector are sufficient to overcome these risks. Policy and planning actions by state and local governments could offset the risks of a market failure (for example, a lack of consumer demand for AVs and CVs that are widely beneficial). But currently, state and local transportation agencies lack the information necessary for sound decision making.

Defining the Problem: Social Welfare and Market Economics

Welfare economics can help us understand and address the challenge that policy makers face in shaping these technologies. Welfare economics tells us that the market can maximize social welfare under certain assumptions. One of the most important assumptions is the absence of externalities, which are costs imposed on or benefits provided to entities other than the purchaser of the goods in question. Unfortunately, negative externalities often arise in transportation. For example, the decision to drive a large SUV in a crowded city imposes congestion, safety, and pollution costs on all of the other system users—costs that the SUV driver does not have to pay. Unless these externalities are internalized and converted into market forces, the free market will not efficiently allocate goods, resulting in a market failure and a society that is generally worse off than otherwise possible.

In the context of automated and connected vehicles, numerous externalities exist. For example, the adoption of even relatively simple automated crash reduction systems (e.g., automated forward collision braking) will reduce not only the purchaser’s crashes, but also the crashes of those cars that the purchasers’ cars otherwise would have collided with. This is a positive externality, an externality that creates benefits (rather than costs) to others. Similarly, the adoption of connected vehicle technology aids not only the purchaser but also other CV owners who can take advantage of the information provided by the first CV. Absent some mechanism to internalize these positive externalities and take advantage of market forces, under-investment in the relevant technology is likely to be the result. AVs and CVs also pose negative externalities. For instance, owners of AV technology may accept longer commutes, increasing costly sprawl. Without mechanisms to discourage this, the technology may lead to inefficient urban growth patterns.

The classic welfare economics policy solution to positive or negative externalities is providing a subsidy or tax in order to internalize the externality and ensure that the private sector actor has the right incentives that incorporate the costs (and benefits) that they impose and provide to others. So, for example, electric vehicles have been provided tax credits, use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and other subsidies to encourage their adoption, since electric vehicles generally pollute less. The federal gasoline tax has acted as a tax on emissions generated by vehicles and provides some incentives to consumers to purchase more fuel-efficient cars and reduce mileage. Similarly, subsidies may be used for technologies that have been shown to reduce crashes, and may be calculated based on the size of the positive externalities.

1-2 NCHRP 20-102(01) Amplified Work Plan

Describing the Complexity of the Problem

Decision making on this topic is complicated because the positive and negative externalities of the technologies are not well aligned between private and public sector interests. These technologies offer many positive externalities, such as increasing safety and mobility, boosting productivity and economic growth, and reducing environmental impacts of traditional vehicles. At the same time, these technologies pose many risks/costs to society and to the private sector, such as increasing urban sprawl, eliminating livery and other jobs, and introducing new liability concerns. But these externalities may be misaligned in several ways:

Sign (e.g., + for society, - for individual),

Scale (e.g., +++ for society, + for individual), or

Impact (e.g., +++ for safety, --- for environment).

Also adding to the complexity of the decision making is that there are a wide range of AV and CV technology concepts, and that these groups of technologies have been on separate development paths for a number of years, with different stakeholder groups driving their progress. As a consequence, there may be different sets of externalities depending on the technology.

AV technology developments have focused on individual vehicle-centric applications. Vehicle manufacturers have been introducing new automation functions into their vehicles for many years, transferring more and more driving tasks to the vehicle related to both convenience and safety, such as adaptive cruise control, parking assist, and automatic braking. These are collectively referred to as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). Combining these technologies could create more complete automated systems but even when technical challenges are resolved, non-technical challenges may remain. For example, user acceptance and trust of the technology is a barrier to increased user demand, and the uncertainty surrounding liability is a barrier to OEM investment.

Unlike the case with AVs, CV technology has been managed by USDOT through organizations like the Joint Program Office (JPO) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These efforts have largely focused on standards development for the vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) message sets and communication hardware, as well as providing significant seed money for initial CV application and hardware development, testing, and analysis. The primary barrier for CV technology has been the absence of private sector willingness to invest in the technologies, in large part because of the lack of a viable business model; the first CVs will be more expensive and have almost no one else (or no other thing) to talk to, resulting in little consumer demand.

It is important for transportation decision makers at the state and local levels to recognize and understand their potential roles in harnessing market forces to realize the enormous potential societal benefits stemming from AV and CV technologies, while taking the necessary steps to minimize associated disadvantages.

Policy Intervention: Aligning Externalities

One key function of public agencies and legislative bodies is to seek to align these externalities by internalizing them. Outside of transportation, education is a good example. Education not only benefits the individual, but also it benefits society as a whole since education increases productivity and the economic growth of a nation. However, an individual will only consider the marginal private benefit and the marginal private cost when determining the quantity of education that he or she should obtain. To correct this, the government offers subsidized school loans to increase consumers’ demand for higher education and so maximize societal benefits. States also typically subsidize higher educational institutions allowing them to charge a tuition rate less than the marginal private cost. Another alternative is for the government to provide the good or service instead of the private market, for example, primary education (K–12) is generally provided by the state government, with relatively little direct cost to the students.

Transportation policy makers and planners can take a variety of policy and planning actions to accelerate a range of societal benefits from AV and CV technologies while managing harms. Table 1 lists a few categories


of policy instruments or planning strategies with examples of how they can be applied in the context of automated and connected vehicles. The table also offers examples of how traditional transportation planning tools can be used in the same way. The information is not exhaustive; it serves as a means to highlight the types of policy and planning actions that may be used to influence market forces.

Table 1. Examples of Policy and Planning Actions to Internalize the Externalities of Automated and Connected Vehicles

Note: A comprehensive table is presented in Task 3 of the Research Approach. TYPE OF ACTIONS APPLICATION EXAMPLES

Policy Actions

Taxes and fees Waive taxes on incremental costs for AV systems; provide toll discounts to eligible vehicles

Regulation Allow direct vehicle sales by manufacturers; consolidate regulations at state level

Subsidies and grants Offer vehicle purchase subsidies; offer education and training grants to vehicle drivers who face job loss from AVs

Planning Actions

Long-range transportation plans Reassess long-term capacity projects and restructure funding and planning programs

Short-range transportation plans Incorporate communications backhaul into near-term construction projects

ITS plans Provide more direct linkages of ITS plans short-and long-range transportation plans

The effectiveness of a given policy or planning actions is dependent upon a number of factors:

The degree to which they address divergences, or leverage convergences, between private sector or consumer interests and societal welfare (i.e., impact on market decisions).

Their cost, political, and institutional feasibility.

Their effectiveness and impact at different levels of market penetration.

The degree to which they create unintended consequences, such as decreasing social equity.

Research Objective

The objective of this research is to identify and describe policy and planning actions at the state, regional, and local levels that could help societal impacts (including impacts on transportation system owner/operators) of CV and AV technologies to be internalized in market decisions made by individuals and organizations. CV and AV technologies include those being developed for all modes (e.g., cars, trucks, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians) and the interfaces between them. The policy actions should be evaluated and prioritized based on the effectiveness with which they address the factors above.

To fulfill this objective, this research will define a range of actions that can be taken by transportation policy makers and planners to accelerate a range of societal benefits. The research team will describe the points at which societal and private sector interests converge and diverge, delineate policy and planning tools to address divergence and leverage convergence, and qualitatively evaluate those actions, providing rationale for their use.

Research Team

The research team is comprised of four organizations. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) will serve as prime contractor, and the RAND Corporation (RAND), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), and University of Utah (Utah) will serve as subcontractors. In addition, two prominent research professionals:


André Weimerskirch (University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute [UMTRI]) and Shelly Row (Shelly Row Associates, LLC) are also subcontractors. Key staff members are briefly presented below, and information on the role of each researcher is described in the forthcoming tasks.

Ginger Goodin (TTI), principal investigator. A Senior Research Engineer and Director of the Policy Research Center, supporting the Texas State Legislature with objective, data-driven transportation policy research. With 30 years of experience, she has led diverse research on the forefront of emerging topics, including managed lanes, mileage-based user fees, and AVs. She has helped organize the sessions on state and local policy issues at the annual TRB conference on AV technology.

Trey Baker and Jason Wagner (TTI). Baker is an Assistant Research Scientist who has worked extensively on the legal arrangements, taxation schemes, and collection protocols for mileage-based technology systems. Wagner is an Associate Transportation Researcher with experience in a variety of public policy issues relating to AVs.

Bob Brydia (TTI). A Research Scientist with 20 years of experience with TTI’s TransLink® Research Center, a nationally recognized ITS research and development program. He brings substantial experience in the transportation and computer technology fields, including ITS communications, ITS data management, automatic vehicle location, and transit priority.

Mike Lukuc (TTI). A Program Manager for Connected Vehicles and Infrastructure, who joined TTI from the Vehicle Safety Communications Program and Office of Crash Avoidance Rulemaking at NHTSA. He also brings nearly two decades of experience in working in the private sector, including Mercedes Benz, GM and Delphi, Honda/Acura, and BMW and Volvo.

Dave Sparks (TTI). A Senior Research Scientist with extensive experience in large-scale infrastructure and transportation projects. He is a Co-Founder of TransCore and has served on the Board of Directors of ITS America, and as a member of its Executive Committee and Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee.

Tom Williams (TTI). A Research Scientist and Program Manager for Travel Forecasting. For the past 30 years, he has worked closely with TxDOT and other state agencies on models and other tools to support short- and long-range transportation planning. He currently leads a study for TxDOT on introducing AV and CV issues into the transportation planning process.

Dr. Johanna Zmud (TTI). A Senior Research Scientist and Director of the Washington, D.C., office, she is an internationally acknowledged innovator in bridging transportation research, data, information, and technology. She brings expertise in AV and CV road-mapping, data privacy and security issues, and the impacts of new technologies on travel demand. She will present on a state and local policy issues on a plenary panel at the 2015 TRB conference on AV technology.

James Anderson (RAND). A lawyer/economist by training, now a Senior Behavioral Scientist with the RAND Corporation, he has co-authored two influential publications on the liability and policy implications of autonomous vehicle technology and has helped organize the annual TRB conference on AV technology with regards to legal issues.

Nidhi Kalra (RAND). An Information Scientist at RAND with a Ph.D. in robotics, she works on policy analysis to guide science and technology decision making. With Anderson, she has co-authored several publications on policy making for autonomous vehicle technology.

Shelly Row (ROW). An independent consultant, she brings extensive experience on public agencies transportation needs and in-depth experience with the USDOT’s connected vehicle program.

Paul Avery (SwRI). A Principal Engineer in the Intelligent Systems Department has extensive experience in the development of AV and CV technology for both commercial and government clients. During his 10 years at SwRI, he has led a number of successful programs, with a particular focus on the behavior of multi-vehicle cooperative systems.

Dr. Daniel Fagnant (Utah). An Assistant Professor of civil engineering, with expertise in vehicle automation policy, system modeling, safety assessment, and economic impact evaluation.

André Weimerskirch (UMTRI). An Associate Research Scientist, he brings expertise in cybersecurity systems related to connected vehicles, including being the main designer of the vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)


communication security and privacy system that is the leading candidate for deployment in the United States.

Strengths of the research team relative to the research objectives are highlighted as follows:

Experts in policy and economic analysis methods and frameworks.

Researchers with specific experience in AV and CV development and adoption.

First-hand experience working with USDOT and a number of states DOTs to develop their connected vehicle programs and the integration of AVs into existing traffic systems.

Transportation professionals who understand policy and planning issues and decision making by state and local transportation agencies.

Legal expertise and understanding of the administrative law ecology of transportation agencies and the liability implications.

Research Approach

The research objective is to generate information for state and local governments as to what policy or planning actions they can take to stimulate the development of markets for CV and AV systems for all modes (e.g., cars, trucks, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians), so that the societal costs and benefits can be internalized in market decisions. The final deliverable of the research will include a menu of policy and planning actions at the state and local levels that could be used to do so. A large part of the final report will focus on assessment of each potential policy and planning action, according to political, institutional, financial, market, and equity viability, as well as the applicability of the actions at different levels of CV and AV market penetration. The research team will use a star rating system to compare the various strategies identified. To produce the necessary information, the study will use both qualitative and quantitative research methods, as identified in Table 2.

Table 2. Research Approach Summary

Desired Information Research Methods

Intersection and convergence between societal impacts and impacts on private sector interests

Literature review Stakeholder and expert interviews (public, private sector) Webinar with stakeholders and experts

Policy and planning actions to align private sector interests with broader societal interests

Literature review Stakeholder and expert interviews (public, private sector)

Assessment of feasibility, applicability, impacts of policy and planning actions

Case studies

Implementation issues and strategies for application of findings

Stakeholder and expert interviews Workshop with public and private sector leaders

Study Tasks

Figure 1 depicts the set of six study tasks that in 15 months will result in a final deliverable that meets the expectations of NCHRP. Four of the 15 months for the study will be dedicated to panel review of interim and final reports.


Figure 1. Proposed Tasks and Research Activities

Task 1 – Study Management

Research activity: To fulfill study management responsibilities

Lead: Goodin (TTI)

The project will have a single point of contact for project management, Ginger Goodin. Goodin will assume responsibility to complete all research activities and submit deliverables on time and within budget, and to provide NCHRP and state and local agencies with the information that is needed for future policy and planning decision making. Johanna Zmud will serve as co-PI. In this role, she has the lead role and responsibility for several significant tasks in the study.

Over her 30 year research career, Goodin has followed several project management strategies that have proven effective in her role as PI. These strategies will be applied to meet the expectations of NCHRP:

Visualize the end of the study: Goodin will ensure that she and the research team have a clear understanding of what the research is trying to achieve. This includes making the distinction between outputs and outcomes. Outputs are the physical deliverables of the study. Outcomes are what the state and local agencies will do with the results.

Produce a work breakdown structure (WBS): Goodin will split the tasks into smaller subtasks and assign responsibilities (along with budgeted hours and timelines) to the research team members. A Gantt chart will be produced to visualize the WBS. The Gantt chart will be updated and adapted as the project progresses.

Anticipate milestones and deliverables: The total project is set up for 15 months. Goodin will have a key role in all task activities (even if she is not listed as lead for a particular task) and in the production of all deliverables during this time period.

Communicate with the NCHRP study manager and the oversight panel: Goodin believes in proactive communication with research sponsors. Per the solicitation, she (supported by Zmud, as necessary) will participate in and/or produce: o Kick-off face-to-face meeting: Scheduled as soon as practical after the contract’s execution. o Monthly web conferences: Scheduled on an agreed upon regular day of the month. o Monthly status reports: Submitted one week before monthly web conference, to include: decisions to

be made, potential white papers, highlights of significant developments in private or public sectors. o Quarterly status reports: Submitted within 5 business days of the end of each calendar quarter to

include: achievements to date and future work, including potential problems, an exhibit showing the progress on the project tasks and the budget status.

Communicate with the research team: Goodin will use a combination of team meetings and administrative reports to ensure effective communication with the research team to ensure a cohesive and productive approach to completing the study tasks.

Task 1: Study management

Task 2: Societal benefits and private sector interests

Task 3: Policy and planning actions

Task 4: Interim report

Task 5: In-depth assessments

Task 6: Final deliverables

6 5 4 3 1 2


Prepare to manage risks: Within every project there are risks that, if they occur, would impact on the success of the project (i.e., staff leave, poor data quality, or unanticipated schedule delays). To mitigate risks, Goodin will stay vigilant regarding the types of risks that may occur, stay on top of how the project is progressing, and collaborate with research team members and/or the NCHRP study manager in terms of decision making on mitigation strategies should these be necessary.

Schedule: November 1, 2015–December 31, 2016

Deliverable: Items noted in bullets above

Task 2 – Societal Benefits and Private Sector Interests

Research activity: To identify and describe mismatches between societal impacts and impacts on private-sector interests from implementation of AV and CV technologies, highlighting uncertainties

Task Co-Leads: Zmud (TTI), Kalra (RAND)

This task will clarify and organize what is known about convergence and divergence of public and private sector interests in terms of the implementation of AV and CV technologies in an empirical and scientific manner. The evidence base will cover:

Societal benefits that motivate public agencies in terms of specific AV and CV technologies.

Consumer and other benefits that motivate key private sector interests in terms of specific AV and CV technologies.

In preparing the proposal, the research team constructed a table that presents an analytical lens for compiling and organizing information about relevant positive and negative externalities (i.e., societal benefits and costs) of AV and CV for which market decisions are now being (or will be) made by key private-sector actors. The table is being revised using Subtask 2A and Subtask 2B outputs.

Completing the table will necessitate defining the ways in which the policy goals and private-sector interests could intersect in the future. As a first activity in doing so, Zmud and Kalra will specify the research questions that will guide the literature search and the stakeholder and expert interviews. Research questions should not be so broad that hundreds of articles are judged relevant nor so narrow that important literature is missed.

Subtask 2A: Identify Private Sector Interests in AV and CV Technologies (Baker and Wagner) The goal of Subtask A is to identify AV and CV technologies that could shape each societal interest (public health, safety, mobility, etc.) and identify the private interests in the advancement and adoption of those technologies. This task will be used to identify the different technologies for which we need to develop Mismatch Tables, identify the columns of the Mismatch Table, and provide evidence that will be used to identify mismatches.

Private actors should be construed broadly to include not just manufacturers and developers of CV and AV technology but also private consumers, which could be individuals or firms. ‘Interests’ should be construed broadly – to include fundamental interests of making a profit, selling more units at higher price, (e.g., ultra-safe vehicles may mean fewer vehicle purchases overall, making safety both aligned and misaligned with OEM interests) and more ‘tactical’ interests such as ensuring availability of DSRC and improving road signage. Interests will be addressed here and then again in Task B.

Note that it is not necessary in this subtask to characterize how private interests in AV and CV technologies affect/match/align with societal goals, only to identify the types of technologies we need to consider and firms’ interest in the societal implications of those interests. For instance, is AV a broad category or should it be broken down by level of automation? Should CV technologies be redefined as most relevant CV


applications; if so, which ones? It would, however, be useful to group similar technologies so that we can rein in the scope and detail of subsequent tasks.

1. What are the AV and CV technologies of interest, what types of firms are introducing them to the market, and what are notable examples of such firms?

2. What are they key private-sector interests in the implementation of AV/CV? 3. What are key pieces of missing information that an interview could fill in and who are potential

interviewees? We will update the list of staff for this task with the expertise they bring.

Subtask 2B: Identify and Assess the Mismatches between Societal and Private Interests (Utah) The goal of Subtask B is to identify mismatches between societal interest and the full range of private sector interests through a literature review, and to identify which mismatches lead to externalities that public agencies may want o internalize. This task will help fill in the cells of each Mismatch Table. It will also help articulate the relationship between mismatches and externalities – do all mismatches lead to externalities or just some and why? Note that societal goals are both the goals of society at large and transportation agencies as representatives of society.

1. In what ways do these technologies and private sector interests shape societal goals? 2. What are potential areas of mismatch between societal impacts and impacts on private-sector

interests? 3. How has the convergence or divergence of interests best been qualified or quantified in the

literature? 4. What are the key uncertainties in potential matches and mismatches? How might identified

mismatches be affected by, for example: a. Time (near term vs. long term) b. Levels of automation c. Market penetration levels d. Geographic scope (state agency vs. locality; Texas vs. California)

5. What are key pieces of missing information that an interview could fill in, and who are potential interviewees?

Subtask 2C. Stakeholder and Expert Interviews There will be specific information that the research team will not be able to derive from literature review alone. Interviews with stakeholders and experts representing public and private-sector interests will be conducted to ferret out the necessary information. The research team will be divided into specialized teams that focus on public sector stakeholders or specific industry experts to accomplish the necessary deep dive. All proposed key research staff will be involved in conducting or analyzing the information and insights that are captured. These teams will work under the direction of Zmud, using information provided by Fagnant as to the specific information that is missing and to be informed by the interviews. Logistic support will be provided by Effenberger.

For purposes of this proposal, we assume that 20–25 interviews will be conducted and that these will be approximately 45–60 minutes in length.

The results of the interviews and literature review will be analyzed and synthesized by Zmud and Kalra. They will prepare a tech memo that summarizes results and in doing so provides answers to the six key research questions on page 4-8.

Subtask 2D. Expert Workshop via Webinar Because the tech memo will be used as the basis for all other research activities, it is important to confirm its contents. Validation will take place in an expert workshop that is convened via webinar to elicit feedback from representatives of state and local agencies and the relevant industry sectors. TTI’s Adobe Connect webinar system will be used. The list of potential participants will be identified through existing research team


contacts, the literature review, and the key informant interviews. The list and a draft agenda will be shared with NCHRP and the panel prior to the webinar via a monthly report. It is expected that the webinar will be 2 hours in length. Goodin and Zmud will draft the agenda, and the webinar will be facilitated by Goodin. Logistic support will be provided by Effenberger.

A PowerPoint presentation (PPT) will be prepared by Zmud to communicate the Task 2 findings during the webinar. A set of evaluation question will be used subsequent to the PPT to elicit feedback from webinar attendees in a structured manner. The information received will be used to modify and refine the Task 2 tech memo contents.

Schedule: November 1, 2015–January 31, 2016

Deliverable: Tech memo describing societal impacts, interests of key private sector actors, presenting mismatches and uncertainties, also highlighting places where interests converge and diverge.

Task 3 – Policy and Planning Actions

Research activity: Identify policy and planning instruments and actions to better align interests of private sector with broader public interest in achieving societal goals of safety, mobility, environment (emissions and fuel consumption)

Lead: Goodin (TTI)

In Task 3, the research team will develop a menu of potential strategies that could serve to mitigate the mismatches identified as part of the Task 2 analysis. Table 3 presents a starting list of such actions. These have been organized into broad categories of policy instruments, such as taxes and fees or subsidies and grants, and planning tools, such as ITS or asset management plans. Specific actions have been identified for each category. An iterative process will be used to further refine the list.

Table 3. Taxonomy of Potential Policy and Planning Actions

Instruments and Tools Examples of Application in AV/CV Context

POLICY ACTION

Taxes and fees Waive taxes on incremental costs for AV system; provide toll discounts to eligible vehicles

Regulation Allow direct vehicle sales by manufacturers; consolidate regulations at state level (Uber model); simplify regulation

Subsidies and grants Offer vehicle purchase or manufacture subsidies

Service provision Allow AV/CV special access to managed lanes, a service currently limited to specific users

Agency budgets Allocate funding for pilot testing, invest in AV fleet systems, prioritize funding for ITS/operation

Information Disseminate information on value (including advantages and disadvantages) of AV/CV to policy makers and public

Structure of private rights Institute no-fault or other insurance changes or limited manufacturer liability

Framework of economic activity

Offer industry tax incentives for technology development; create technology incubators/startup accelerators

Education and consultation Provide test beds for research; invest in educational services to support AV/CV industry (workforce development)

Financing and contracting Structure new procurement arrangements for public-private partnerships

Bureaucratic and political reforms

Reinvent or reorganize state IT systems in support of AV/CV


PLANNING ACTION

Long-Range Transportation Plans

Reassess long-term capacity projects and restructure funding and planning programs

Short-range transportation plans

Incorporate communications backhaul into near-term construction projects

ITS plans Provide more direct linkages of ITS plans short-and long-range plans

Corridor plans Repurpose managed lanes or develop new AV/CV dedicated lanes

NEPA Analysis Include AV/CV applications in project alternatives analysis

Asset management plans Define minimum standards and desired state of good repair with associated resource needs to support automation; equip agency vehicles for testing

Highway Safety Improvement Programs

Identify safety projects in support of AV/CV to reduce injuries and fatalities

Transit development plans Incorporate transit vehicle applications for improved safety and efficiency

Demand management plans Address shared service strategies and supporting actions

Statewide freight plans Define critical freight facilities/corridors for AV/CV applications and priority investment

Subtask 3A. Refine and Narrow List of Specific Strategies Several evaluative questions will guide the research team activities in developing the final list of strategies. This final list will be used for the in-depth assessments in Task 4. For each type of action, three questions will be examined:

What are the categories of instruments/tools that focus on regulatory and planning actions?

What is the likely or potential impact of the policy and planning category (and within it the specific action) in rectifying mismatches identified in Task 2?

What could be unintended consequences of implementing the policy and planning action?

What research needs or information gaps need to be filled in order to be able to assess the utility of the policy and planning actions?

Subtask 3B. In-Depth Examination of Policy and Planning Actions A framework such as that in Table 4 will be used to examine the specific policy or planning actions and in the process to cull or expand the list. The table will be populated with specific policy and planning actions by Goodin (columns 1, 2, and 3), and research team members from TTI, RAND, and Utah will be asked to complete columns 4, 5, and 6. This activity is a quick assessment to gather in a structured way the required information. The information gathered will be synthesized into a single framework table.

Table 4. Example Framework for Examining Policy and Planning Actions

Policy Category

(1)

Action (2)

Identified Mismatch

(3)

Gaps in Information

(4)

Possible Impacts

(5)

Unintended Consequences

(6)

Subsidies and grants

Vehicle purchase subsidies

In early market penetration,

safety benefits go to society

How effective?

Incentives for individual

consumers to adopt early

Negative equity consequences for

low income households

After this and under the direction of Goodin, Baker and Wagner will conduct a literature search to address any identified gaps in information and to confirm the information populating the cells and fill in any missing cells. The results of this research will be documented in a tech memo that presents information on each


policy and planning action. Using this information, the research team will identify (1) the high-utility policy and planning categories, and (2) the high-priority specific actions within them.

Subtask 3C. Structured Interviews Goodin and other TTI team members will then conduct structured interviews with key informants representing state and local agencies and the private sector to assess credibility and plausibility of the Task 3 results, along with any omitted policies or action items. The potential key informants will be identified in a monthly report to NCHRP and the project panel, prior to starting the interviews. The informants will represent groups most affected by implementation of the policy or planning action. For purposes of this proposal, we expect to conduct approximately 20 interviews of about 60 minutes.

A structured interview guide will be designed for conducting these interviews to ensure consistency in asking questions and recording responses. Many of the questions will be open-ended so it will be important that interviewers keep the key informants centered on the key issues to be addressed and to probe for additional information as needed. Based on the background research work and the results of these interviews, the research team will identify a recommended set of policy and planning categories and actions, along with the rationale for their use, for in-depth evaluation in Task 5. We will also identify the reasons that the policy or planning actions would be useful for addressing the mismatches identified in Task 2. The results of Task 3 will be documented in a tech memo.

Schedule: January 1, 2016–February 29, 2016

Deliverable: Tech memo describing suggested policy and planning categories, and actions comprising them, and providing rationale for their use.

Task 4 – Interim Panel Meeting

Research Activities: Review work-do-date, Refine and approve policy and planning categories and actions to be evaluated in Task 5, highlights of significant developments in private or public sectors that could influence the course of this project

Co-Leads: Goodin and Zmud

Goodin and Zmud will integrate contents from the Tasks 2 and 3 technical memos into an Interim Report. This report will also include highlights of significant developments in private or public sectors that could influence the course of this project, detailed outlines of the remaining research tasks, and detailed descriptions of the final research product(s). The Interim report will be reviewed by Anderson, Kalra, and Avery, and modifications made based on their reviews prior to the delivery to NCHRP and the panel. The TTI communication experts will proofread and format the report for panel delivery. After the panel meeting, if NCHRP and the panel agree, the Interim Report will be revised as a White Paper on mismatches and potential policy and planning remedies.

Schedule: March 1, 2016–April 30, 2016 (includes 1 month for panel review of interim report)

Deliverables: Interim report summarizing findings to date. An Interim panel meeting will also be held, for which a PowerPoint will be prepared. If NCHRP and panel agree, a White paper documenting key findings will be produced.

Task 5 – In-Depth Evaluation of Feasibility, Applicability, and Impacts of Policy and Planning Actions

Research Activity: Assessment of policy and planning actions against significant factors

Lead: Zmud


This study is about finding specific policy and planning actions at the state, regional, or local levels that could be implemented to help societal impacts of CV and AV technologies to be internalized in market decisions made by individuals and organizations. For the purposes of this study, we are also interested in the overall categories of policy instruments and planning tools. Realistically, the number of policy and planning categories (and the specific actions that comprise them) that could be evaluated in an in-depth manner, given the schedule and budget, is limited to no more than 10-12 categories (e.g., 5–6 policy categories, 5–6 planning categories).

Subtask 5A: Viability Assessments The research team will conduct the assessments as topically-oriented white papers, focusing on whether or not the policy or planning actions can be executed for the intended purpose (i.e., can we get this done?). Our viability assessments of each action will fall into seven categories.

1. Political: How well will the action be accepted by the set of decision makers and the general public?

2. Institutional: What are the laws and formal provisions that define roles and responsibilities of all the organizations involved in implementing the action?

3. Operational: If the strategy is developed, will it be used? Operational issues include internal issues, such as labor objections, manager resistance, organizational conflicts, and policies.

4. Geographic: At what geographic scale(s) can the action be implemented? Are their urban and rural differences?

5. Financial: What are the rough estimates of cost to see if they match general expectations, or would have an acceptable return on investment?

6. Applicability: Which technologies apply? To what levels of AV/CV market penetration would it apply? And, how does viability shift with market penetration levels?

7. Impact on market decisions: To what degree will the action make a difference in market decisions made by individuals and organizations?

8. Level of government: Is this a local, regional, or state action?

9. Timeframe: Is the action short, medium, long-term in scope?

10. Ownership model: Does the action emphasize a private ownership model or a subscription model?

Based on these findings, overall judgments will be made as to the relative effectiveness of the evaluated policy instruments and planning tools relevant to the specific actions.

Subtask 5B: Development of White Papers The assessments will take the form of topically-focused white papers, whereby the unit of analysis for one white paper is a policy or planning category (e.g., taxes and fees). There will be no more than 12 white papers. However, each white paper will assess all of the recommended strategies within it.

The research team will carry out the white papers through literature searches and key informant interviews to gather information relevant to the seven assessment criteria identified above: political, institutional, operational, geographic, financial, applicability, and impact on market decisions. This approach will seek to provide a knowledge-base by providing rich, contextual information across the evaluated policy and planning actions. Insights will be obtained regarding weaknesses and strengths, implementation barriers, and potential implementation variations and their associated usage details.

During the course of the case study data collection, information will also be gathered on issues affecting implementation of the research findings and products. This information will be used to produce the stand-alone technical memo titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products.”


Two research team members will work together on each white paper. Assignments will be based on the areas of experience and personnel expertise. Formal data collection instruments will be developed to guide the literature searches and the interviews to ensure that content is focused on seven topics of interest. The same discussion guide should be used in all white paper interviews to ensure consistency in the information that is being covered in each. However, the research team will have flexibility in skipping or asking certain questions based on the position, experience, or knowledge of the interviewee.

Each white paper will be written as a stand-alone document. A summary section will be used to synthesize the results and key themes across all white papers. For quick reference, a star rating system (where 1 star is low and 5 stars is very high) will be used to provide a quick visual representation of the political, institutional, operational, geographic, financial, applicability, and impact on market decisions of each alternative we considered. Summed star ratings will be used to calculate a total viability score for each policy and planning category, and actions within the category. (See Zmud’s NCFRP Report for an example of a rating system, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/171158.aspx).

The results of this task will be presented in a technical memo that provides total scores along with the research team’s assessment regarding viability of the policy and planning remedies. This information will include priority actions, rationale for recommendation and suggested near-term activities for moving forward.

Subtask 5C: NCHRP and Panel Webinar A webinar will be held with NCHRP and project panel to present the results of the assessments, for which a PowerPoint presentation will be prepared. After the webinar, the tech memo will be submitted to NCHRP, which could also be produced as a White Paper on assessment of recommended policy and planning actions.

Schedule: May 1, 2016–August 31, 2016

Deliverables: Tech memo summarizing results of assessments, with individual case studies as appendices. A webinar meeting will also be held with NCHRP and the panel, for which a PowerPoint will be prepared. If NCHRP and panel agree, a White paper documenting key findings will be produced.

Task 6 – Final Deliverables

Research Activities: Produce Final report, Policy Briefing document, and PowerPoint presentation that are ready for delivery and use within the practitioner community; Deliver Technical memo on implementing the research findings and products

Lead: Goodin

Goodin, with help from Zmud and Baker, will integrate task deliverables into a draft final report, filling in gaps or missing information to meet the final deliverable requirements. The contents of the final deliverable will include:

Identification of mismatches between societal impacts and impacts on private sector interests and describing uncertainties.

Identification of a broad range of state and local policy and planning actions to better align interests of private sector with the broader public interest in achieving societal benefits.

Assessment of each suggested strategy regarding factors such as cost, political and institutional feasibility, applicability at different levels of AV/CV market penetration, impacts on social equity, and likely impact on market decisions.

Also Goodin will work with TTI communications experts to produce both a policy briefing document targeted to policymakers and a PowerPoint presentation that is ready for delivery and use by the practitioner community.


Goodin and Zmud will draft a stand-alone technical memo that identifies issues affecting implementation of the research findings and products, proposed possible actions to address these issues, and that facilitates application of the products of this research. While the team’s experience and expertise will be used as a foundation for its contents, audience research will also be conducted to ensure the coverage and legitimacy of the issues raised in the tech memo and in the recommended actions to address these. For example, during the case study interviews, implementation questions will be raised and opinions will be gathered as to actions or products that could facilitate application of the study results. After the Tech memo has been drafted, a workshop will be convened with representatives of the intended audiences to vet our recommended communications strategies, activities, and products. The timing might work out for this session to be held in association with the 2016 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) annual meeting.

All deliverables will be reviewed by Anderson, Kalra, and Avery prior to submittal to NCHRP and the project panel. Logistical support in producing all deliverables will be provided by Effenberger.

Schedule: August 1, 2016–October 31, 2016. The rest of the schedule is panel review and comments, revision, final report on time.

Deliverable: Draft and final report, draft and final policy briefing document, draft and final PowerPoint, draft and final technical memo on Implementation of the Research Findings.

Anticipated Research Results

The results of this research will be empirical evidence on policy and planning actions that can be introduced at the state, regional, and local levels to internalize the externalities of AV and CV technologies in market decisions. The research team will use this information to raise awareness and knowledge levels of key issues among state and local transportation agencies as well as private sector actors and to provide guidance on possible policy and planning actions to these agencies.

Implementation Plan

While the implementation plan may evolve during the project, the primary product expected from the research is a report that describes key policy and planning actions, illustrated through case studies to facilitate practical understanding and future implementation.

The project team, as part of this research effort, also proposes a series of interactive activities with public and private actors. These outreach efforts will enable the incorporation of feedback into the results, and will also provide an opportunity to convey to the community the availability and application of the research findings. In addition, members of the project team will seek opportunities to present their findings from this project at national conferences, workshops, and webinars.

Anticipated Product(s)

As a result of this research effort, the project team will develop a final report, a policy briefing document, and a PowerPoint briefing presentation. These products will be developed for a target audience of policy makers and senior decision makers, including executives and senior leadership in both public and private organizations.

A policy briefing document of up to 20 pages will prepared to communicate key findings to a policy audience in an appealing format using color and graphical representations of the information. TTI has developed similar documents for the Texas Legislature (see example at http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2015-1.pdf). A graphic designer and editor have been included on the project team for this purpose. In addition, it

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2015-1.pdf

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-2015-1.pdf


is expected that the final project report will be distributed through traditional NCHRP dissemination mechanisms. Members of the project team will develop at least one technical paper suitable for publication.

Audiences

The key audience for the research findings is transportation decision makers (both public and private) directly involved with policy development and transportation planning activities. While the general public is not one of the intended audiences for the expected products from the research, their role as constituents in the policy-making process should influence how the material is presented. The resulting guidelines will appeal to all interested stakeholders.

Impediments to Implementation

One impediment to implementation is the rapid development of the technologies, which could change the collective understanding of benefits and costs as a growing body of research progresses. Another impediment to implementation is in achieving widespread dissemination of the products given that the potential policy actions cross a range of disciplines and organizations, including multiple levels of government, the associations that support them, and a growing transportation ecosystem that represents a diverse set of industry sectors.

Future Activities for Successful Implementation

The research team believes that successful implementation requires a continuous process of disseminating results. The interim report can serve as early communication of research findings. Another important activity will be dissemination of the final report and policy brief, along with presentations to key organizations and professional societies, such as AASHTO, ITS America, National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Governors Association, and the American Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

Leaders in the field will have to work beyond the life of the research project to help mainstream research findings. The successful application and implementation of the research findings and research products require several leaders or champions. First, the NCHRP panel is in a leadership position to advance the findings from this project. The research team can also serve as leaders in introducing the research findings to the transportation community. Finally, professional organizations will need to demonstrate leadership in their critique and adoption of the findings. Organizations such as AASHTO and TRB have outlets to include the research findings in published technical documents and conference session presentations.

Criteria for Judging the Progress and Consequences of Implementation

Strategic policy change in support of a new transportation paradigm will be an incremental and evolutionary process. Expectations for immediate, widespread implementation of the findings should be tempered. Nevertheless, risk-taking leaders in the policy realm are emerging and will continue to innovate, setting the pace for others to follow. These leaders will find the research results to be directly applicable. One measure of implementation can assessed by the degree to which organizations that support policy and planning leaders engage in a continuous process of disseminating findings, evaluating results, and engaging ongoing dialogue with a range of public and private stakeholders.


SECTION 2

TIME REQUIREMENTS

The TTI Research Team believes that understanding of and commitment to the schedule is critical to the success of this project. The following chart provides an overall schedule diagram for the project, including 3 months for panel review and contractor revision of the final report.

The TTI Team has worked on a number of TCRP, NCHRP, and NCRRP projects and is familiar with potential sources of project delays and will work diligently to avoid. We are confident that the proposed schedule can be met and have a history of meeting aggressive project schedules.

Task N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J

1. Study Management

2. Societal Benefits and Private

Sector Interests

3. Policy and Planning Actions

4. Interim Panel Meeting

5. In-Depth Evaluation of

Feasibility, Applicability, and

Impacts of Policy and Planning

Actions

6. Final Deliverables

Amplified Work Plan - Transportation Research...

Documents

Transcript of Amplified Work Plan - Transportation Research...