State governments play an active role in planning, maintaining, and regulating roads, and there is no doubt that the emergence of AVtechnology will completely change how those duties are carried out.5 It is up to local planning officials to ensure that their communities are best equipped to realize the potential benefits of AV technology as well as to safeguard against the plethora of possible negative impacts. Much of the best course of action depends on whether a ride-sharing market prevails over a personal use/personally owned AV market.6 However, given the uncertainty, experts agree that planners should develop policies that envision multiple outcomes, both positive and negative, so that it is possible to know the implications of the decisions that these experts will inevitably have to make. While considering the outcomes, both through a private use ownership model and a shared-use ownership model, planning authorities must keep certain topics in mind, such as the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the possibility of sprawl, how AVs will impact our current parking structure, improvements that can be made to the existing road network, and how AVs can be implemented to foster social equity and perhaps fix some of the current social inequities that Americans face today.
II. Current State of AV Legislation
A. Federal Legislation
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for setting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for the equipment in motor vehicles, enforcing compliance with FMVSS, recalling defective parts that do not comply with FMVSS, educating the public on safety concerns dealing with motor vehicles, and issuing guidelines for vehicle equipment manufacturers to follow.7 The NHTSA notes that while manufacturers begin to produce driving equipment that in essence performs driving functions, the federal government’s role of setting FMVSS for equipment will ultimately transform into licensing a non-human operator.8
In September of 2017, the NHTSA published nonbinding guidance for state actors to consider when discussing AV implementation, the “Automated Driving Systems: a vision for safety 2.0”9 This guidance was updated in 2018,10 and, most recently, on January 8, 2020.11 The guidance outlines specific issues for states to consider when planning for AV implementation as well as the procedures for when they do so.12 The guidelines strongly urge the states to give full authority to the US DOT to regulate the performance of AVs as well as the technology contained within them.13
B. State Legislation
While the federal government is in charge of regulating motor vehicles and the equipment used in their production, the states are ultimately left to regulate their drivers.14 Specifically, states issue licenses, enact and enforce traffic laws, conduct safety inspections, and regulate motor vehicle insurance.15
As of January 2018, twenty-nine states, and the District of Columbia, have passed legislation directly dealing with AVs.16 Florida is leading the way in state regulation. In 2012, the state passed legislation allowing specific groups of people to operate AVs in Florida for the purpose of testing the technology so long as a human was inside of the vehicle, unless the test was on a closed course.17 In 2016, this law was expanded to allow average licensed drivers to utilize their vehicles’ autonomous capabilities, provided that they own a vehicle with such capabilities.18 In 2020, the law was amended and states that a human driver, as a physical passenger in the vehicle, is not required too lawfully operate an AV.19 The legislation indicates that the automated driving system, when engaged, is defined as the operator of the vehicle.20 Through a permissive framework for testing and implementing AVs, Florida has been able to update its legislation to accommodate for the emergence of AVs, and it has allowed companies such as Starsky Robotics to test their AV equipment on Florida roads. 21
Colorado is similar to Florida in that the law does not pose too many inhibitions on the testing and implementation of AVs. Colorado Senate Bill 17-213, enacted in 2017, allows drivers to utilize their vehicles’ autonomous capabilities so long as such utilization does not violate any existing state or federal laws.22 If a vehicle’s capability does not comply with state and or federal law, the law still allows an avenue for its testing.23 The law states that the individual could seek approval to use the vehicle’s capability by the Colorado State Patrol and the Colorado Department of Transportation so long as the process is overseen by the two groups.24 The fact that the law provides a process by which individuals could potentially use their AVs in a way that does not comply with existing law is very telling of Colorado’s legislative intent of allowing as many types of AV capabilities to be used and tested as possible.
In addition to the states that have passed legislation directly dealing with AVs, ten states have enacted executive orders addressing AV technology and implementation,25 and Illinois has done both.26 In 2015, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed an executive order in which he mandated that all agencies of the state, with “pertinent regulatory jurisdiction,” support the testing of AVs, enabled pilot programs on select university campuses that would allow AVs to be tested and developed, and established the Self-Driving Vehicle Oversight Committee.27 Governor Ducey updated the 2015 executive order in 2018.28
In 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed an executive order creating a committee with the job of collaborating with AV experts and state legislature to promote the testing of AVs,29 and, in 2017, Delaware Governor John Carney signed an executive order creating an advisory committee that was given the job of researching and recommending strategies that could be implemented to best prepare the state for AVs.30 The Delaware executive order specifically mandates that the advisory committee consider, at minimum, economic development, technology concerns, transportation network infrastructure, and safety.31
Several other state governors followed suit in 2017. Hawaii Governor David Ige signed an executive order creating an AV administrative director in his office whose job it was to support companies looking to test their AV technology. 32 The order also directs the Hawaii Department of Transportation and the Hawaii Department of Business and Economic Development and Tourism to take all necessary steps to work with these companies.33 Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed an executive order focusing on AV testing, technology development, and the creation of the Autonomous Vehicle Work Group. 34 The order assigns various state agencies to take charge in supporting the testing and operation of AVs in the state.35 Among many other tasks, the order gave the work group the mission of examining AV technology in relation to freight, aviation, and other possible applications.36 The same year, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed an executive order creating the Governor’s Steering Committee on Autonomous and Connected Vehicle Testing and Deployment.37 Much like the other committees created by the other executive orders from different states, this committee’s mission is to advise the governor’s office on the best course of action to take regarding AVs.38
In 2018, several more states began to focus attention on AVs. Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter issued an executive order creating a committee tasked with determining important state agencies that will be useful in supporting the testing of AVs, collaborating with these agencies in addressing any possible issues that they detect, reviewing state laws that would be barrier to the testing of AVs, and “identify[ing] strategic partnerships to leverage the social, economic, and environmental benefits of autonomous and connected vehicles.”39 Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed an executive order directing the Illinois Department of Transportation to head the “Autonomous Illinois” Initiative.40 The initiative’s purpose was to promote the testing and development of AVs and related infrastructure.41 The order also created the Autonomous Illinois Testing Program.42 The program was put in place to oversee AV testing on public roads and use the data to make policy suggestions.43 Maine Governor Paul LePage signed an executive order that established the Maine Highly Automated Vehicles Advisory Committee.44 The Maine order went further than other states, outlining a procedure of how the committee could go about running a pilot program in the state.45 By executive order, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton created the Governor’s Advisory Council on Connected and Automated Vehicles.46 The Council is tasked with recommending changes to state law in order to prepare for the emergence of AV technology.47 This 2018 order was updated in 2019 by newly elected Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz.48 Also in 2018, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed two executive orders dealing with AVs.49 The first order created DriveOhio,50 with the goal of promoting collaboration between infrastructure builders and AV developers in an effort to plan for the emergence of widespread AV technology.51 The second order established guidelines for the testing of AVs. 52
While state leaders are taking an active role in preparing their communities for AV technology, some state actions are much more significant than others. To achieve the safety and economic development that would benefit our citizens, states should invest in infrastructure development that would help transition to a fully autonomous transportation experience.53 During this transition, society will see human-driven cars sharing the roads with AVs of varying technological capabilities. It is imperative that local planning and zoning authorities plan for this transitional period as well as a fully autonomous future.
III. Current State of AV Technology
The International Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has defined six levels of AV technology.54 Level 0 includes vehicles with no AV capabilities that require a human driver at all times.55 Level 1 includes vehicles that can perform certain acceleration/deceleration tasks but not at the same time.56 Level 2 involves vehicles that can take over the pedals and steering wheel at the same time but ultimately still need a human driver present to control the vehicle.57 Level 3 involves vehicles that are capable of operating under certain conditions but still need a human operator present in the vehicle ready to take control as a failsafe.58 Level 4 involves vehicles with high automation skills that do not need to be driven by humans but can be,59 and Level 5 involves vehicles that never require human intervention under any circumstance.60
Today, automobile manufacturers are currently capable of level 3 technology.61 Companies that offer vehicles with these capabilities, most notably Tesla, use an array of technology to achieve this outcome. Level 3 AVs are equipped with radar sensors, video cameras, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, ultrasonic sensors, and on-board processing computers.62 All of these technologies currently in use are located within each vehicle.
IV. Planning and Land Use Considerations
A. Private Ownership Versus Shared Use Model
The possible impacts that AVs will have on our communities, while undeniable, is extremely uncertain. Much of the best course of action is dependent upon which type of market model prevails: a private ownership model or a shared-use model.63 A shared-use market will most likely result in fewer vehicles on the road and less traffic.64 A private ownership market would most likely result in more cars on the road, more traffic, and a total change or collapse of the public transportation system in the United States.65
The Covid-19 Pandemic has and continues to change the lives of individuals across the world. In an effort to combat the spread of the illness, state and local governments have enacted measures, such as stay-at-home orders and non-essential business closures.66 These types of regulations, as well as the others not mentioned, promote social distancing. Social distancing has already impacted the transportation networks of cities all around the United States.67 For example, San Francisco and Chicago have suffered about a ninety-seven percent decrease in ridership on their transit systems,68 and New York has seen about an eighty-seven percent decrease in ridership in terms of the subway system69 and about a seventy percent decrease in ridership in terms of the bus system.70 Public transportation has not been the only mode of transportation negatively impacted by Covid-19 as Uber has also suffered a decrease in ridership,71 and, in an effort to promote social distancing, Uber suspended its Uber Pool service in major cities across the country.72 If this trend towards social distancing continues in a post-pandemic world, it is logical to assume that individuals in the future will feel uncomfortable, or even fear, being in such close quarters with others. This fear could have a direct impact on which market trend AVs ultimately follow when they begin to take over the roads. If so, logic would dictate that a private ownership market model would be established. However, the question becomes whether these social distancing measures, that Covid-19 created a necessity for, are temporary or permanent changes that will have a lasting impact on the way individuals live their lives.
B. Sprawl
When automobiles were introduced in the early twentieth century, they caused substantial changes in land use patterns.73 While automobiles in general contributed to the growth and development of the suburbs, the implementation of AVs will either cause more people to move away from cities, resulting in further urban sprawl, or motivate people to move back into city centers.74 If AVs take foot as privately owned vehicles, people will be more willing to travel longer distances due to both an increase in safety and convenience.75 This outcome would most likely encourage urban sprawl.76 However, if AVs were to enter the market predominately as shared-use vehicles, experts believe that the exact opposite would be true, and it would most likely lead to population growth in high-density areas of communities.77
AVs have the potential to increase people’s total vehicle miles traveled (VMT).78 This is true for both the privately owned model and the shared-use model.79 However, if the privately owned model was to prevail in the market and urban sprawl was to take place, it could create a negative secondary effect. VMT would logically continue to increase as people need to travel further to get to where they are going.80 Without the need for a human driver, individuals would be more willing to drive longer distances because they could utilize the time that they would have spent driving for other things, whether they be productive or leisurely in nature.81
Local officials and planners must be cognizant to plan their communities in ways that will afford these sprawled areas easy access to goods and services so as to not create or reinforce any social inequities. Just because traveling itself may be easier when AVs take over, it does not mean that people will be able to utilize them to access goods and services. One way this increased accessibility can be achieved is through the utilization of a Growth Management Plan.82 Growth Management Plans address the location, type, and timing of new developments.83 To combat social inequities that may present themselves if urban sprawl were to occur, a Growth Management Plan could be created that focuses on commercial growth of sprawled areas.84 It would also be advantageous for local officials and planners to develop sub-area plans,85 a smaller more specific scale than a complete comprehensive plan.86
Local officials and planners should also be mindful of the secondary environmental impacts of AVs. For example, farmland preservation and habit loss could become a challenge when the previously undeveloped areas are built to accommodate an increase in population.87 The development could lead to an increase in impervious surfaces,88 resulting in an increase in the volume of storm water runoff (which contains pollutants).89
A predominately shared-use AV market brings with it very different implications in terms of sprawl and there is much reason to believe that this market model could prevail for reasons such as an increased acceptance of ride sharing applications and lower costs.90 A shared-use model could combat against urban sprawl.91 Metropolitan city areas could see population growth rather than the decrease that the private ownership market could bring. However, this population growth and increase in population density could look a little different than it has in the past.
Currently, the densification of cities has followed a trend referred to as Transit Oriented Development (TOD),92 where areas near transit stations are typically the focus of planning and zoning efforts that aim to foster urban development93 to deal with the growing density of citizens near such stations. Since high occupancy transit systems, trains and subways, require fixed infrastructure and the population is most dense around such infrastructure, TOD has been implemented in a linear form.94 Shared-use AVs however do not require such infrastructure. It is therefore logical that shared use AVs could encourage a more even distribution of urban growth and population density that does not have to be centered around transit stations.95
The cost of travel associated with shared use AVs will also impact the extent to which they are able to combat against urban sprawl.96 This cost of travel will be directly linked to the supply and demand curve of each given area the shared AVs operate in.97 An imbalance in the supply and demand curve will lead to more empty trips and more cars in the fleet.98 These empty trips and large fleets will cause the per-mile cost of use of the shared AVs to increase.99 The increased per-mile cost effectively means that the cost of riding in a shared AV will be cheaper in dense areas and more expensive in sprawled areas.100 This cost analysis suggests that a shared-use market brings some hidden costs with it that could effectively combat sprawl.101
C. Parking
The average automobile spends about ninety-five percent of its lifetime parked.102 Parking often comprises most of the land use in city centers and cities as a whole when things such as garages and curbside parking are taken into account.103 One parking scholar estimates that if the total amount of space dedicated to parking, in the Los Angeles central business district, including street parking, garages, and surface lots, was spread out at ground level, it would take up about eighty-one percent of the land area in the district.104 A substantial amount of parking spaces sit unused at any given time,105 and, in some cities, parking spaces exceed the number of vehicles by as much as eight spaces per car.106 As is the case with sprawl, how parking looks and how to best manage the AVs not in use is dependent upon which market model prevails: a shared-use model or a private ownership model.107
In the scenario that a private ownership model triumphs a shared-use ownership model, an individual’s vehicle in essence becomes a form of valet.108 In terms of commercial parking in cities and dense neighborhoods, privately owned AVs could allow for individuals to be dropped off outside of their destinations while their vehicles search for the least expensive place to park that is also close enough to the individual to afford them a short pick-up time.109 Depending on the cost of parking and roadway use (if a cost was to be imposed), people may choose to not even park their AV.110 Those individuals may choose to just have their AV circle the area in which they were dropped off, eliminating a need for the AV to be parked,111 although this action could create more traffic congestion.
Less of a need for parking in these dense urban areas will allow for more housing, offices, open space, and public amenities that parking is often built at the expense of.112 By the time that AVs reach level 5 of automation and become the dominant form of transportation, planners could see that parking is no longer an obstacle to developing new housing options in dense urban areas.113 This will be possible if minimum parking requirements are significantly altered or done away with in these dense urban areas.114 By doing so, parking amenities can still be offered, as they will still be needed, but they could be located in low-density areas of the cities.115
When speculating about the impact that a private ownership model will have, we must operate under the assumption that, to some extent, urban sprawl will/has taken place. Since there is more space in suburban and rural areas, there is less likely to be significant changes to the parking structure in a commercial sense.116 Passengers of AVs will be dropped off at the entrance of most, if not all, of the places that they travel to.117 It is likely that the cars will then search for the cheapest and most convenient parking spaces.118 However, one small change that we may see is the location of parking lots in relation to the businesses that they serve.119 Currently, malls and office buildings are located in the center of massive parking lots.120 Due to the fact that AVs will drop the passengers off at the entrance of their destination, we may see developers begin to move the buildings to the front of the property while hiding the parking lots in the rear.121
Parking may see its greatest metamorphosis if a shared-use market prevails. When discussing parking from a shared-use market prospective, we must assume, to some extent, an increase in population density in urban areas.122 AVs will be, in essence, operating as a taxi service.123 AVs may rarely have the need to park because they will just cycle through picking passengers up and dropping them off.124 AVs will only need to park when customer demand is low125 or they are in need of refueling/charging. Parking for an autonomous fleet of taxis may look less like traditional street parking and more like parking for truck fleets and trains in the sense that they can be housed in warehouses or lots located in parts of the city specially zoned for them.126 The massive amount of land dedicated to on-street parking could be reimagined for uses such as bike lanes, retail space, widened sidewalks, or wider streets.127 On-street parking can also be redesigned into curbside passenger loading and unloading areas.128 These areas will allow passengers to safely board and depart from the shared fleet of AVs.
In a suburban setting, parking options directly impact the value of homes.129 Each parking space that a home has adds about four percent to the sale price of the house.130 However, AVs may alter the need for a garage or parking space at the home, especially if a shared-use model dominates the market. If garages are no longer needed, houses can be built without them.131 Having fewer garages means that less space is being taken up by additional structures, which, in turn, could lead to smaller roads and a lower average cost of homeownership.132 Eliminating parking at the subdivision level could decrease development costs by twenty-five to thirty percent.133
If the demand for parking decreases, so does the revenue that it generates for our cities and states.134 Governing.com (Governing) surveyed the twenty-five largest cities in the United States to determine how AVs would impact their revenue streams.135 The study concluded that parking fees accounted for more than half of the total city revenues.136 The local governments that rely heavily on parking enforcement revenue in these cities are most likely to feel the negative externalities that a reduction in parking revenue could bring.137 Separate from the study, Governing reviewed data from the Census Bureau’s 2014 Survey of State and Local Government finances and concluded that individual city agencies, such as transportation departments, will suffer the greatest losses in terms of parking revenue.138
D. Roads and Related Infrastructure
Planners and local officials should begin to evaluate how roads will be impacted, both in form and function,139 to best prepare for the emergence of AVs and minimize the negative impacts that they could have on the built environment. One scholar suggests that the emergence of AVs brings with it a chance for planners to establish a new hierarchy of the road.140 Currently, automobiles have control of the road over human pedestrians in the aforementioned hierarchy. This could possibly be because pedestrians do not trust human drivers to stop on their behalf and they fear being struck by the vehicles.141 One of the biggest obstacles that AVs need to overcome is how they interact with pedestrians.142 Pedestrian actions can be very difficult for artificial intelligence (AI) to plan for.143 Aside from the impossibility of planning for human movements, AVs take away the ability of a pedestrian to communicate with a human driver and signal to the driver that the pedestrian plans to enter the street.144 It is imperative for planners and local officials to keep in mind reshaping the hierarchy of the road to encourage people to walk and cycle and feel safe doing so while sharing the road with AVs.
One way that planners can help pedestrians and cyclists establish themselves in the hierarchy is by replacing the land area once needed for wide road lanes with new wide sidewalks and cycling lanes.145 Some experts theorize that level 5 AVs will be able to communicate with one another, which will allow them to drive extremely close together.146 Because of this feature, it is logical to assume that lanes on the road can be more narrow.147 With this extra space comes a world of possibilities as far as their uses go. However, local officials need to be careful to regulate and plan in ways that encourage walking and riding a bicycle because, if such officials do not, taking part in either activity by individuals could become too difficult and burdensome,148 and AV-centered land use planning dealing with roads could disincentivize walking or riding a bicycle.149 One reason for this issue is because of the lack of traffic signs that AVs operating at level 5 will need.150 The absence of signs could be detrimental to bike riders and pedestrians because it could lead to a long wait time to cross the street at busy intersections.151 Another reason that AV centered planning could disincentivize walking or riding a bike has to do with the drop-off and pick-up areas that will have to be implemented into the street,152 especially if a shared-use market prevails.
Planners could ensure the safety of the citizens of their cities by giving pedestrians and cyclists ways to cross the street other than by the use of a crosswalk.153 One way this can be done is by installing underpasses and overpasses at busy intersections.154 Such construction will ensure that pedestrians and cyclists have a means to efficiently cross the street when they find themselves at congested intersections.155 Expanding the size of cycling lanes will have a beneficial secondary effect in addition to increased safety when utilizing a bicycle as a means of transportation. By the time that AVs reach level 5 of automation, they will be utilized for more tasks than personal transportation.156 It is plausible, and highly likely, that AV technology will also be used as a means of personal delivery.157 Rather than allowing these delivery AVs to operate on the sidewalk, local governments should enact regulations that require them to operate in the bicycle lanes.158 Expanding bicycle lanes can help humans and AV technology coexist in a safe way, while also promoting cycling, and, therefore, will be a healthier alternative to the use of AVs. One scholar suggests that, instead of organizing AV lanes by function, it may be more advantageous for planners to organize the lanes on the basis of speed.159
Improvements to the pavement can aid in the safe use of AVs.160 For example, one way that technology can be implemented into the pavement is by having transmitters and sensors placed into it.161 These sensors can be used to send information to the AVs for various situations such as heavy snow on the road or flooding, thus allowing the AV to adjust its speed.162 These sensors could also aid municipalities in keeping roads in good repair by programming them to inform the appropriate agency that the road is in need of maintenance.163
E. Fostering Social Equity Through Land Use Planning
Access to a means of transportation has historically had major implications in terms of an individual’s ability to work, attend school, and access healthcare.164 AVs bring with them the possibility to provide transportation to individuals who were previously unable to travel alone, such as individuals with disabilities and the elderly.165 However, AVs also have the potential to further the social inequalities we see in our society in terms of access to transportation.166 Municipal officials should consider not only how AVs will alter the built environment, but also how they can be planned for so that they afford everyone the same ease of use and access.167
Nearly fifty-seven million Americans suffer from a disability, and about six million have difficulty obtaining transportation.168 Without the need for a human driver, AVs will enable individuals with both physical and cognitive disabilities to travel more easily.169 It may be necessary for the American with Disabilities Act to be revamped to include protection and amenities for disabled persons traveling via AV technology.170 While the utilization of curbside drop off and pick-up locations has already been discussed, planners need to design them with disabled persons, both cognitively and physically impaired, in mind in order to allow them the same ease of use that non-disabled individuals can enjoy. AV manufacturers also need to be designing their vehicles in ways that allow access for disabled persons.171
More than one in five older adults in the United States has stopped driving.172 This number is expected to increase. By the year 2050, the U.S. population of people over the age of 65 is expected to increase from forty million to eighty-eight million.173 Many of the policy recommendations that will benefit the aging population are the same ones that would benefit the disabled population.174 For both groups, the major theme is the accessibility of the vehicles.175
To promote social equity through the implementation of AVs, local officials must also take the cost of riding one into account.176 Low-income families and individuals spend about thirty percent of their income on transportation.177 Even if a private-use ownership model dominates the market, AVs need to be implemented in the form of shared-use vehicles on a smaller scale in order to allow disadvantaged communities to enjoy their benefits.
V. Conclusion
Experts agree that the future most certainly includes AVs operating at the highest level. Government officials and planning authorities need to take an active role in planning for the emergence of AV technology now, rather than later. It is evident with the number of executive orders and growing legislation both at the federal level and state levels that people are planning for AVs. Further, most major automobile manufacturers seem to agree that AVs are the future of transportation and have begun working on the necessary technology and implementing such technology into their vehicles. Local officials and planners should lead the discussion and take early action since AVs have the potential to revolutionize the way that individuals travel every day. While planning for the anticipated impacts of a technology that is years away from being perfected is a difficult task, we have enough information to begin informed conversations and develop various scenarios.
Endnotes
1. Brandon Fuller, Cautious Optimism About Driverless Cars and Land Use in American Metropolitan Areas 18 Cityscape: J. Pol’y Dev. & Rsch. 181 (2016), available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol18num3/ch10.pdf.
2. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety 5 (Sept. 2016) [hereinafter NHTSA].
3. David C. Rouse, Kelley Coyner, Lisa Nisenson & Jason Jordan, Am. Plan. Ass’n, Preparing Communities for Autonomous Vehicles 6 (2018), https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/Autonomous-Vehicles-Symposium-Report.pdf.
4. NHTSA, supra note 2, at 3.
5. Paul Lewis, Gregory Rogers & Stanford Turner, Eno Ctr. for Transp., Adopting and Adapting: States and Automated Vehicle Policy 1 (2017), https://www.bafuture.org/sites/default/files/key-topics/attachments/Adopting%20and%20Adapting%20Eno%20States%20and%20AV%206.2017.pdf.
6. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 6.
7. NHTSA, supra note 2, at 55.
8. Id. at 38.
9. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 9.
10. Id.
11. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0 (Jan. 21, 2021), https://www.transportation.gov/av/4.
12. NHTSA, supra note 2, at 37.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 38.
15. Id.
16. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 11. These states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Vermont. See Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, Autonomous Vehicles | Self-Driving Vehicles Enacted Legislation (2020), https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx [hereinafter Nat’l Conf.].
17. Fla. Stat. § 316.86(1) (2012).
18. Id. § 306.85 (2016).
19. Id. § 316.85(1) (2020).
20. Id. § 316.85(3)(a).
21. Eric J. Tanenblatt, Jodi Adolf, Todd Daubert & Crawford Schneider, United States: Autonomous Vehicles: US Legal and Regulatory Landscape (Aug. 16, 2019), https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/rail-road-cycling/833422/autonomous-vehicles-us-legal-and-regulatory-landscape#:~:text=Alabama,subject%20of%20widespread%20autonomous%20transit.
22. S. 17-213 (Colo. 2017).
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Nat’l Conf., supra note 16.
26. Id.
27. Ariz. Exec Order No. 2015-09 (Aug. 25, 2015).
28. Nat’l Conf., supra note 16.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Del. Exec. Order No. 14 (Sept. 5, 2017).
32. Haw. Exec. Order No. 17-07 (Nov. 22, 2017).
33. Id.
34. Nat’l Conf., supra note 16.
35. Id.
36. Wash. Exec. Order No. 17-02 (June 7, 2017).
37. Wis. Exec. Order No. 245 (May 18, 2017).
38. Id.
39. Idaho Exec. Order No. 2018-01 (Jan. 2, 2018).
40. Nat’l Conf., supra note 16.
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Me. Exec. Order No. 2018-001 (Jan 17, 2018).
45. Id.
46. Nat’l Conf., supra note 16.
47. Minn. Exec. Order no. 18-04 (Mar. 5, 2018).
48. Minn. State Dept. of Transp., Connected and Automated Vehicles (2021), http://www.dot.state.mn.us/automated/order.html.
49. Nat’l Conf., supra note 16.
50. Id.
51. Id.
52. Ohio Exec. Order No. 2018-04K (May 9, 2018).
53. See Lewis et al., supra note 5, at 20.
54. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 7.
55. Id.
56. Id.
57. Id.
58. Id. at 8.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. Kate Gaul, Neb. Legis. Rsch. Off., The Future Is Now: The Technology and Policy of Self-Driving Cars 5 (2017).
62. Id.
63. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 6.
64. Id.
65. Id.
66. Shima Hamidi & Keshia M. Pollack Porter, Am. Plan. Ass’n, How Cities Are Taking Action on COVID-19 (2020), https://www.planning.org/planning/2020/jul/how-cities-are-taking-action-on-covid-19.
67. Id.
68. Id.
69. Id.
70. Id.
71. Id.
72. Id.
73. Jeremy Crute, William Riggs, Timothy S. Chapin & Lindsay Stevens, Am. Plan. Ass’n, PAS Report 592, Planning for Autonomous Mobility 32 (2018), https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9157605.
74. Id.
75. Johanna Zmud, Ginger Goodin, Maarit Moran, Nidhi Kalra & Eric Thorn, Nat’l Acads. Sci., Eng’g Med., Advancing Automated and Connected Vehicles: Policy and Planning Strategies for State and Local Transportation Agencies 12 (2017), https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24872/advancing-automated-and-connected-vehicles-policy-and-planning-strategies-for-state-and-local-transportation-agencies.
76. Id.
77. Id.
78. Id. at 11–12.
79. Id. at 12.
80. Wolfgang Gruel & Joseph M. Stanford, Assessing the Long-Term Effects of Autonomous Vehicles: A Speculative Approach 20 (2015), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352146516300035.
81. Abdul Pinjari & Nikhil Menon, Highway Capacity Impacts of Autonomous Vehicles: An Assessment 8 (2014).
82. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 25.
83. Id.
84. Id.
85. Id.
86. Id.
87. Bev Wilson & Arnab Chakroborty, The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research, 5 Sustainability 3310 (2013), available at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/8/3302.
88. Id. at 3313.
89. Id.
90. See Gruel & Stanford, supra note 80, at 26.
91. See Pinjari & Menon, supra note 81, at 10.
92. AnnaLisa Meyboom, Driverless Urban Futures: A Speculative Atlas for Autonomous Vehicles 124 (2019).
93. Id.
94. Id.
95. Id.
96. See Gruel & Stanford, supra note 80, at 26.
97. Id.
98. Id.
99. Id.
100. Id.
101. Id.
102. James M. Anderson, Nidhi Kalra, Karlyn D. Stanley, Paul Sorensen, Constantine Samaras, Oluwatobi A. Oluwatola, Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers 26 (2016).
103. Meyboom, supra note 92, at 126.
104. See Anderson et al., supra note 102, at 26.
105. Erick Guerra & Eric A. Morris, Cities, Automation, and the Self-Parking Elephant in the Room, 19 Plan. Theory & Prac. 294 (2018).
106. Id.
107. Meyboom, supra note 92, at 126.
108. See Guerra & Morris, supra note 105, at 294.
109. Id.
110. Id.
111. Id.
112. Id.
113. Id.
114. Id.
115. Id.
116. Id. at 295.
117. Id.
118. Id.
119. Id.
120. Id.
121. Id.
122. See Anderson et al., supra note 102, at 26.
123. Id.
124. Id.
125. See Guerra & Morris, supra note 105, at 295.
126. Id.
127. Id.
128. Todd Litman, Victoria Transp. Pol’y Inst., Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Process: Implications for Transport Planning 30 (2018).
129. Robert A. Simons, Driverless Cars, Urban Parking and Land Use 275 (2020).
130. Id.
131. Id. at 281.
132. Id.
133. Id. at 284.
134. Mike Maciag, How Driverless Cars Could Be a Big Problem for Cities, Governing (July 26, 2017), https://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-cities-traffic-parking-revenue-driverless-cars.html.
135. Id.
136. Id.
137. Id.
138. Id.
139. Meyboom, supra note 92, at 186.
140. Id.
141. Id.
142. Id. at 187.
143. Id.
144. Id.
145. See Guerra & Morris, supra note 105, at 194.
146. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 15.
147. Id.
148. See Crute et al., supra note 73, at 45.
149. Id.
150. Id.
151. Id.
152. Id.
153. Dirk Heinrichs, Autonomous Driving and Urban Land Use, in Autonomous Driving 224 (Markus Mauer et al. eds., 2016).
154. Id.
155. Id.
156. Meyboom, supra note 92, at 202.
157. Id.
158. Id.
159. Id.
160. Id.
161. Id. at 203.
162. Id.
163. Id.
164. Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 11.
165. Id.
166. Id. at 12.
167. Stuart Cohen, TransForm, Can We Advance Social Equity with Shared, Autonomous and Electric Vehicles? 1 (2017).
168. See Rouse et al., supra note 3, at 12.
169. Id.
170. Id.
171. Id.
172. Id.
173. Id. at 13.
174. Id.
175. Id.
176. See Cohen, supra note 167, at 2.
177. Id. at 1.