BASAVARAJESWARI GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS

BALLARI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT

Recognized by Govt. of Karnataka, approved by AICTE, New Delhi & Affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)
"Jnana Gangotri" Campus, No.873/2, Ballari-Hospet Road, Allipura, Ballar1-583 104 (Karnataka) (India)
Ph.: 08392 – 237100 / 237190, Fax: 08392 – 237197

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS &

COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING

A Seminar Report On
“Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions”
Submitted By
Kadapa Rangaswamy
USN: 3BR16EC054

Dept of ECE,
BITM, Ballari.

Visvesvaraya Technological University

Belagavi, Karnataka

2019-2020

1|Page
 BASAVARAJESWARI GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS
BALLARI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Recognized by Govt. of Karnataka, approved by AICTE, New Delhi & Affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi)
"Jnana Gangotri" Campus, No.873/2, Ballari-Hospet Road, Allipura, Ballar1-583 104 (Karnataka) (India)
Ph.: 08392 – 237100 / 237190, Fax: 08392 – 237197

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS&
COMMUNICATON ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Seminar Report entitled “Autonomous

Vehicle Implementation Predictions” has been successfully presented
by KADAPA RANGASWAMY bearing USN 3BR16EC054 a student
of VIII semester B.E. for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Bachelor Degree in Electronics & Communication Engineering
of the VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY during
the academic year 2019-2020

Signature of Seminar Co-ordinator Signature of Guide Signature of HOD

2|Page
 2019-20

Table of Contents:
1. TITLE OF THE PROJECT
2. ABSTRACT
3. INTRODUCTION
4. LITERATURE SURVEY
5. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE OPERATIONAL MODELS
6. PROSPECTIVE PREDICTIONS
7. POTENTIAL CONFILCTS AND SOLUTIONS
8. CONCLUSIONS
9. REFERENCES

3|Page
TITLE: “Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions”

Waymo’s self-driving taxis are a well-publicized example of autonomous vehicles.

4|Page
Abstract-

Autonomous driving is expected to revolutionize road traffic attenuating current

externalities, especially accidents and congestion. Carmakers, researchers and
administrations have been working on autonomous driving for years and significant
progress has been made. However, the challenges to overcome are still huge, as the
autonomous vehicle implementation encompasses not only the autonomous technology but
also human behavior, ethics, traffic management strategies, policies, liability, etc.

This report explores the impacts of autonomous (also called self-driving, driverless or
robotic) vehicles, and their implications for various planning issues. It investigates how
quickly self-driving vehicles are likely to develop and be deployed based on experience with
previous vehicle technologies. This analysis indicates that some benefits, such as
independent mobility for affluent non-drivers, may begin in the 2030s or 2040s but all the
impacts, such as reduced traffic and parking congestion (and therefore infrastructure
savings), independent mobility for low-income people (and therefore reduced need for
public transit), increased safety, energy conservation and pollution reductions, will only be
significant when autonomous vehicles become common and affordable, probably in the
2050s to 2060s and some benefits may require prohibiting human-driven vehicles on
certain roadways, which could take even longer.

5|Page
Introduction:
Seen yesterday as a dream, autonomous vehicles (AVs) are closer and closer to become a
reality. As time goes by and in parallel to the technological advances, research on AVs is
bringing to light the huge impacts that they might imply for different fields. Consumers all
around the world are enthusiastic about the advent of autonomous cars for public.

An autonomous car is a vehicle capable of sensing its environment and operating without
human involvement. A human passenger is not required to take control of the vehicle at any
time, nor is a human passenger required to be present in the vehicle at all. An autonomous car
can go anywhere as a traditional car and do everything that an experienced human driver does.

Autonomous cars rely on sensors, actuators, complex algorithms, machine learning systems,
and powerful processors to execute software. Autonomous cars create and maintain a map of
their surroundings based on a variety of sensors situated in different parts of the vehicle. Radar
sensors monitor the position of nearby vehicles. Video cameras detect traffic lights, read road
signs, track other vehicles, and look for pedestrians. LIDAR (light detection and ranging) sensors
bounce pulses of light off the car’s surroundings to measure distances, detect road edges, and
identify lane markings. Ultrasonic sensors in the wheels detect curbs and other vehicles when
parking.
Sophisticated software then processes all this sensory input, plots a path, and sends
instructions to the car’s actuators, which control acceleration, braking, and steering. Hard-coded
rules, obstacle avoidance algorithms, predictive modeling, and object recognition help the
software follow traffic rules and navigate obstacles.

Transportation accidents are one of the major causes of death in the world. By 2020, this
world could prevent 5 million human fatalities and 50 million serious injuries by introduction of
newer and innovative methodologies and investments in road safety, from regional to
international levels. The Commission for Global Road Safety believes that it is very crucial to
stop this avoidable and horrendous rise in road injuries, and initiate year on year reductions
(Campbell, 2010).

Deshpande et al. gave a figure of nearly 3000 deaths because of road accidents daily, with
more than half of the people not travelling in a car. Also, it has been reported by Deshpande et al.
that if a paramount and efficacious action is not taken, transportation injuries are set to rise to 2.4
million per year, becoming the fifth leading cause of death in the world. So, number of traffic
collisions will drastically decrease, due to an autonomous system's increased reliability and faster
reaction time compared to humans.

This would also reduce traffic congestion, and thus increase roadway capacity since
autonomous vehicles would lead to a reduced need of safety gaps and better traffic flow
management. Parking scarcity will become a historic phenomenon with the advent of
autonomous cars, as cars could drop off passengers, and park at any suitable space, and then
return back to pick up the passengers. Thus, there would be a reduction in parking space.

6|Page
 Need of physical road signage will decrease, as autonomous cars will receive necessary
information via network. There would be a reduction in the need of traffic police. Thus,
autonomous cars can reduce government spending on things like traffic police. The need for
vehicle insurance will also decrease, along with a decrease in the incidents of car theft. Efficient
car sharing and goods transport systems (as in case of taxis and trucks respectively) can be
implemented, with total elimination of redundant passengers. Not everyone is suitable driving,
so, autonomous cars provide a relief from driving and navigation chores. Also, commute time
will decrease, as autonomous vehicles can travel at higher speeds with minimum chances of
error. The car’s occupants will appreciate the smoother ride experience as compared to non-
autonomous cars.

The timeline of autonomous cars begins in 1926 with the world’s first radio controlled car
‘Linriccan Wonder’. Significant advances in autonomous car technology has been made after the
advent of the vision guided Mercedes-Benz robotic Van in 1980, since then the main focus has
been on vision guided systems using LIDAR( Light Detection and Ranging), Radar, GPS and
computer vision. This developed into the autonomous technologies present in modern cars like
adaptive cruise control, lane parking, steer assist etc.

The future is ultimately unknowable but some planning requires predictions of impending the
conditions and needs (Shaheen, Totte and Stocker 2018). Many decision-makers and practitioners
(such as: planners, engineers and analysts) wonder how autonomous (also called self-driving)
vehicles will affect future travel activity and development patterns, and therefore the need for
road and parking facilities and public transit services, and how they should be regulated in the
nearest future (APA 2016; Grush and Niles 2018; Guerra 2015; Kockelman and Boyles 2018;
Levinson 2015; Milakis, van Arem and van Wee 2017; Sperling 2017) .

Autonomous cars provide excellent benefits, but, some challenges do exist. Although the
notion has been rejected, but it is believed that an advent of autonomous cars would lead to a
decrease of driving related jobs. Also, situations like inability of drivers to regain control of their
cars due to inexperience of drivers, etc. are an important challenge. Lots of people love driving,
and it would be difficult for them to forfeit control of their cars. Autonomous cars also pose
challenges interacting with human-driven vehicles on the same route. Another challenge to
autonomous cars is that who is to be held liable for damage- the car manufacturing company, the
car’s occupants/owner, or the government. Thus, implementation of a legal framework and
establishment of government regulations for autonomous vehicles is a major problem.

There is a considerable uncertainty about these issues. Optimists predict, based on experience
with previous technological innovations such as digital cameras, smart phones and personal
computers, that autonomous vehicles will soon be sufficiently reliable and affordable to replace
the most human driving, providing huge savings and benefits (Johnston and Walker 2017;
Keeney 2017; Kok, et al. 2017). There are good reasons to be skeptical of such claims.

7|Page
 Optimistic predictions often overlook significant obstacles and costs. Many technical
problems must be solved before autonomous vehicles can operate reliably in all normal
conditions (Knight 2020). These will require years of testing and regulatory approval, and must
become affordable and attractive to consumers of all the standards. Motor vehicles are costly,
durable, and highly regulated, so new vehicle technologies generally require decades to penetrate
fleets.

A camera, telephone or computer failure may be frustrating but is seldom fatal; motor vehicle
system failures can be frustrating and deadly to occupants and other road users. Autonomous
driving can create new transportation problems. As a result, autonomous vehicles will probably
take longer to develop and provide smaller net benefits than optimists predict.

Driving during the mixed traffic involves numerous interactions with diverse pedestrians,
animals, bicyclists and vehicles, and is very complex than flying an airplane in the air.

This report explores these issues. It investigates, based on experience with previous vehicle
technologies, how quickly self-driving vehicles are likely to be developed and deployed,
critically evaluates their benefits and costs, and discusses their likely travel impacts and their
implications for planning decisions such as optimal road, parking and public transit supply.

8|Page
Literature Survey:-

Historical events helped to shape modern semiautonomous vehicles. The first step towards
autonomous cars was the radio controlled car, called “Linriccan Wonder”. It was demonstrated
by Houdina Radio Control in New York City. It was basically a 1926 Chandler that had
transmitting antennae on its rear compartment and was operated by another car that sent out
radio impulses while following it. These signals were caught by the transmitting antennae. The
antennae sent the signals to circuit- breakers which operated small electric motors that directed
the car’s movements. It was one of the most primitive forms of autonomous vehicles.

A modified form of Linriccan Wonder was used by the name "Phantom Auto" and
demonstrated in December 1926 in Milwaukee, by Achen Motors. GM (General Motors)
sponsored Norman Bel Geddes's exhibit Futurama at the World's Fair, 1939, which depicted
embedded-circuit powered electric cars. The circuits were embedded in the roadway and
controlled by radio, much like previous attempts for development of driverless cars. So, RCA
Labs presented a significantly advanced model for autonomous cars.

RCA Labs built a miniature car in 1953. It was controlled and guided by wires that were laid
in a pattern on a laboratory floor. Leland Hancock, a traffic engineer in Nebraska, and L. N.
Ress, a state engineer took the idea of RCA Labs to a greater scale, by experimenting with the
system in actual highway installations, which was done on a 121.92 meters long strip of highway
just outside the town of Lincoln, Neb, in 1958. A series of detector circuits buried in the
pavement were a series of lights along the edge of the road, which were able to send impulses to
guide the car and determine the presence and velocity of any metallic vehicle on its surface.
General Motors collaborated with it, and paired two standard models with equipment having
special radio receivers and audible and visual warning devices that were able to simulate
automatic steering, accelerating and brake control.

Based on advanced models, in 1959, and throughout the 1960s, in Motorama (which was an
auto show by GM), Firebird was showcased by General Motors , which was a series of
experimental cars which had an electronic guide system which could rush it over an automatic
highway without driver’s involvement (Cranswick, 2013; Burgan,1999; Temple, 2006). This led
to Ohio State University's Communication and Control Systems Laboratory to launch a project to
develop driverless cars which were activated by electronic devices imbedded in the roadway, in
1966. United Kingdom's Transport and Road Research Laboratory tested a driverless car,
Citroen DS that interacted with magnetic cables that were embedded in the road, during the
1960s. It went through a test track at 130 km/h without deviation of speed or direction in any
weather condition. It travelled in a far more effective way than by human control
(Cardew, 1970; Pressnel, 1999).

9|Page
 EUREKA conducted the Prometheus Project on autonomous vehicles from 1987 to 1995.
Over 1 billion US dollars were invested in it (Xie, 1993; Flyte, 1995). DARPA, Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense is also responsible for
the progress in the field of autonomous cars. Autonomous Land Vehicle (ALV) project in the
United States made use of new technologies. These technologies were developed by the Carnegie
Mellon University, the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, University of Maryland,
Martin Marietta and SRI International.

The ALV project achieved the first road- following demonstration that used computer vision,
LIDAR and autonomous control to direct a robotic vehicle at speeds of up to 31 km/h (Davis,
1987; Leighty, 1986; Lowrie, 1985; Chandran, 1987). HRL Laboratories (formerly Hughes
Research Labs) demonstrated the first off-road map and sensor- based autonomous navigation on
the ALV. The vehicle traveled over 610 m at 3.1 km/h on complex terrain with steep slopes,
ravines, large rocks, vegetation and other natural obstacles (Resende, 2013).

In 1995 itself, the Carnegie Mellon University’s Navlab project achieved 98.2% autonomous
driving on a 5,000 km cross-country journey which was dubbed "No Hands Across America" or
NHOA. The car was semi-autonomous by nature: it used neural networks to control the steering
wheel, but throttle and brakes were human-controlled (Thorpe, 1991;Pomerleau, 1993). An
advanced autonomous vehicle was exhibited by Alberto Broggi of the University of Parma. He
launched the ARGO Project, which worked on making a modified Lancia Thema to follow
painted lane marks on a normal highway, in 1996. The apotheosis of the project was a journey of
1,900 km over six days on the roads of northern Italy, with an average speed of 90 km/h. The car
operated in fully automatic mode for 94% of its journey, with the longest automatic stretch being
55 km. The vehicle had two low-cost video cameras on board and used stereoscopic vision
algorithms to understand its environment (Broggi, 2000).

In the early 2000s, the Park Shuttle, an autonomous public road transport system, became
operational in the Netherlands (Shladover, 2007; Panatoya, 2003; Andréasson, 2001). US
government also started working on autonomous vehicles, mostly for military usage. Demo I
(US Army), Demo II (DARPA), and Demo III (US Army), were funded by the US Government
(Hong, 2000). The ability of unmanned ground vehicles to navigate miles of difficult off-road
terrain, avoiding obstacles such as rocks and trees was demonstrated by Demo III (2001).

Today more advanced features like automated steering, acceleration and emergency braking
are emerging every year. There are a number of industrial companies worldwide working on
self-driving car projects, such as Volkswagen, BMW, Hyundai Motors, Audi, Ford, General
Motors, Honda, Mercedes, Nissan, Nvidia, Tesla, Toyota, etc. It is interesting to note that Silicon
Valley companies, including Google, Apple, and Uber, are seeking to become key players in this
market even though their history is not directly tied to the production of cars.

10 | P a g e
 The first cars licensed for autonomous driving on the streets and highways of the German
state of Berlin are made in Germany and Spirit of Berlin, developed by the Autonomous Labs. It
was a project of Freie Universität, Berlin, and funded by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research. The project had developing technology for driver assistance systems,
innovative safety systems for cars and full autonomous vehicles in airports or mines as its major
objectives. It has a very accurate GPS unit and three laser scanners at the front, and three at the
rear of the vehicle detect any car or pedestrian all around the car. It can also detect traffic lights,
intercity traffic and roundabouts.

a) AVs technology Adoption:

Pertinent technology adoption theories include the technology adoption model (TAM)
(Davis, 1989) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh
et al., 2003). From these theories, relevant factors include reliability, performance expectancy,
trust, security and privacy. The latter three factors also feature in the driverless cars literature,
which also uncovers a range of factors as per Fig. 1. TAM was developed by Davis (1989) in
which acceptance was defined as the decision by users to use technology. It helped to explore the
reasons behind the adoption of technology among individuals and cultures exploring behavioral
intentions or external challenges influenced by attitudes towards use (Rampersad et al., 2012).
However it was later believed that the above two motives are not the only ones responsible for
users’ acceptance of technology: the motives can be evolve (Martínez-Torres et al., 2008) due to
a number of reasons such as moral, ethical or value-driven concerns, the relative advantage of
the technology, compatibility with norms and social practices, difficulties in the ease of use and
learning and trial ability of the technology (Rogers Everett, 1995). Consequently, these
considerations were then integrated in a later model by Venkatesh et al. (2003), known as the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).

Fig. 1 Key literature and factors influencing the adoption of driverless cars.

11 | P a g e
 The vehicle automation classification defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE, 2016) has been adopted worldwide. Six automation levels (from 0 to 5) are
distinguished depending on the on-board driver assistance systems, i.e. on the distribution of
the driving tasks between the vehicle and the driver. Vehicles of levels 0 to 2 are called
“traditional”, because the environment is still monitored by the driver. From level 3 onwards,
this task is performed by the vehicle. This is a key frontier, as it involves that the vehicle must
collect all the necessary data from the environment and interprets it. Furthermore, the vehicle
can take responsibility for the driving task to certain limits. The culmination of automation is
reached at level 5, where vehicles are called to perform the whole driving task autonomously,
on all types of roads, in all speed ranges and with any weather conditions. Apart from
prototypes, only AUDI offers at present a SAE3-level model to the public. Other automakers
currently work on SAE3- and SAE4-level vehicles, which are likely to be available in the
short-term. On the contrary, in spite of the optimistic announcements made by some
companies, most forecasts agree (see Table 1) that it will take long time to make SAE5-level
vehicles technologically available, and much more to achieve a significant implementation
rate within the whole vehicle fleet.

Table1. Autonomous vehicles implementation previsions

Source SAE4-level SAE5-level CAVs environment

Underwood, 2014 2019-2024 2025-2035 2040-2060

Godsmark, 2015 2020 2020-2025 2020-2030
Shladover, 2016 2020-2030 2075 ?
Zmud, 2017 2021 2025-2030 ?
Bloomberg, 2017 2018-2020 2028-2030 2040-2060
Litman, 2018 2020-2030 2020-2040 2060-2080
Kuhnert, 2018 2020-2030 2025-2030 ?
Gehrke, 2018 2018-2021 2018-2021 2040-2050
SSCTCC, 2018 2018-2020 2040-2050 2040-2060
Shaheen, 2018 2018-2021 2023-2040 2045-2070

12 | P a g e
Autonomous Vehicle Operational Models –
Exhibit 1 describes the five levels of autonomous driving. Level 4 offers autonomous mobility
under some conditions and Level 5 offers autonomous mobility under all normal conditions.

Exhibit 1 Automated Driving Levels (SAE J3016 2014) -

The SAE defines five vehicle automation levels. Most predicted benefits require levels 4 or 5.

Exhibit 2 compares four vehicle types-

Personal Personal Shared Shared

Human-Driven Autonomous Autonomous Autonomous Rides
Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles

Motorists own or Motorists own or Self-driving taxis Self-driving vans

lease, and drive, a lease a self-driving offer door-to-door (micro-transit)
personal vehicle. vehicle. service to serve multiple
. individuals and passengers.
groups.
.

Advantages Low costs. High Users can choose Lowest total

Always convenience. vehicles that best costs. Minimizes
available. Users Always meet their needs. congestion, crash
can leave available. Users Door to door risk and pollution
personal gear in can leave gear in service. emissions.
vehicles. Pride of vehicles.
ownership. Provides pride of
ownership.
Appropriate users Lower- and Affluent Lower-annual- Lower-income
moderate- suburban and mileage users. urban residents.
income rural residents.
suburban and
rural residents.

13 | P a g e
Prospective Predictions –
Any technology enthusiast is curious about the future of cars and how will cars become
more reliable, and faster. The governmental organizations are very optimistic about autonomous
cars; of course they also have lots of challenges to face with the advent of autonomous cars.
Autonomous cars provide advantages like high reliability, high speed, lesser governmental
spending on traffic police, reduced need of vehicle insurance, reduction of redundant passengers,
etc. with challenges like implementation of a legal framework for autonomous cars, and possible
criminal and terrorist misuse among some.

I. Benefits and Costs-

1) Reduced Stress, Improved Productivity and Mobility:

Autonomous vehicles can reduce driver stress and tedium. Self-driving cars can be
mobile bedrooms, playrooms and offices, as illustrated below, allowing passengers to rest
or be productive while travelling (WSJ 2017). This can reduce travel time unit costs.

Productivity and Relaxation While Travelling

Self-driving cars can be mobile bedrooms, playrooms or offices, allowing travelers to rest
and work.

On the other hand, self-driving vehicles can introduce new stresses and discomforts. To
minimize cleaning and vandalism costs, self-driving taxis and buses will have hardened interiors
(vinyl seats and stainless steel surfaces), minimal accessories, and security cameras. Demand
response ridesharing (vehicles with flexible routes to pick up and drop off passengers at or near
their destinations) will reduce security (passengers may need to share space with strangers), and
reduce travel speed and reliability since each additional pick-up or drop-off will impose a few
minutes of delay to other passengers, particularly in sprawled areas with dead-end streets.
Travelers may experience "access anxiety" if their vehicle cannot reach desired destinations, for
example, due to inclement weather (snow or heavy rain) or if an area lacks the detailed maps
required for autonomous operation (Grush 2016).

14 | P a g e
 Autonomous vehicles can provide independent mobility for people who for any reason cannot
or should not drive. This directly benefits those travelers, improving their access to education
and employment opportunities, which can increase their productivity, and reduces chauffeuring
burdens on their family members and friends.

1.1) The Autonomous Vehicle Travel Experience:-

Autonomous vehicles are often illustrated (see below) with happy, well-dressed passengers
lounging or working in tidy self-driving cars that look like science fiction spaceships. However,
the actual experience will probably be less idyllic.

Self-driving vehicles will allow all vehicle occupants to rest, read, work and watch videos, but
for safety sake they should wear seatbelts, and like any confined space, vehicle interiors can
become cluttered and dirty. Manufactures will probably produce vehicles with seats that turn into
beds and mobile offices (NYT 2017) .For the foreseeable future autonomous vehicles will be
unable to operate in heavy rain and snow, on unpaved roads, or where GPS service or special
maps are unavailable, and they may be relatively slow and unreliable in mixed urban traffic.

15 | P a g e
 Self-driving taxi and micro-transit services will be cheaper than human-operated taxis, but
offer minimal service quality. To minimize cleaning and vandalism costs most surfaces will be
stainless steel and plastic, and passengers will be monitored by security cameras, yet passengers
may still encounter previous occupant’s garbage, stains and odors. There will be no drivers to
help carry packages or ensure passenger safety.

Like other public transportation, autonomous micro-transit will require passengers to share
interior space with strangers, who are mostly friendly and responsible but occasionally
unpleasant and frightening. Each additional passenger will add pickup and drop-off delays,
particularly for passengers with special needs, such as packages, children or disabilities, who
need extra time, and in more sprawled areas with dead-end streets where an additional stop can
add several minutes. Because of these limitations, autonomous taxi and micro-transit will most
suited to local urban trips, and many travelers will choose to own their own vehicle, or have a
human operator, despite the extra cost.

Once the novelty wears off, autonomous vehicle travel will be considered utilitarian and
tedious, a useful but not particularly enjoyable or glamorous mobility option, more like an
elevator than a spaceship.

II.Ownership and Operating Costs:-

Autonomous vehicles require various equipment and services summarized in the box below.
Currently, a set of optional vehicle accessories such as remote starting, adaptive cruise control,
and active lane assist and safety cameras typically cost several thousand dollars, and
subscriptions to navigation and security services, such as OnStar and TomTom, cost $200-600
per year. Since failures could be deadly, autonomous vehicles will need robust, redundant and
abuse-resistant components maintained by specialists, increasing maintenance costs. Shared
autonomous vehicles will also require dispatching and fleet management, security cameras and
frequent cleaning and repairs (Broussard 2018).

Below systems significantly increase maintenance and repair costs. Although the sensors are
relatively inexpensive, they must be calibrated, which requires special training and tools. Current
advanced driver assistance system sensors (cameras, radar and ultrasound) approximately double
minor collision repair costs, typically adding $3,000 to a repair bill (AAA 2018), and
sophisticated sensors, such as LIDAR, are even more costly.

16 | P a g e
 Autonomous Vehicle Equipment and Service Requirements
All Autonomous Vehicles Shared Autonomous Vehicles

• Sensors (optical, infrared, radar, laser, etc.).

• Dispatching and fleet management.
• Automated controls (steering, braking, signals, • Business administration and insurance.
etc.)
• Business profits.
• Software, servers and power supplies.
• Security.
• Short range vehicle-to-vehicle
communication networks, plus Internet • Frequent cleaning and repairs.
access for maps, software upgrades and • Delays and empty vehicle-miles for
road reports. passenger pick-up and drop-off.
• Navigation. GPS systems and special maps,
critical component maintenance, repair and
testing.

Optimists often estimate that electric vehicles cost less than 5$ per mile to operate, reflecting
electricity, maintenance and tire replacement expenses, but these are underestimates. Vehicle
batteries must be replaced about every 100,000-150,000 kilometers, which currently costs
$3,000-15,000, or 2-10$ per vehicle-mile. This may decline with production innovations, but
probably not much since batteries are likely to become more sophisticated, to improve
performance. Electric vehicles currently pay no fuel taxes; cost-recovery road-user fees would
increase electric vehicle operating costs 5-10$ per vehicle-mile. Incorporating these factors
increases electric vehicle operating costs to 10-25$ per mile, similar to fossil fuel vehicles.

Experience with previous vehicle innovations, such as automatic transmissions and airbags,
suggests that autonomous driving capability will initially be available only on higher priced
models, and will take decades to become standard on middle- and lower-priced models.

This suggests that Level 4 and 5 autonomous driving capabilities will probably add several
thousand dollars to new vehicle purchase prices and hundreds of dollars in additional annual
services, maintenance and repair costs, totaling a few thousand dollars in annualized expenses, at
least for the first decade or two of their commercial availability, until competition and
depreciation make autonomous technologies available on cheaper models and used vehicles.

These indicates that for the foreseeable future private autonomous vehicle costs will probably
average (total annual costs divided by annual mileage) $0.80-$1.20 per vehicle-mile, which may
eventually decline to $0.60-$1.00 per mile as the technology becomes available in cheaper
models. This is more than human-operated vehicles, due to their additional equipment and
service costs. Shared autonomous vehicles will probably cost 50-70$ per vehicle-mile.

17 | P a g e
 Shared autonomous rides will probably cost $0.20-0.40 per passenger-mile. This is cheaper than
human-operated taxis ($2.00-$3.00 per mile) and ride hailing ($1.50-2.50 per mile), but more
expensive than vehicle operating costs or public transit fares (20-40$ per passenger-mile).

The following figure compares these costs. Average costs are what travelers consider when
deciding whether to purchase a vehicle; operation costs are what vehicle owners consider when
deciding how to make a particular trip.

Cost Comparison (AAA 2017; Bösch, et al. 2017; Johnson and Walker 2017; Keeney 2017;
Litman 2009; Stephens, et al. 2016)

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) should cost less than human-driven taxis and ride hailing
services, but more than human-driven personal vehicles (HVs) and public transit.

Considering just variable costs (costs that affect short-term travel decisions), electric
autonomous cars will be cheaper than current vehicles. Shared autonomous vehicles and rides
will cost more per trip, but eliminate ownership costs and so provide overall savings for people
who travel less than about 6,000 annual vehicle-miles, and be cheaper than current ride hailing
and taxi services. This is likely to increase vehicle travel and total costs by autonomous vehicle
owners, but reduce vehicle travel and costs for those who share vehicles and trips.

Public policies will affect these costs. Many experts recommend that governments impose
road user fees to recover roadway costs and reduce traffic problems. This would increase the
costs of operating personal autonomous vehicles would make shared vehicle travel more
attractive.

18 | P a g e
 Variable Costs (Costs Affecting Short-term Travel Decisions)

III. Traffic Safety and Security:

Optimists claim that, because human error contributes to 90% of crashes, autonomous vehicles
will reduce crash rates and insurance costs by 90% (Fagnant and Kockelman 2013; Kok, et al.
2017; McKinsey 2016), but this overlooks additional risks these technologies can introduce (Hsu
2017; ITF 2018; Kockelman, et al. 2016; Koopman and Wagner 2017; Ohnsman 2014):

• Hardware and software failures: Complex electronic systems often fail due to false
sensors, distorted signals and software errors. Self-driving vehicles will certainly have
failures that contribute to crashes, although their frequency is difficult to predict.
• Malicious hacking- Self-driving technologies can be manipulated for amusement or
crime.

• Increased risk-taking: When travelers feel safer they often take additional risks, called
offsetting behavior or risk compensation. For example, autonomous vehicle passengers
may reduce seatbelt use, and other road users may be less cautious (Millard-Ball 2016),
described as “over-trusting” technology (Ackerman 2017).

• Platooning risks: Many potential benefits, such as reduced congestion and pollution
emissions, require Platooning (vehicles operating close together at high speeds on
dedicated lanes), which can introduce new risks, such as human drivers joining platoons
and increased crashes severity.

• Increased total vehicle travel: By improving convenience and comfort autonomous

vehicles may increase total vehicle travel and therefore crash exposure .

• Additional risks to non-auto travelers: Autonomous vehicles may have difficulty

detecting and accommodating pedestrians, bicyclists and motorcycles (PBIC 2017).

19 | P a g e
 Sharing of autonomous vehicles can reduce crashes by providing more cost affordable
alternatives to higher-risk and enthusiastic drivers. Efforts to reduce higher-risk driving, such as
graduated driver’s licenses, special testing for senior drivers, and anti-impaired driver
campaigns, can be more effective and publicly acceptable if affected groups have convenient and
affordable mobility options. For example, parents may purchase autonomous vehicles for their
teenagers, and travelers may use autonomous vehicles to avoid impaired and districted driving.

Many factors will affect these impacts, including how vehicles are programmed, and how
they affect the total vehicle travel. For example, to increase the travel speeds of autonomous
vehicles can be programmed to drive faster, take shortcuts on neighborhood streets, and take
more risks; to minimize external costs they can be programmed to drive slower, be more
cautious, and avoid driving on congested roads or neighborhood streets.

IV. External Costs:

Optimists claim that autonomous driving will reduce external costs including traffic
congestion, energy consumption, pollution emissions, roadway and parking facility costs,
although those benefits are uncertain (Eddy and Falconer 2017; TRB 2019).. Many of these
benefits require dedicated lanes for Platooning (Can see in below Exhibit). This is costly and
only feasible under limited conditions, such as grade-separated highways.

Exhibit: Driverless Car “Platooning” (Chuen, et al. 2013)

Many proposed autonomous vehicle benefits, including congestion and emission reductions,
require Platooning: multiple electrically connected vehicles travelling close together at relatively
high speeds, preferably lead by a large truck. This requires dedicated highway lanes.

20 | P a g e
 Autonomous vehicles are likely to increase congestion, energy, pollution and roadway costs
in many situations. Without significant policy reforms, such as higher road user fees and
roadway management that favors share vehicles, autonomous vehicles are likely to increase total
vehicle travel and therefore traffic problems. Over the long run they may encourage more
dispersed, automobile-dependent development, increasing sprawl-related costs, and by reducing
public transit, reduce non-auto travel options. If programmed for maximum caution they may
strictly observe speed limits and optimal vehicle spacing, and frequently stop to wait for human
instructions when faced with unexpected situations. If programmed to maximize passenger
comfort, they may minimize acceleration and deceleration rates (Le Vine, Zolfaghari and Polak
2015). These operating priorities are likely to reduce traffic speeds and increase delays.

V.Benefit and Cost Summary

The table below compares the costs, convenience and comfort of the different vehicle types.
Exhibit: Costs Compared

Personal Human- Personal Shared Autonomous Shared

driven Vehicle Autonomous Vehicle Vehicle Autonomous
Ride
Financial costs Low fixed costs High fixed costs, low Minimal fixed costs, Minimum
(particularly used variable costs. moderate variable fixed costs,
cars), moderate costs. low variable
variable. costs.
Convenience High. A personal High. A personal Moderate. Vehicles Moderate.
vehicle is available vehicle is available will often require Collecting
any time. any time. Provides several minutes to passengers
vehicle travel to non- arrive. Provides door- will often take
drivers. to-door service. several
minutes. Does
not provide
door-to-door
service.
Comfort Low to moderate, High. Users have Moderate. Lowest.
depending on their own vehicles Travelers
driving conditions. with chosen share vehicles.
amenities.
External costs Moderate to high. High. By increasing Moderate. May Lowest. Can
(congestion, total vehicle travel increase total vehicle reduce total
facilities, crashes tends to increase travel in some vehicle travel
and pollution) external costs. circumstances and and associated
reduce it in others. costs.
Most appropriate Moderate- and Affluent suburban Suburban and urban Urban
uses low-income and rural residents travelers. travelers.
suburban and rural
residents.

Vehicle types vary in their costs, convenience and comfort, and therefore their impacts on total
vehicle travel.

21 | P a g e
VI. Development and Deployment Predictions:

New technologies generally follow an S-curve development pattern, as illustrated in Exhibit.

An initial concept usually experiences development, testing, approval, commercial release,
product improvement, market expansion, differentiation, maturation, and eventually saturation
and decline. Autonomous vehicle technology will probably follow this pattern.

Exhibit: Innovation S-Curve

Most innovations follow a predictable deployment pattern, often called in innovation S-

curve.

Autonomous vehicle technologies are currently in development and testing stages. They must
go through several more stages to become commercially available in most markets, reliable and
affordable, and therefore common in the vehicle fleet. Once Level 5 technology is fully
functional and reliable, additional time will be required for testing and regulatory approval.
Because vehicles can impose significant external costs, including accident risks and delays to
other road users, they have higher testing and regulation standards than most other technological
innovations such as personal computers and mobile phones. Under optimistic conditions testing
and approval will only require a few years, but the technology may prove unreliable and
dangerous, for example, if there are more high-profile crashes, adding more years (Bhuiyan
2017). It is likely that different jurisdictions will impose different testing, approval and
regulations, resulting in varying rates of deployment.

22 | P a g e
VII.Experience with Previous Vehicle Technology Deployment:

Ford’s Model T began production in 1908, leading to mass automobile ownership. By the
1920s, cities experienced traffic and parking congestion, and by the 1930s there were more
vehicles than households, but for decades the transportation system was mixed, with most
travelers relying on a combination of walking, bicycling and public transit in addition to cars.
Only after the 1970s did adults having a personal vehicle.

Exhibit: U.S. Population and Automobile Ownership (FHWA 2016)

Although mass automobile production started in 1908 with the Ford Model T, it took
decades for automobiles to become the dominant travel modes. Only in the 1960s did most
potential drivers own a personal vehicle, and only after 1980 did ownership approach
saturation.

Examples of vehicle technology development and deployment:

• Automatic Transmissions (Healey 2012). First developed in the 1930s, it took until the
1980s to become reliable, and affordable. When optional they typically cost $1,000 to
$2,000. Their current new vehicle market share is about 90% in North America and 50%
in Europe and Asia.

• Air Bags (Dirksen 1997). First introduced in 1973. Initially an expensive and sometimes
dangerous option (they could cause injuries and deaths), they became cheaper and safer,
were standard on some models starting in 1988, and mandated by U.S. federal regulation
in 1998.

23 | P a g e
 • Hybrid Vehicles (Berman 2011). Became commercially available in 1997, but were
initially unreliable and expensive. Their performance has improved, but typically adds
about $5,000 to vehicle prices. In 2012 they represented about 3.3% of total vehicle sales.

• Vehicle Navigation Systems (Lendion 2012). Vehicle navigation systems became

available as expensive accessories in the mid-1980s. In the mid-1990s factory-installed
systems became available on some models, for about $2,000. Performance and usability
have since improved, and prices have declined to about $500 for factory-installed
systems, and under $200 for portable systems.

VIII.Deployment Predictions:

Exhibit 18 uses the previous analysis to predict autonomous vehicle sales, fleet and travel
market penetration, assuming that Level 5 vehicles become commercially available in the 2030s
but are initially expensive and limited in performance. Due to these limitations, during their first
decade only a minority of new vehicle are likely to be fully autonomous, with market shares
increasing as their prices decline, performance improves, and consumers gain confidence. By the
2045s approximately half of vehicles sold and 40% of vehicle travel could be autonomous.
Without mandates, market saturation will probably take several decades, and a portion of
motorists may continue to choose human operated vehicles due to costs and preferences.

Factors affecting the speed of autonomous vehicle deployment:

• The speed of technological development. Level 4 technologies (vehicles able to operate

autonomously in limited conditions) are currently available, but significant technological
progress is needed before vehicles can operate autonomously under all normal conditions.
Reliable Level 5 operation may be available in five years or may require another 25 years.

• Testing and regulatory approval. Testing and approval standards are currently under
development, but several more years may be required for these standards to be adopted in
most jurisdictions, and additional time will be required for large-scale testing.

• Incremental costs. Autonomous vehicles require additional equipment and services which
add costs. For the foreseeable future (one to three decades) autonomous operation will only
be available in relatively expensive new vehicles, adding thousands of dollars in annual
expenses compared with human-operated vehicles. High incremental costs will reduce the
portion of new vehicles that have this technology, reducing the speed of fleet penetration.

24 | P a g e
• Consumer travel and housing preferences and development practices. Currently, most
North American households live in automobile-dependent communities and own personal
vehicles. Autonomous vehicle sharing is most appropriate for households that live in more
multi-modal communities where they travel less than about 6,000 annual miles by
automobile. As a result, shared autonomous vehicle travel will become more common if
many households are able to move into multi-modal communities. Consumer acceptance may
be reduced by safety fears, privacy concerns, or preferences, resulting in a significant portion
of vehicle travel remaining human-driven even after market saturation

• Service quality and affordability. If shared taxis are widely available, comfortable and
affordable their use is likely to increase. However, if services prove to be unreliable,
uncomfortable or expensive, more households will continue to own personal vehicles.

• Public policies. Implementation could be accelerated if public policies encourage

autonomous vehicle development and purchase, if road and parking pricing, and roadway
management favor shared vehicles, is highway lanes are dedicated to autonomous vehicle
Platooning, if development policies allow more infill development, if autonomous operation
is required for new vehicles, or if governments and support scraping a major portion older
but operable human driven vehicles.

IX.Planning Implications:

Autonomous vehicles raise many transportation and land use planning issues (Taeihagh and
Lim 2018). Some key issues are summarized below.

a. Roadway Planning :

Autonomous vehicles may require some new roadway design features such as improved lane
markings, signs designed to be read electronically, and wireless repeaters in tunnels to provide
internet access. As autonomous vehicles become more common governments can dedicate
highway lanes to autonomous vehicles to allow Platooning. Autonomous driving may allow
narrower traffic lanes, but since roads are generally designed to accommodate trucks and buses,
large reductions are only feasible on roads limited to car traffic.

b. Transportation Pricing :

Electric vehicles currently pay no road users fees comparable to special fuel taxes paid on
gasoline and diesel. Many experts recommend charging either a flat road user fee (a VMT tax) or
decongestion fees (road tolls that are higher under congested conditions). Parking tax revenues
may decline over time.

25 | P a g e
c. Curb Management :

To facilitate vehicle sharing, cities will need to manage curbs to provide convenient
passenger loading and unloading (Marsden, Docherty and Dowling 2020; OECD/ITF 2018).
This can generally be accomplished by providing dedicated passenger loading areas, or by
managing on-street parking to increase turnover, so at least one unoccupied space is almost
always available near each destination.

d. Parking Planning :

Some autonomous vehicle owners may program their cars to return home after dropping
passengers off at a destination, but that will significantly increase vehicle travel, and add delays
and uncertainty to when passengers could be picked up. Most travelers will probably want their
autonomous cars to be available within 5-10 minutes, which will require parking within a mile or
two of their destination. This may allow more off-site and shared parking, reducing but not
eliminating parking demand and costs.

A shift from private to shared autonomous vehicles can reduce parking demands, so if 50%
of trip to a destination are made by shared vehicles, parking demands should decline by 50%,
although shared vehicles will require special parking facilities with electric charging stations and
vehicle cleaning services.

X.Factors Affecting Transport Demands and Costs:

Autonomous vehicle development is just one of many trends that will affect future transport
demands and planning needs, as illustrated in Exhibit 20. Changes in demographics, consumer
preferences, prices, information technologies, mobility options, and other planning innovations
will also influence how people want to travel. These may have greater impacts than autonomous
vehicles for the foreseeable future.

Exhibit: Factors Affecting Transport Demands and Costs

Autonomous vehicles are one of many factors affecting future transport demands.

26 | P a g e
XI.The timeline below summarizes autonomous vehicle planning requirements:

Exhibit: Autonomous Vehicle Planning Requirement Time-Line

This timeline summarizes how autonomous vehicles are likely to impact transport
planning.

Autonomous Taxi Service Impacts

In 2017 Waymo and Uber announced plans to start testing driverless taxis in the Phoenix, Arizona
region (Bergen 2017; Lee 2017). Within a few months a pedestrian death put the program on
hold, but it will probably continue eventually. How soon and how much will these services affect
overall travel?

Phoenix was chosen because it has mild climate, wide streets and relatively few pedestrians. The
vehicles are relatively slow. Further development and testing is required before the technology
can expand to cities with extreme weather or congestion, and its expansion will depend on the
service’s profitability, which will require high consumer confidence and satisfaction, and cost
reductions. As a result, it will probably take several years before commercial autonomous taxi
services are widely available.

Taxis primarily serve local urban trips when travelers lack a personal vehicle, which represents a
minor portion of total travel. To significantly reduce vehicle travel and associated costs,
autonomous taxis must become inexpensive, ubiquitous and integrated with other mobility
options so households can reduce their vehicle ownership and rely on shared vehicle. This can be
accelerated by public policies that discourage private vehicle ownership and encourage sharing,
such as reduced parking supply, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, and convenient drop off/pick up
areas.

This is consistent with predictions that during the 2020s, autonomous vehicles will have limited
availability and performance. If the technology improves and become affordable and reliable, so
self-driving taxi services to become profitable, they can expand to serve more areas and trip types.
However, until most households shift from owning vehicles to relying on shared mobility
services, and until a greater share of households live in compact and multimodal neighborhoods,
the new generation of autonomous taxis will affect only a small portion of total travel and provide
modest community benefits.
27 | P a g e
 Potential Conflicts and Solutions –

There are potential conflicts between user and community goals in autonomous vehicle
design and programming. For example, if programmed to maximize sleeping passengers comfort
they may reduce traffic speeds, and if programmed to protect occupants they may increase crash
risk to other road users. Some benefits (reduced congestion and possibly pollution emissions)
require that autonomous vehicles have dedicated lanes. This will raise debates about the fairness,
pricing, regulations and enforcement of these requirements.

There are also potential planning conflicts. By increasing vehicle travel and traffic speeds,
and displacing public transit, autonomous vehicles could exacerbate traffic congestion, sprawl,
and mobility inequity. For example, if parking is priced but roads are not, autonomous vehicles
may cruise urban streets to avoid paying for parking, exacerbating congestion and pollution
problems. Some advocates claim that autonomous vehicles eliminate the need for conventional
public transit services, but high capacity transit will still be needed on major travel corridors, and
autonomous technologies can support transit by reducing operating costs and improving access
to stops and stations (ITF 2014; TRB 2017). Shared vehicles reduce parking demand but increase
the need for convenient pick-up and drop-off options, which requires better curb management
(OECD/ITF 2018). Some public interest organizations have developed guidelines for optimizing
the benefits of emerging mobility technologies and services (Fulton, Mason and Meroux 2017;
Kaohsiung EcoMobility Festival 2017).

Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities (www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org)

1. Plan our cities and their mobility together. 6. Lead the transition towards clean and
2. Prioritize people over vehicles. renewable energy.
3. Support the shared and efficient use of 7. Support fair user fees across all modes.
vehicles, lanes, curbs, and land. 8. Aim for public benefits via open data.
4. Engage with stakeholders. 9. Work towards integration and seamless
5. Promote equity. connectivity.
10. In dense urban areas autonomous vehicles
should only operate in shared fleets.

28 | P a g e
The following policies can help maximize benefits and minimize the social costs of autonomous
vehicles (Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Nogues and Stead 2020; Schlossberg, et al. 2018; TRB 2017):

• Emphasize social goals such as transport system efficient and equity.

• Favor policies (pricing and road space allocation) that reduce vehicle travel to optimal levels.
• Test and regulate new technologies for safety and efficiency.
• Require autonomous vehicles to be programmed based on ethical and community goals.
• Efficiently regulate and price roads and curb space to minimize conflicts, congestion and
risks.
• Favor shared and higher-occupant vehicles over lower-occupant vehicles on public roads,
particularly on congested corridors.
• Use vehicle traffic reductions to redesign streets and improve urban livability.
• Reduce parking minimums and public parking, to take advantage of shared vehicles. Use
reduced parking needs to increase urban densities and green space.
• Efficiently price development to prevent inefficient sprawl.

29 | P a g e
Conclusions:

Many people wonder when autonomous vehicles will help solve transportation problems.
Optimists predict that by 2030, vehicles able to operate autonomously under all normal
conditions will be sufficiently reliable, affordable and common to displace most human driving,
providing huge financial savings and virtually eliminating traffic congestion, accidents and
pollution emission. However, there are good reasons to be skeptical. Most optimistic predictions
are made by people with financial interests in the industry, based on experience with disruptive
technologies such as digital cameras, smart phones and personal computers. They tend to ignore
significant obstacles and exaggerate benefits.

There is considerable uncertainty concerning autonomous vehicle benefits and costs,

deployment speed, travel impacts and consumer demands. Operating a vehicle on public roads is
complicated due to frequent interactions with other, often-unpredictable objects including
animals, pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles. Autonomous vehicles introduce new costs and
risks. Significant progress is needed before autonomous vehicles can operate reliably in mixed
urban traffic, heavy rain and snow, unpaved and unmapped roads, and where wireless access is
unreliable. Years of testing and regulatory approval are required before they are commercially
available in must jurisdictions. The first generations of autonomous vehicles are likely to be
expensive and limited in performance. These constraints will limit sales. Motorists will be
reluctant to pay thousands of dollars extra for a vehicle that will sometimes respond, “That
destination is not feasible,” due to inclement weather or unmapped roads.

Vehicles last longer, cost more, and are more highly regulated than most other consumer
goods. As a result, vehicle innovations take longer to transform markets than most other
innovations. It will probably take decades for autonomous vehicles to dominate new vehicle
markets and vehicle fleets, and many motorists may prefer human-operated vehicles.

Optimistically, autonomous vehicle operation will be safe and reliable by 2025. A few more
years will be required for testing and regulatory approval, so by 2030, autonomous vehicles
could be commercially available and allowed to operate in many areas. If they follow the pattern
of previous vehicle technologies, during the 2030s and probably the 2040s, they will be
expensive and limited in performance, sometimes unable to reach a desired destination or
requiring human intervention when they encounter an unexpected situation. Customers will
include affluent high annual mileage motorists and workers who rely on vehicles to transport
equipment and goods. For the foreseeable future most moderate- and low-income households
will continue to use human-operated vehicles. It will probably be the 2050s before autonomous
vehicles are affordable to middle-income households and longer for lower-income motorists.

30 | P a g e
 Shared autonomous vehicles and rides (self-driving taxi and micro-transit services) are being
tested in some jurisdictions, but it will probably be the 2030s before they are widely available.
Shared vehicles have moderate operating costs (probably 20-60$ per vehicle-mile), and offer
moderate convenience and comfort. They should be cheaper than current taxi and ride hailing
services, but offer lower quality service, since no driver is available to assist passengers, provide
security, or clean vehicles. Vehicle dispatching often takes many minutes, particularly in
suburban and rural areas. Shared rides will have the lowest costs (probably 10-30$ per
passenger-mile) but the least convenience and comfort since collecting passengers add delays,
shared trips generally cannot provide door-to-door service, and passengers will need to share
confined spaces with strangers. Because of these limitations, shared vehicles and rides will
primarily serve local urban trips and are unlikely to dominate travel in suburban and rural areas.

Because of their high labor costs and predictable routes, long-haul buses and freight trucks
are particularly appropriate for autonomous operation, so self-driving buses and trucks may
become common in the 2030s and 2040s. Many commercial vehicles will still need employees
on board to provide passenger assistance, security, plus loading and unloading.

Exhibit: Autonomous Vehicle Sales, Fleet, Travel and Benefit Projections

This analysis suggests that it will be at least 2045 before half of all new vehicles are
autonomous, and 2060 before half of the vehicle fleet is autonomous. Significantly faster
deployment will require scraping many otherwise functional vehicles that lack self-driving
capability. Some benefits, such reduced driver stress and as independent mobility for affluent
non-drivers, can occur when autonomous vehicles are relatively costly and rare, but most
benefits, such as independent mobility for moderate-income non-drivers, can only be significant
if they become common and affordable, and some benefits, such as increased reduced
congestion, require dedicated lanes to allow Platooning.

31 | P a g e
 An important issue is whether autonomous vehicles will increase or reduce total vehicle
travel and associated traffic problems. It could go either way, depending on public policies. By
increasing non-drivers’ vehicle travel, increasing travel convenience and comfort, generating
empty travel, encouraging longer-distance commutes and more sprawled development, they may
stimulate more vehicle traffic. This additional vehicle travel provides marginal consumer
benefits, and since vehicle travel imposes external costs, much of the additional vehicle travel is
likely to be economically inefficient: its incremental benefits are less than its incremental costs.
Alternatively, autonomous vehicles may facilitate vehicle sharing, allowing households to reduce
vehicle ownership and total driving. By improving walking and bicycling conditions and reduce
parking demands they can encourage urban infill, providing additional vehicle travel reductions.
This suggests that autonomous vehicles will increase vehicle travel in suburban and rural areas,
and reduce it in urban areas; their net impacts depend on public policies.

A critical issue is the degree potential benefits can be achieved when only a portion of
vehicle travel is autonomous. Some benefits, such as improved mobility for affluent non-drivers,
may occur when autonomous vehicles are uncommon and costly, but many potential benefits,
such as reduced congestion and emission rates, reduced traffic signals and lane widths, require
that most or all vehicles on a road operate autonomously.

Public policies will affect autonomous vehicle impacts. With current policies, vehicle travel
and sprawl are likely to increase, which will increase traffic problems such as congestion,
infrastructure costs, accidents and pollution. More efficient pricing, and roadway management
which favors shared vehicles, can reduce vehicle travel and associated problems.

Autonomous vehicle implementation is just one of many trends likely to affect future
transport demands and costs, and therefore planning decisions, and not necessarily the most
important. Its ultimate impacts depend on how it interacts with other trends, such as shifts from
personal to shared vehicles. It is probably not a “game changer” during most of our professional
lives, and is only a “paradigm shift” to the degree that this technology supports shifts from
personal to shared vehicles and creates more multimodal communities.

Transportation professionals have important roles to play in autonomous vehicle development

and deployment. We must anticipate how these and other new mobility technologies and services
are likely to affect road, parking and public transit needs, and how best to respond. We can help
define the standards they must meet to legally operate on public roads. We should evaluate their
benefits and costs and develop policies to maximize net benefits and ensure that their
deployment supports strategic community goals.

32 | P a g e
References:

• Campbell, Mark, Magnus Egerstedt, Jonathan P. How, and Richard M. Murray. "Autonomous driving
in urban environments: approaches, lessons and challenges." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368,no. 1928 (2010): 4649-4672.

• Deshpande, Pawan. "Road Safety and Accident Prevention in India: A review." Int J Adv Engg
Tech/Vol. V/Issue II/April- June 64 (2014): 68.

• AAA (2017), Your Driving Costs, American Automobile Association (http://newsroom.aaa.com); at

https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/YDC/html5/index.html.

• Charlie Johnston and Jonathan Walker (2017), Peak Car Ownership: The Market Opportunity for
Electric Automated Mobility Services, Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org); at
http://bit.ly/2rhJRNi.

• Charlie Johnston and Jonathan Walker (2017), Peak Car Ownership: The Market Opportunity for
Electric Automated Mobility Services, Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org); at
http://bit.ly/2rhJRNi.

• Will Knight (2020), “Snow and Ice Pose a Vexing Obstacle for Self-Driving Cars,” Wired Magazine;
at www.wired.com/story/snow-ice-pose-vexing-obstacle-self-driving-cars.

• Cranswick, Marc. Pontiac Firebird: The Auto-Biography.Veloce Publishing Ltd, 2013.

• Burgan, Michael. The Pontiac Firebird. Capstone, 1999.

• Temple, David W., Dennis Adler, and Chuck Jordan. GM's Motorama: the glamorous show cars of a
cultural phenomenon. Motor books, 2006.

• Cardew, K. H. F. "The Automatic Steering of Vehicles: An Experimental System Fitted to a DS 19

Citroen Car."RRL report; LR 340 (1970).

• Pressnell, John. Citroen DS: The complete story. Crowood, 1999.

• Xie, Ming, Laurent Trassoudaine, Joseph Alizon, Monique Thonnat, and Jean Gallice. "Active and
intelligent sensing of road obstacles: Application to the European Eureka PROMETHEUS Project."
In Computer Vision, 1993. Proceedings. Fourth International Conference on, pp. 616-623. IEEE,
1993.

• Flyte, Margaret Galer. "Safe design of in-vehicle information and support systems: the human factors
issues." International journal of vehicle design 16, no. 2-3 (1995): 158-169.

• Davis, Larry S., Daniel Dementhon, Ramesh Gajulapalli, Todd R. Kushner, Jacqueline LeMoigne,
and Phillip Veatch. "Vision-based navigation: A status report." In Proceedings of Image
Understanding Workshop, pp. 153-169. 1987.

33 | P a g e
• Leighty, Robert D. DARPA ALV (Autonomous Land Vehicle) Summary. No.ETL-R-085. Army
Engineer Topographic Labs fort Belvoir VA, 1986.

• Lowrie, James W., Mark Thomas, Keith Gremban, and Matthew Turk. "The autonomous land vehicle
(ALV) preliminary road-following demonstration." In1985 Cambridge Symposium, pp. 336-350.
International Society for Optics and Photonics, 1985.

• Lowrie, James W., Mark Thomas, Keith Gremban, and Matthew Turk. "The autonomous land vehicle
(ALV) preliminary road-following demonstration." In1985 Cambridge Symposium, pp. 336-350.
International Society for Optics and Photonics, 1985.

• Resende, Paulo, Evangeline Pollard, Hao Li, and Fawzi Nashashibi. "Low Speed Automation:
technical feasibility of the driving sharing in urban areas." In16th International IEEE Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2013.

• Thorpe, Charles, Martial Herbert, Takeo Kanade, and Steven Shafer. "Toward autonomous driving:
the cmunavlab. i. perception." IEEE expert 6, no. 4 (1991): 31- 42.

• Pomerleau, Dean A. "Knowledge-based training of artificial neural networks for autonomous robot
driving." In Robot learning, pp. 19-43. Springer US, 1993.

• Broggi, Alberto, Massimo Bertozzi, and Alessandra Fascioli. "Architectural issues on vision-based
automatic vehicle guidance: the experience of the ARGO project." Real-Time Imaging 6, no. 4
(2000):313-324.

• Shladover, Steven E. "Lane assist systems for bus rapid transit, Volume I: Technology Assessment."
Publication RTA 65A0160, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (2007).

• Panayotova, Tzveta. "People Movers: Systems and case studies." University of Florida (2003): 9.

• Andréasson, Ingmar. "Innovative transit systems." Survey of current devel (2001).

• Hong, T., Marilyn Abrams, Tommy Chang, and M. O. Shneier. "An intelligent world model for
autonomous off-road driving." Computer Vision and Image Understanding (2000).

• Bellutta, Paolo, Roberto Manduchi, Larry Matthies, Ken Owens, and Art Rankin. "Terrain perception
for DEMO III." In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2000. IV 2000. Proceedings of the IEEE, pp.
326-331. IEEE, 2000.

• Shoemaker, Charles M., and Jonathan A. Bornstein. "The Demo III UGV program: A test bed for
autonomous navigation research." In Intelligent Control (ISIC), 1998. Held jointly with IEEE
International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA),
Intelligent Systems and Semiotics (ISAS), Proceedings, pp. 644-651. IEEE, 1998.

• Hong, Tsai Hong, Christopher Rasmussen, Tommy Chang, and Michael Shneier. "Road detection and
tracking for autonomous mobile robots." In Aero Sense 2002, pp. 311-319. International Society for
Optics and Photonics, 2002.

34 | P a g e
• Broggi, Alberto, Paolo Medici, Elena Cardarelli, Pietro Cerri, Alessandro Giacomazzo, and Nicola
Finardi. "Development of the control system for the vislab intercontinental autonomous challenge." In
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2010 13th International IEEE Conference on, pp. 635-640.
IEEE, 2010.

• Davis, 1989 F.D. Davis MIS Quarterly Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User
Acceptance of Information Technology (1989), pp. 319-340, 10.2307/249008.

• Foon and Fah, 2011 Y.S. Foon, B.C.Y. Fah Internet banking adoption in Kuala Lumpur: an
application of UTAUT model Int. J. Bus. Manage. 6 (4) (2011), p. 161.

• Rampersad et al., 2012 G.P. Rampersad, Carolin, I. Troshani Investigating the use of information
technology in managing innovation: a case study from a university technology transfer office J. Eng.
Technol. Manage., 29 (1) (2012), pp. 3-21, 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2011.09.002.

• Martínez-Torres et al., 2008 M.R. Martínez-Torres, S. Toral Marín, F.B. Garcia, S.G. Vazquez, M.A.
Oliva, T. Torres A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory
teaching, according to the European higher education area Behav. Inform. Technol., 27 (6) (2008),
pp. 495-505, 10.1080/01449290600958965.

• Rogers Everett, 1995 M. Rogers Everett Diffusion of Innovations, 12 (1995) New York.

• SAE (2014), Levels of Driving Automation Are Defined In New SAE International Standard J3016,
Society of Automotive Engineers (www.sae.org); at www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf.

• Fehr & Peers (2014), Effects of Next-Generation Vehicles on Travel Demand & Highway Capacity,
Fehr and Peers (www.fehrandpeers.com); at www.fehrandpeers.com/fpthink/nextgenerationvehicles.

• Tristan Cathers (2014), When Will You Be Able To Buy A Driverless Car?, Mojo Motors
(www.mojomotors.com); at www.mojomotors.com/blog/when-will-you-be-able-to-buy-a-driverless-
car.

• Lee Gomes (2014), “Hidden Obstacles for Google’s Self-Driving Cars,” MIT Technological Review,
(www.technologyreview.com), 28 August 2014; at https://bit.ly/2B6BUxx.

• Mark Bergen (2017), “Alphabet Launches the First Taxi Service with No Human Drivers,”
Bloomberg Technology (www.bloomberg.com); at https://bloom.bg/2Ea2dml.

• Andrew Hawkins (2017), “Tesla’s Autopilot is Supposed to Deliver Full Self-Driving, So Why Does
it Feel Stuck in the Past?,” The Verge (www.theverge.com); at https://bit.ly/2Fmtfed..

• Jeremy Hsu (2017), “When It Comes to Safety, Autonomous Cars Are Still ‘Teen Drivers,’”
Scientific American (www.scientificamerican.com); at http://bit.ly/2j9gFPT.

• Kaohsiung EcoMobility Festival (2017), Kaohsiung Strategies for the Future of Urban Mobility,
EcoMobility Festival (www.ecomobilityfestival.org); at https://bit.ly/2OMwsDD.

35 | P a g e
• Kara Kockelman, et al. (2016), Implications of Connected and Automated Vehicles on the Safety and
Operations of Roadway Networks, University of Texas Center for Transportation Research
(http://ctr.utexas.edu), for Texas DOT; at http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/0-6849-1.pdf.

• David G. Groves and Nidhi Kalra (2017), Enemy of Good: Autonomous Vehicle Safety Scenario
Explorer, Rand Corporation www.rand.org); at www.rand.org/pubs/tools/TL279.html.

• Jeremy Hsu (2017), “When It Comes to Safety, Autonomous Cars Are Still ‘Teen Drivers,’”
Scientific American (www.scientificamerican.com); at http://bit.ly/2j9gFPT.

• Meredith Broussard (2018), “The Dirty Truth Coming for Self-Driving Cars: Trash. Odors. Bodily
Fluids. Will Autonomous Rideshares be Ready for our Mess?” Slate (https://slate.com); at
https://slate.me/2Ls9IrI.

• AAA (2018), Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) Repair Costs, Fact Sheet, AAA News
Room (https://newsroom.aaa.com); at https://bit.ly/39JO6CI.

• Patrick Bösch, Felix Becker, Henrik Becker and Kay W. Axhausen (2017), Cost-based Analysis of
Autonomous Mobility Services, Working Paper 1225, Institute for Transport Planning and Systems
(www.ivt.ethz.ch), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology; at
www.ivt.ethz.ch/institut/vpl/publikationen/papers/1225.html.

• Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara M. Kockelman (2013), Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles:
Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations, Eno Foundation (www.enotrans.org); at
www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/downloadables/AV-paper.pdf.

• Kara Kockelman, et al. (2016), Implications of Connected and Automated Vehicles on the Safety and
Operations of Roadway Networks, University of Texas Center for Transportation Research
(http://ctr.utexas.edu), for Texas DOT; at http://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/0-6849-1.pdf.

• McKinsey (2016), Automotive Revolution – Perspective Towards 2030: How the Convergence of
Disruptive Technology-driven Trends Could Transform the Auto Industry (www.mckinsey.de); at
https://bit.ly/2zYBTfG.

• NYT (2017), “How Will Sex, Death and Liability Change on the Road to the Driverless Revolution?
New York Times Magazine (www.nytimes.com); at https://nyti.ms/2DEvojT.

• Adam Millard-Ball (2016), “Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities,” Journal of Planning
Education and Research, pp. 1-7 (DOI: 10.1177/0739456X16675674); at https://bit.ly/2hhYrxV.

• PBIC (2017), Automated and Connected Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists, Pedestrian and Bicycle
Information Center (www.pedbikeinfo.org); at www.pedbikeinfo.org/AV.

• John Eddy and Ryan Falconer (2017), A Civil Debate: Are Driverless Cars Good for Cities?,
Doggerel (http://doggerel.arup.com); http://doggerel.arup.com/a-civil-debate-are-driverless-cars-
good-for-cities.

• Tay Hong Chuen, et al. (2013), Autonomous Vehicles, MT5009; at https://bit.ly/2RTGdS7.

36 | P a g e
• Scott Le Vine, Alireza Zolfaghari and John Polak (2015), “Autonomous Cars: The Tension Between
Occupant-Experience and Intersection Capacity,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies (www.journals.elsevier.com/transportation-research-part-c-emerging-technologies).

• WSJ (2017), “Why Your Next Car May Look Like a Living Room,” Wall Street Journal
(www.wsj.com); at http://on.wsj.com/2tlCvYp.

• FHWA (2018), Highway Statistics, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov); at

www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm.

• James R. Healey (2012), “Stick Shifts Popular Again, Despite Lower Gas Mileage,” USA Today, 30
April (www.usatoday.com); at https://bit.ly/2FoFPdc.

• Stephen Dirksen (1997), Air Bags: History of American Technology, Bryant University Community
Web (http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/sprg_97/dirksen/airbags.html).

• Brad Berman (2011), History of Hybrid Vehicles, Hybrid Cars (www.hybridcars.com); at

https://bit.ly/2z9aSEg.

• Jamie Lendino (2012), “The History of Car GPS Navigation,” PC Magazine (www.pcmag.com); 16
April; at www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402755,00.asp.

• Araz Taeihagh and Hazel Si Min Lim (2018), “Governing Autonomous Vehicles: Emerging
Responses for Safety, Liability, Privacy, Cyber security, and Industry Risks,” Transport Reviews, at
https://bit.ly/2DYQaLd.

• Greg Marsden, Iain Docherty and Robyn Dowling (2020), “Parking Futures: Curbside Management
in the Era of ‘New Mobility’ Services in British and Australian Cities,” Land Use Policy, Vol. 91
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.031).

• Mark Bergen (2017), “Alphabet Launches the First Taxi Service with No Human Drivers,”
Bloomberg Technology (www.bloomberg.com); at https://bloom.bg/2Ea2dml.

• ITF (2014), Urban Mobility: System Upgrade, International Transport Forum

(www.internationaltransportforum.org) and Corporate Partnership Board; at https://bit.ly/2JJrWUo.\

• ITF (2018), Safer Roads with Automated Vehicles? International Transport Forum (www.itf-
oecd.org); at www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/safer-roads-automated-vehicles.pdf.

• Lew Fulton, Jacob Mason and Dominique Meroux (2017), Three Revolutions in Urban
Transportation, UC Davis and ITDP (www.itdp.org); at www.itdp.org/publication/3rs-in-urban-
transport.

• Esther González-González, Soledad Nogués and Dominic Stead (2020), Parking futures: Preparing
European Cities for the Advent of Automated Vehicles, Land Use Policy, Vol. 90
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.029).

37 | P a g e