CPB

Cooperative Mobility
Systems and AutomatedDriving
Summary and Conclusions

167

Roundtable

Corporate Partnership
Board

Cooperative Mobility Systems andAutomated Driving
Summary and Conclusions of the ITF Roundtable on
Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving
06-07 December 2016, Ottawa

Tom Voege and Nathan Zhivov
International Transport Forum, Paris

The International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 59 member countries. It
acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is
the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous andadministratively integrated with the OECD.
The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper
understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social
inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy.
The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and prenegotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge andpromote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is theworld’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport
policy.
The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and theUnited States.

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

ITF Discussion Papers
ITF Discussion Papers make economic research, commissioned or carried out in-house at ITF, available toresearchers and practitioners. They describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s)and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the ITF works. Any
findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or the OECD. Neither the OECD, ITF
nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information contained in this publication
and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. This document and any map
included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to thedelimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Comments on Discussion Papers are welcome

4© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 6
Overview of the range of service concepts investigated ...................................................................... 9
Overview of existing systems and technologies ............................................................................ 10
Operational design domain restrictions and dependency on infrastructure ................................. 11
Operating principles, vehicles, and user interfaces ....................................................................... 12
Matching service concepts and operational environments ................................................................ 13
Urban planning and policy background ......................................................................................... 14
Geographical, societal cultural differences.................................................................................... 15
Industry sectors and business model options ................................................................................ 16
Government action will affect how automated vehicles will impact society ...................................... 18
Regulating highly automated vehicles ........................................................................................... 18
Legislation and regulation.............................................................................................................. 22
Existing approaches will not be appropriate for long .................................................................... 23
Regulating the impacts of automated vehicle technology .................................................................. 26
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 31
References ......................................................................................................................................... 32© OECD/ITF 20185

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Introduction
There is currently a clear trend towards the implementation of cooperative automated driving
capabilities; whilst the projected time-scales, technology options and use cases involved vary, policy
makers need to prepare their responses to these developments without delay. Mainstreaming of shareduse mobility services, particularly in large urban areas is trending in parallel with shared ownership ofvehicles. The convergence of these developments may provide the business case for early large-scale
adoption of vehicle automation technologies.
Many research and demonstration projects for systems and technologies using automated driving arebeing carried out in ITF member countries. Projects cover many research areas, including humanbehaviour, vehicle design, and supporting infrastructure and examine a range of issues. An overview ofdevelopments in technologies, regulation and policy is therefore timely. The potential for mobility
solutions such as car sharing, car pooling, and ride sharing to meet urban transport demand is attracting
increasing attention. We might now be seeing the first waves of a radical change in the format for car
use and ownership and overall mobility provision in urban areas.
In multi-modal journeys the last-mile is crucial. Lack of convenience and personal safety concerns for thistrip segment often deter modal shift. Conventional public transport is in most cases unable to provide
last-mile transport, particularly at low-demand times and low density locations. Here in particular, sharedmobility concepts and vehicle automation have the potential to radically improve service provision,
enabling a paradigm shift for urban mobility.
Shared mobility is still a relatively new field, therefore business models and preferred technologies arestill in flux. According to an analysis described in TCRP Research Report 188, current systems and services
include the following; bike sharing, car sharing, demand responsive transport systems, fixed-routesystems, micro-transit, mobility on demand, para-transit, private shuttles, public transport, ride sharing,
carpooling, ride sourcing, ride splitting, dynamic carpooling, and specified public transportation. In thesame study shared mobility is generally defined as a wide range of transport services having in common
that they are shared among users.
The cooperative element in vehicle automation relates to the use of and system reliance on vehicle tovehicle (V2V) and vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication. This communication relies on 5.9 GHz
DSRC or widespread 5G implementation for its time-critical, safety-critical messages. Cooperative
automation is the continuation of the Cooperative Intelligent Transport System (C-ITS) approach ofadding vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication to a developing and maturing technology. V2X
communication is defined as the passing of information from a vehicle to any entity that may affect thevehicle, and vice versa (i.e. combining V2V, V2I, and going beyond). Thus real-world implementation may
depend on the provision of supporting roadside infrastructure, which raises the question of whose
responsibility this will be and where funding will come from.
Definition of terminologies is required to discuss automation of road vehicles. Whilst a variety ofdifferent technology options, application environments and business models is possible, a useful
categorisation can be made based on the roles and responsibilities of the driver and/or passenger in thevehicle.

6© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

According to the updated SAE International (formerly US Society of Automotive Engineers) “Taxonomy
and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles”, thevarying levels of automation are to be classified as follows:
Table 1. Summary of SAE levels of driving automation

Table Note: Dynamic Driving Task; OEDR = Object and Event Detection; ODD = Operational Design Domain; ADS = Automated Driving System

Based on the above concepts and definitions, the discussion at the roundtable centred on the wider
issues surrounding the use of SAE levels 3-5 cooperative vehicle automation for enabling a variety ofpotential shared mobility concepts, with a focus on last-mile public transport in urban areas.

© OECD/ITF 20187

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

As Shladover and Bishop (2012) note, road transport automation systems are not ends in themselves but
are a means of satisfying needs to improve transport operations or driver comfort and convenience.
Specific systems will be designed to achieve different goals, and those different goals are likely to point
toward very different designs.
These goals could include combinations of the following:Enhancing driving comfort and convenience.

Improving productivity or quality of life by freeing up time currently consumed by driving.



Reducing vehicle user costs.

Improving vehicle user safety or broader traffic safety.



Reducing user travel time.

Enhancing and broadening mobility options, giving users more flexibility.



Reducing traffic congestion.



Reducing energy use and pollutant emissions.



Making more efficient use of existing road infrastructure.



Reducing the cost of future infrastructure and equipment.

One simple means of understanding the opposing approaches to initiating the deployment of
automation was defined by Walker-Smith (2014):
Everything Somewhere (e.g. the Google car): very high functionality (Level 4) in a constrained
geographical area due to the need to constantly update mapping and limit the interactions
with potentially hazardous (higher speed) traffic. Also, given the high functionality, it is likelythat the fleet would need frequent servicing and testing to ensure safe operation is
maintained; this is also facilitated by geographic constraints.



Something Everywhere (e.g. automotive Original Equipment Manufacturer OEMs): this is theclassic incremental approach, in which systems are brought to market that are capable ofoperating on “any” road (of a certain type, at least) regardless of geographic area.

Another approach is advocated by some OEMs, which could be termed the something eventually
everywhere scenario. This includes sections of roadway being individually approved for automatedoperation by the OEM and/or public authorities based on availability of map information and potentiallyby modifications to the supporting infrastructure as required by public safety agencies and/ or the
automation system developers. This may entail the vehicle travelling the route first to collect map
information to support the on-board system.

8© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Box 1 shows an overview of the key factors for both vehicle sharing and vehicle use (of privately owned
vehicles) based on user survey.
Box 1. Overview of factors for vehicle sharing and vehicle use(privately owned vehicles)
Key factors for vehicle sharing (KiM, 2015):
 Political and administrative support from the municipality.
 Big fleet size and variety of vehicles and providers, often in combination with highly urbanised
development.
 Ease of use; this is increased by quick access to the shared vehicles via apps and automatic
payment of parking fees, among other things.
 Coordination and integration of the vehicle sharing to public transport.
 Marketing and profiling.
Key factors for vehicle use (Steg, 2005):
 Instrumental motives: may be defined as the convenience or inconvenience caused by car use,which is related to, among other things, its speed, flexibility and safety.
 Symbolic or social motives: people can express themselves and their social position by means of(the use of) their car, they can compare their (use of the) car with others and to social norms.
 Affective motives: refer to emotions evoked by driving a car, i.e., driving may affect people’smood and they may anticipate these feelings when making travel choices.

Overview of the range of service concepts
investigated
The concept of automated cars can be traced back to the 1939 World Fair in New York and the General
Motors (GM) “Futurama” exhibit, which amongst many other future visions included the concept of an
automated highway system. Since then this has been a firm element of a vision of the future in popular
culture. But given that this was then the anticipated progress within the next 25 years, i.e. to 1964,
actual developments in this field have somewhat lagged. Nevertheless, 1949 saw the first experimentswith a remote-controlled car in cooperation between GM and the Radio Corporation of America (RCA).
It was during the 1980s that real progress with vehicle automation was made, enabled by breakthroughdevelopments in computing, sensor and communication technologies. In 1986 a collaborative project
between Caltrans and UC Berkeley started the California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways(PATH) programme. This programme has carried out a wide range of transport research, including one of
the earliest vehicle automation projects. At the same time the EU-funded PROMETHEUS Project© OECD/ITF 20189

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167(Programme for European Traffic of the Highest Efficiency and Unprecedented Safety) developed andtested similar concepts and technologies in Europe.
Developments in this space accelerated in the new millennium with automation and platooning
demonstrations in the US and in Europe. A series of EU-funded projects (CyberCars, CyberMove,
NetMobil, and CityMobil) looking specifically at automated urban shared mobility started in 2001. The
DARPA Challenges in the US between 2004 and 2007 gave a further boost to R&D efforts, enhancing
public visibility.
It was with Google’s announcement in 2010 to test and develop an automated car (now Waymo), thatthe automated car achieved “hype-status”. Governments, cities, and companies around the world are
now competing for leadership in this field. While a large number of systems and technologies are being
tested and demonstrated, providing a wealth of data and information, it is still too early to tell which
specific solutions will eventually emerge.
Despite this uncertainty, it is essential for policy makers to be ready to positively influence thesedevelopments in the transition period to the automation of transport; the transition did not perhaps
start at the New York World Fair in 1939 but has begun now. The use of this technology to provide
shared mobility concepts in urban areas can be identified as a key trend based on on-going research
projects, demonstrations and studies.
A significant element here is the recent development in big data analytics coupled with smart-phone
apps. This concept also has the potential for providing more sustainable mobility and, by increasing
average vehicle occupancy rates, reduced numbers of vehicles on the road. This in turn could potentiallydecrease congestion and free up parking spaces for more appropriate use (ITF, 2015), at least to theextent that the space is not occupied by pent up demand for more road traffic.

Overview of existing systems and technologies
One of the first real world applications of Automated Vehicles (AVs) was the ParkShuttle in the Rivium
Business Park near Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Open to the public in 1999, this was a shared,
automated shuttle carrying passengers on a loop with a number of stops connecting offices to nearby
public transport interchanges. A similar system connecting the long-stay car park with the main terminalbuilding of Schiphol airport has been set up as a multi-year demonstration, which ceased operation after
the end of the trial period. Both systems, although segregated from other traffic on some parts of theroute, were able to operate safely with manually driven vehicles and pedestrians in controlled but mixed
environments. The Rivium system has been extended, with second generation vehicles, and is still
operational today. Similar kinds of shuttles are now being tested around the world (e.g. in Paris, Las
Vegas, Singapore) with about 10 different suppliers present in the market.
Most of these systems share similar parameters, including:10

Low speeds: operational speeds are often below 15 km/h, but higher speeds are possible
depending on segregation, as maximum levels of jerk for emergency braking needs to beadhered to for safety reasons.

Simple and controlled environments: to minimise interaction with other traffic, vehicles operate
e.g. in pedestrian zones, university campuses, etc..

Significant infrastructure: there are varying levels of separation from other traffic.

© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167Supervised operations: whilst it is not necessary to have operations staff inside the vehicle, astaffed remote operations centre is necessary.

In a transition period and while full automation is not yet fully proven and costs are high, introducing SAE
level 1-3 automation (i.e. still with a driver present) for public transport vehicles could be an interim
solution enabling enhanced performance, e.g. precision-docking at stations, operation at minimum
headways, or allowing narrower lanes, etc. at comparatively lower costs. Box 2 shows the set of vehicle
and service categories developed as part of the EU-funded CityMobil project that describe different
vehicle and service concepts (EC, 2012). As implementation of these systems progresses, categories
might be merged or replaced by new concepts, or prove to be less applicable.
Box 2. CityMobil vehicle and service concepts and respective definitions






Cybercars: fully automated road vehicles for individual or collective transportation of people andgoods, for specific areas with little or no interaction with other vehicles.
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT): small fully automatic vehicles operating on guide ways, segregatedfrom pedestrians and other traffic.
Advanced City Vehicles (ACV): integrating zero or ultra-low pollution propulsion and driverassistance systems, allowing integration into car-sharing services.
High-tech buses: buses on rubber wheels, operating like a tram on lanes with light infrastructureusing electronic guidance either fully automated or assistance functionalities.
Dual-Mode Vehicles (DMV): using conventional vehicles, supporting both fully automated andmanual driving. They represent a potential migration path from traditional cars to AVs.

Operational design domain restrictions and dependency on
infrastructure
Until true SAE level 5 vehicles are on the market, i.e. vehicles that can perform all driving tasks(everything) under all conditions in all settings (everywhere), vehicle manufacturers and fleet operators
will have to put certain Operational Design Domain (ODD) restrictions in place to mitigate system and/or
vehicle limitations. These ODD constraints include geography, road type, speed, and weather conditions;in addition system capability and maturity will also require a certain dependency on supporting
infrastructure for safe operation.
Restrictions will have to be formulated and enforced by policy makers and regulators, and conflict may
arise between realistically achievable ODDs and actual operational or commercial requirements. This isalso dependent on timescales, with government requiring time for developing type-approval regulations
and regulating new transport services that raise issues similar to Transportation Network Companies(TNC), such as Uber or Lyft.
The public perception of safety plays a key role in this context, conceivably causing a situation wheremore restrictive than necessary (as suggested by industry and research) constraints on system operation
are put in place, possibly creating excessive burdens on vehicle manufacturers and system operators.
There is evidence from some automated metros in cities around the world where either a “driver” is stillpresent despite automated operations or a decision to move towards automated operations wasreversed due to concern over public perception of safety.

© OECD/ITF 201811

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

In the case of shared mobility systems, there would then be concern over the economic viability of asystem with a large number of small automated shuttles retaining (for a certain period of time) a manual
operator, particularly as savings in personnel costs would be a key motivator for introducing such ascheme in the first place. The dominant challenge for the developers of the technology will then be todemonstrate convincingly that their technology has reached a level of maturity that it is capable ofoperating safely in a shared (unprotected) ODD without human operator supervision. This is a challengethat has yet to be met by any of the technology developers.
In addition to ODD considerations, specific requirements for accompanying infrastructure may occur:Charging infrastructure: if electric vehicles are used, a likely option for a number of reasons,then designing and providing the necessary charging infrastructure (offline, or online e.g. atstops or junctions), scheduling of charging of vehicles, and routing to charging stations needs tobe considered as part of the overall service planning.

Communication infrastructure: vehicle and system operation options will depend on provisionand level of connectedness using wireless technology (e.g., DSRC and eventually 5G). This isparticularly important with the emergence of both smart infrastructure with embedded
sensors and the Internet of things. With increasing importance of digital infrastructure there is
the need to ensure the robustness of system (data protection and privacy) and of data
coverage. A central control or supervisory system with reliable communication systems will beneeded for public transport fleets.

Other physical infrastructure: in the transition period, but possibly beyond, physicalinfrastructure might still be required; this includes varying levels of segregation between
automated vehicles and other traffic, while technology lacks the maturity to allow negotiating
highly complex environments. We might therefore see separate lanes, different types ofbarriers to limit access to parts of the network and special provisions for junctions; potential
negative effects on urban design including visual intrusion and the risk of community severance
need to be carefully considered.

Operating principles, vehicles, and user interfaces
The underlying operating principles for such a system will likely be based on both size and density ofurban areas; with the assumption that cities, rather than more rural areas, would be the appropriate
geographical setting for shared services. Long-distance services that connect urban centres may befeasible, but private companies will focus on highly dense urban areas, as the operation of vehicle fleets
will likely depend on investment into mapping.
The vehicles to be used are likely to have the following common characteristics:

12

Electric propulsion: The control mechanism and actuators involved in automated operation
make electric propulsion the likely option for AVs. The environmental performance of electricvehicles, with lower noise levels and no emissions at the point of operation, would further
suggest their use. Also, mandating EVs for specific vehicle fleets, e.g. public transport, is a
viable policy option to positively influence the transition period.

Light-weight vehicles: Traditionally the vehicles used in existing applications are relatively
flexible and light-weight vehicles from non-conventional vehicle manufacturers. An immediateconcern for a more wide-spread deployment of these types of vehicles would then be theirsafety performance. Addressing this might involve development of specific standards to ensure© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

the necessary road safety levels, particularly in mixed traffic with heavier and larger manuallyoperated vehicles.


Tailor-made vehicles: whilst potentially being based on a generic base or chassis, the vehicles
are likely to be required to be tailored to local characteristics in order to ensure success of thesystem. These include cultural and geographical characteristics, business model used,customers targeted (e.g. general public, tourists, elderly/disabled, etc.), as well as the site of
the systems (i.e. private or public). Specific care needs to be taken to make both the vehicles
and the system as a whole accessible to disabled, including mobility impaired, wheelchairusers, and the blind.

Care needs to be taken for the design of all internal and external user interfaces for:
Booking a service: a smart-phone, app-based platform needs to be in place, which can beunderstood and used by all passengers independent of individual characteristics, which mightotherwise prevent them from accessing mobility services. These may include: social
background, age, IT literacy, or having physical impairments. Alternative means of access will
also be needed for those without access to smart phones.



Accessing and using the vehicle: a system needs to be in place for users to be guided throughthe process, including finding the access point, recognising the booked vehicle, gaining access,and once on-board being reassured of the pre-booked destination, and being advised on theroute and any intermediate stops. In addition all back-office function for billing and multimodal ticketing need to be designed and implemented;

Interactions in mixed operation: AVs need to be able to communicate with other vehicles androad-users, including pedestrians and cyclists, in mixed-use environments. Use cases for thiscan include: negotiating narrow congested areas, giving way or asking others to give way andpreparation for turning, etc. Likely communication channels are displays or lights on theoutside of the vehicle and/or with targeted messages on users’ smart phones. This isparticularly important in the transition period when movements and behaviours of AVs are notyet intuitive to those around them.

Matching service concepts and operational
environments
Having discussed a broad range of service concepts, operational designs, domain restrictions,infrastructure dependency, operating principles, vehicles and user interfaces, the next step is to explore
how specific service concepts can be matched to specific operational environments, on a detailed local
level as well as across continents and cultures.
Further research and development work is required in the areas below as is real-world experience ofrolling out systems on a larger scale before we can confidently move forward;© OECD/ITF 201813

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167Specific technology development: sensor technology and specific software components(potentially including artificial intelligence) need to be further developed to ensure safety
under all environmental conditions and in complex urban settings, using connectivity for deeplearning. Further data also needs be gathered and shared openly during testing anddemonstration to engender a move towards a more data-driven and thus sufficiently flexible
regulatory regime;Relationship with existing multi-modal public transport: the emergence of new mobility
solutions using AVs might make it necessary to rethink the term “public transport”, as themulti-modal system and service offer will increasingly consist of both public and private
elements; “collective transit” could be a more appropriate term. It will become increasingly
necessary to incorporate this technology and new public transport investments need to include
a business case analysis that considers AVs. Many transit agencies assume that they will be
managing smaller, automated on-demand vehicles.

Transport/ urban planning and policy: the transition needs to be managed in such a way thatunintended consequences (e.g. increased traffic, modal shift to less green modes) can be
avoided. Much of the discussion centres on services in urban areas, but mobility provision inlower density and rural areas also needs to be investigated. It would be useful to focus on
specific transport problems to be solved, rather than using a purely technology-driven
approach. It is unclear at this point how AVs would fit into the mobility-as-a-service approach,offering multi-modal alternatives to car ownership or its relationship to road user charging
schemes aimed at nudges toward using greener modes. Furthermore, changes to travel
demand and effects on land use need to be considered.

Communication and public image: there is an assumption (although yet unproven) thatconnected and automated transport systems will increase traffic safety, but in public discourse
the expectation often appears to be that the introduction of this technology will not justdecrease accident rates, but completely avoid crashes; this would appear unrealistic and the
public as well as policy makers need to be made aware of this to ensure unrealistic
expectations do not hinder the implementation of a technology that should be an
improvement on the status quo. The media and the way it portrays these systems will play animportant role.

Urban planning and policy background
Different actors that may drive early uptake of these technologies can be identified. This includes:
industry (traditional car manufacturers, IT sector innovators, or partnerships of both) which pushes
specific products and services into the market, the public sector based on transport needs, and, perhaps
most importantly for the first highly visible implementation, individual champions with vision and apolitical agenda. In the past, demonstrations have been driven more by research, industrial
development, marketing needs and industrial policy, rather than in response to specific transport
purposes or needs.
AV technology could entirely take over urban mobility (in some environments), but the more likely
scenario is that it will contribute to the existing multi-modal transport systems, with a specificimportance for the first-mile/ last-mile feeder functions; thus improving the overall quality and comfort
of services. Moreover, different operational environments will require different solutions; some of thembetter suited to AVs, some less; e.g. dense cities might be more appropriate for high-capacity collective

14© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

modes but suburban areas might benefit from completely new transport options, as an alternative to theprivate car.
AVs can become enablers in redefining streets and achieving more liveable cities. Minimum parking
requirements are today the standard in many cities, there is a chance to modify this with shared mobility
modes. In the urban context, denser environments with payment-based management of parking spaces
can further incentivise uptake of rides sharing systems.
Potential negative effects of AV technology and shared mobility concepts need to be taken into account.
The promise of greatly reduced congestion might well be reversed, instead inducing traffic through lower
prices for mobility and a release of latent demand. Such effects are typical of investments in new or
upgraded road infrastructure, i.e. capacity increases tend to be short-lived, as travel behaviour changes
as a result of improved travel times, with people switching modes and routes, quickly leading to a returnof similar congestion levels with the overall increase in vehicle-km travelled.
Another key concern is that if AVs provide door-to-door services and enable other activities to be done
while travelling, this could lead to commuting time being considered useful rather than lost time, which
would have a strong influence on housing choices. It could lead to increased urban sprawl with AVs
allowing users to live further away from places of work, tolerating much longer (but more useable) travel
times.
Automation is thus likely to increase pressure on road space and the tendency for sprawl in the longterm will make effective congestion management through road pricing increasingly important.
Fortunately the same technology that facilitates automation also facilitates dynamic road pricing.
Automation also highlights the importance of governments redoubling efforts to integrate land use andtransport planning.

Geographical, societal cultural differences
The expert discourse on implementation of vehicle automation for shared urban mobility applications
often over-simplifies the situation, advocating a “one-size-fits-all” solution but a series of factors will
have a bearing on how such a system is to be designed in order to be accepted by the targeted users(Box 3).
It is important to note in this context that none of these points; particularly not the views, customs, andperceptions of the public, are fixed, but rather have to be seen as being dynamic, changing based on
various events and over time and generations/ cohorts. Also current trends need to be scrutinised inorder to avoid drawing the wrong conclusions by only looking at parts of the picture without a broader
view.
One example is the observation that millennials in dense urban areas are increasingly moving fromvehicle ownership to shared mobility schemes, potentially heralding the death of the privately ownedcar. But there is evidence that this cohort marries, settles down and has children considerably later thanprevious generation, and at that time there is then a move to car ownership; this additional information
points to very different conclusions. Focusing on urban millennials who work in the information-based
economy also ignores their counterparts in the vocational trades, the older generations and those wholive in low-density suburban and rural areas, whose attitudes toward vehicle ownership are much lesslikely to change substantially.

© OECD/ITF 201815

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Box 3. Geographical, societal, and cultural factors forautomated vehicle implementationSocial, societal, and demographic factors



Economic level and income distributions



Car ownership levels and car culture

Existing layout, size, and density of the urban form

Characteristics of the built environmentSpecific requirements for mega-cities

New cities, green-field and brown-field developmentsCurrent transport modal provision and share

Legal and regulatory frameworks in placeCultural aspects relating to e.g.;
o
o
o
o
o

IT and technology literacy
Perception of safety and trust
Driver behaviour
Environmental awareness
Views on privacy.

The above considerations all point to the need for designing and implementing tailor-made solutions
taking into account all local, wider regional, as well as national characteristics. Once the first systems
emerge, a case-study based analysis will be able to take this important discussion forward, ideally leading
to a best practice guides detailing the lessons learnt and helping to match specific solutions to specifictypes of local and wider challenges.

Industry sectors and business model options
There is a potential for shared AV services to drive new, efficient, high-quality urban development
patterns with low car and low carbon characteristics and a high quality of life (e.g. street space useable
for children, etc.). AVs can also be part of economic development, particularly in the context of property
development in urban areas, where e.g. in large urban areas in North America new high-end
developments now often feature an “Uber waiting room” for residents; beyond these trends there is also
the potential for integration of new housing into mobility-as-a-service memberships and with specificfacilities such shared vehicle parking areas, etc.
For AVs to be a part of the overall travel chains fare integration is required, i.e. as a prerequisite for lastmile solution, but also for door-to-door systems, which will not be the sole provider of mobility, but willcompete with other modes and providers, based on different pricing regimes, levels of service, and otherfactors. The following industry sector involvements and cooperation projects for testing anddemonstrating AV technology in this space are first examples to emerge.

16© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Box 4. Automated vehicle system examples


Google/ Waymo: full automation in specific geo-fenced areas, using very high definition inchprecision maps of the area the vehicles are expected to use, in addition to on-board systems,
some computation is performed on remote computer farms.



EasyMile: a low-speed urban shared-mobility shuttle currently being demonstrated in small
highly controlled environments with little interaction with other traffic, demonstrations arebeing carried out in Paris, and in sites in the Netherlands and North America.



nuTonomy: recently launched its highly automated taxi service as a pilot project in Singapore(still supervised by safety drivers), their vehicles use formal logic to decide their paths in termsof motion, manoeuvrability, and speed.



Uber and Volvo: Uber started testing the concept of driverless (although in the trial period adriver was still inside the vehicle at all times, to take over in case of unforeseen circumstances)
shared mobility service provision in the city of Pittsburgh.

Uber and Daimler: recently announced a strategic partnership, through which Daimler will
provide tailor-made vehicles to Uber to be eventually used as a highly automated ride-sharing(i.e. driverless) system.



Ford: recently announced plans to offer highly a fully automated (level 4) high-density, highvolume ride-hailing application in geo-fenced parts of urban areas area in some cities by 2021;
the operational design domain limitations for this system have not yet been determined.



Drive Me Project: large-scale pilot project in Level 4 automated driving backed by the Swedish
government where 100 self-driving Volvo cars will be driven on specific designated sections ofpublic roads in Gothenburg. The aim is to study the benefits to society of highly automateddriving.

© OECD/ITF 201817

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Government action will affect how
automated vehicles will impact society
There is substantial excitement about the potential of automated vehicles (AVs) and their impacts onsociety. Their promotion and media coverage has fed public hopes that AVs will improve road transport
and alleviate a series of stubborn problems. Governments share these hopes.
In setting out it’s pathway to AV implementation, the UK’s Department for Transport (DfT) set out thefollowing impacts of AVs (DfT, 2015):
They will make driving easier, allow people to be more productive and offer greater mobility to a wider
range of people than ever before. They will also help improve road safety, reduce emissions, and easecongestion. As a result they could provide significant economic, environmental and social benefits,
including improving social inclusion.
At the same time, there are risks. Making driving easier could increase demand for road transport andmake living further from city centres more attractive. This may result in AVs exacerbating congestion andurban sprawl.
Many of the expected impacts of AVs such as improving safety, reducing congestion, providing more
equitable access to mobility, congestion and urban sprawl accrue to society as a whole rather than thepeople who produce or use AVs and the services they provide. The result, in economic terms, isexternalities or public goods. Markets have a poor history of controlling negative externalities, sustaining
positive externalities and protecting public goods, as these are side effects of profit-maximising activities.
As a result, we cannot assume that markets alone will provide AVs in a fashion that has the impacts the
public and policy makers desire. Rather, regulations are likely to be necessary to ensure society cancapture the benefits of AVs (OECD, 2008: 6).
Assuming AVs will provide overall benefits to society, effective regulation provides a foundation that
benefits all AV stakeholders including developers and users. Effective regulation gives consumers
protection and confidence that they can purchase AVs and use the services they provide safely, even if
they have little knowledge about them. In turn, this provides a market for developers to sell into. Also,
effective regulation provides certainty, reducing developers’ investment risk and encouraging theinnovation necessary to make AVs a reality. Finally, effective regulation allows governments to influence
how people behave in order to capture benefits and avoid negative consequences to society.

Regulating highly automated vehicles
AV technology is still largely experimental (Cohen and Cavoli 2017: 6). AVs that can operate on a broad
range of public roads without a human driver are still years away (Isaac, 2016: 12-13; Shladover, 2017).
Ford intends to have high-volume, SAE level 4 automation capable vehicles in commercial operation by2021 (Ford, 2016). However, SAE level 4 vehicles are likely to be limited to a specific and narrow
operational design domain (ODD). They are unlikely to operate in automated mode beyond somecombination of; low speed, relatively small geographical area, less complex environments, segregatedlanes, specific weather and road conditions and times of day.
Under current circumstances, such vehicles are unlikely to be able to operate efficiently in the dense
urban environments where the opportunities for safe, more accessible and less congested transport that18

© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

AVs promise are most desired (Cohen and Cavoli, 2017). For that, technology that allows AVs to havewide ODDs would be necessary. Using the most optimistic estimates, we are still decades away from thattechnology (Isaac). Some estimates suggest that we will not see such AVs until around 2075, if ever
(Shladover, 2017).
Despite the uncertainty, several jurisdictions have moved quickly and taken significant steps towards
developing regulatory frameworks for AVs. Several factors seem to be incentivising policy makers tomove relatively quickly.
Improved road safety is, perhaps, the highest public policy priority for AV deployment. The US National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has estimated that the driver is the critical cause of 94 percent of crashes (NHTSA 2015). AVs would eliminate human drivers and, in turn, are hoped to eliminate
many of these crashes. Also, as computer processors have faster reaction times than human drivers, they
are hoped to avoid a series of collisions that human drivers cannot. In turn, AVs are expected tosignificantly reduce fatalities and injuries, improving road safety (Cohen and Cavoli, 2017).
There are also other incentives. Providing a favourable regulatory environment for AVs may attract
manufacturers and related businesses to particular locations, improving economic development in thatarea. Also, there may be political dividends from a jurisdiction being perceived to be at the forefront of
exciting new technologies.
Regardless of the incentives, as the examples below demonstrate, AV regulation has been heavily
influenced by the uncertainties surrounding the technology and its potential. Policy makers andregulators seem keen for the technology to succeed. In particular, they are aware of AVs’ potential safety
benefits. However, they do not know if, when or how AV technology will be deployed. Therefore,
regulators seem keen to ensure that their jurisdictions do not inhibit the development of AVs and havebeen motivated to move relatively swiftly to remove potential regulatory barriers. At the same time,policy makers seem concerned about the safety issues that may arise from having AV technology inpublic spaces.
While the uncertainty around AVs and when they will enter operation presents a challenge, it has also
provided opportunities to different jurisdictions to experiment and take different approaches. As aresult, there are already many examples of good AV regulatory practice. Across the ITF’s membership,different jurisdictions are at various stage of AV regulatory development.
Research and preparation
There are various ways policy makers and regulators can prepare for AVs. Some important preparatory
steps have included funding research, skilling staff in AV issues or, as in the case of the UK Department
for Transport’s Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, creating a specialist unit that can leadon AV issues across all of government.
Auditing existing motor vehicle regulatory frameworks has also proven useful in preparing for AV
introduction. Australia, Germany, the UK and US have all used this systematic approach. In particular, theUK Department for Transport (DfT) and the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
have focussed on identifying existing regulations that create barriers to the development of AVs andpotential amendments that would create greater certainty and encourage the AV take-up (DfT, 2015;
NHTSA, 2015; Volpe, 2016).
The Australian National Transport Commission’s (NTC’s) audit process has been held up as a particularly
good example of how to approach such audits (Maheshwary, 2016). Over 2016, the NTC worked with© OECD/ITF 201819

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Australian state and territory governments (who have central responsibility for vehicle regulation) andother stakeholders to comprehensively audit all Australian jurisdictions’ regulations affecting AVs.
The audit covered a wide range of issues including:Measures for testing AVs

Legal definitions:

What it means to “control” a vehicleWho is/ is not the “driver” of a vehicle.



Safety assurance

Vehicle design standards

Liability



Data.

The resulting reports (NTC 2016a-c) have identified current legislative barriers to the testing andoperation of AVs at SAE levels 4 and above and specified the reforms that are necessary to address them.
The final report goes further, setting timelines, specifying the reforms that are necessary in the short,medium and long term (NTC, 2016b).
The timelines recommended are based on current evidence as to when particular technologies are
expected to mature. Also, importantly, the report is cognisant that Australia will cease to produce
vehicles locally in the near future. As a result, it places a strong focus on harmonising AV regulation withinternational standards, especially those that are negotiated under the Convention on Road Traffic.
In 2016, Ministers adopted the final report (NTC, 2016a), and the NTC is working on the following tofurther develop a national framework for AV regulation:

Develop national guidelines to support automated vehicle trials.



Clarify who is in control of a vehicle with different levels of driving automation.



Develop a comprehensive performance-based safety assurance regime for increasingly
automated vehicles.

Remove regulatory barriers in Australian Road Rules and other transport laws that assume ahuman driver.

Non and quasi regulatory approaches
ITF’s Corporate Partnership Board (CPB) has previously advocated the avoidance of premature
regulation. It pointed to the substantial uncertainty around AV technology and what future innovations
may develop as a reason to be cautious and avoid regulation that may hinder future development. In
turn, the CPB recommended that jurisdictions engage in informal dialogue with AV developers to ensure
safe AV testing in their jurisdictions (CPB, 2015).
Several jurisdictions have adopted approaches consistent with these views. NHTSA’s Federal Automated
Vehicles Policy (NHTSA, 2016) is perhaps the best known quasi regulatory approach to dealing with AV
safety. The policy is not binding, but gives a detailed insight into how NHTSA may approach regulating AV
safety when regulations are made. It sets out fifteen areas in which it would assess the safety of AVs:

20

© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167Data recording and sharingPrivacySystem safetyVehicle cyber security

Human machine interfaceCrashworthiness

Consumer education and trainingRegistration and certificationPost-crash behaviour



Federal, state and local laws

Ethical considerations



Operational design domainObject and event detection and response

Fall back (minimal risk condition)

Validation methods.

NHTSA’s policy does not set specific standards. Rather, it focusses on the testing processes AV
developers would need to pursue and the evidence they would need to provide, effectively delegating
the safety case to AV developers. This approach has some similarities with existing type approval andself-certification approaches in the EU and US respectively. It has been recommended as one way to
overcome the uncertainty around how to define or demonstrate appropriate safety standards for AVs, byeducating regulators and the broader public about AVs’ capabilities and limitations (Walker-Smith, 2015).
It is also different from NHTSA’s approach for granting exemptions from vehicle safety standards, which
requires a developer to demonstrate that the exempted vehicle is at least equal to the overall safetylevel of non-exempt vehicles (NHTSA 2015). However, NHTSA has also recommended use and possibly
expansion of the existing exemption process for early implementation of limited numbers of highly
automated vehicles, before they have a more comprehensive regulatory process developed (NHTSA,
2016).
There are also examples of governments using informal discussions to enable AV testing. On 20 October
2016, Otto (an automated truck developer) made the first commercial AV delivery, shipping a productacross Colorado in the US as a one-time demonstration. Colorado’s laws and regulations do not expressly
authorise or prohibit the operation of AVs, as they do not address the scenario at all. While AVs are notspecifically regulated in Colorado, local authorities worked with Otto to develop a framework to ensure
the delivery took place safely (Savage, 2017).
This included Otto initially testing its AV off public roads, providing Colorado regulators with contingency
plans and off road test data, certifying the safety of the vehicle, demonstrating appropriate insurance
and successfully completing five successive test drives without human intervention (but with continuous
human monitoring and supervision). In addition, Colorado regulators inspected the vehicle andconducted a company safety audit of Otto. By working together, Colorado and Otto were able to© OECD/ITF 201821

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

successfully develop AV protocols that satisfied all stakeholders, but which remain flexible as AV
technology develops.
Reinterpreting existing regulatory frameworks
Regulatory reform can be slow, especially where it involves international coordination or agreement(such as if amendments to the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic or the 1968 Vienna Convention
on Road Traffic are perceived as necessary), or changes to national laws are needed. As a result, othermeasures may be necessary to avoid holding back AV testing. In many motor vehicle regulatory
frameworks, concepts such as the “driver” and “control” of a motor vehicle are central. While theseusually assume that a human driver will control the vehicle, sometimes this implication is not madeexpress. This creates room for expansive interpretations. For example, while it was originally designedwith a human in mind, the term “driver” could include multiple drivers or operating software (WalkerSmith, 2014).
The UK has taken a somewhat different policy approach that allows AV testing while working within
existing requirements for a human driver. For the time being, the operation of an AV should always
involve the presence of a human driver (who may be inside the vehicle or outside of it, i.e. a remotedriver) who is ready, able, and willing to intervene at any time.
As a result, DfT found that concerns about an operating system controlling a vehicle do not arise.
Therefore, the entire existing motor vehicle regulatory framework operates as it normally does (DfT,2015). This approach allows the testing of automated vehicle technologies, as it does not define theextent to which driver intervention is needed, though the UK recognises that regulatory reform may berequired to support the deployment and use of such technologies without the presence of a humandriver.
Another approach that makes use of existing regulatory frameworks has involved the use of exceptions,especially for vehicle design requirements, such as compulsory steering wheels and pedals. In Germany,
the federal government sets vehicle safety standards. However, state governments are empowered to
grant exemptions. These powers have been used to allow AV testing to occur in Germany, provided
there is a driver in the driver’s seat (DfT, 2015).
However, exemptions can have limitations. Often, they are not intended to allow indefinite noncompliance for a large number of vehicles and can take months or years to obtain (NHTSA 2016). For
example, NHTSA exemptions require developers to limit sales of exempted vehicles to 2 500 per annum(NHTSA 2015). As a result, this mechanism will only have limited use as the number of vehicles which do
not comply with existing regulations grows.

Legislation and regulation
Since 2011, some jurisdictions have been updating their motor vehicle regulatory frameworks to deal
with AVs. Several US states, France and Germany have all enacted legislation specific to AVs. At theinternational level, amendments have been made to the Convention on Road Traffic, with further
amendments currently under discussion.
While there are differences in regulatory frameworks, many of those enacted to date have similarelements, including:

22Definition of what constitutes an AV and automated driving.

© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Requirement for AVs to abide by all existing road rules at all times.



Developer responsibility for what occurs while the vehicle is in automated mode.

Express legalisation of testing AVs on public roads, subject to conditions, such as:o Obtaining a permit to test an AV on public roadso Requirement for a human driver to be present to take over manual operation at any timeo Minimum insurance requirementso Obtaining further approval before commercial deployment.

Existing approaches will not be appropriate for long
The cautious approach many regulators have taken to date is prudent, given the current uncertainty. It
provides a space in which to test AV technology and gather real world data and evidence. Regulators will
be able to use this data and evidence for future policy making. However, there are also limits to thisapproach. As the technology approaches deployment, issues that a cautious approach leaves
unanswered will need to be dealt with. There are at least two issues that will need to be addressed in thenear future:How safe must an AV be to obtain commercial deployment approval?

Current regulatory frameworks can only stretch so far.

How safe is safe enough?
Perhaps the most important issue that must be dealt with relates to how safe must an AV be before
regulators will allow it to be commercially deployed. Many jurisdictions’ AV regulatory frameworks are
unprepared to deal with this issue. At present, Florida is the only jurisdiction that has AV legislation
which permits commercial deployment without a specific permit. All other jurisdictions with AV-specificlegislation either limit AVs to testing or require a specific permit for deployment. However, many have
not yet developed the requirements for that permit. California is the jurisdiction closest to settling
requirements for AV deployment. It is currently consulting on the second draft of its requirements for apermit to commercially deploy AVs. That draft effectively adopts the safety assessment approach in
NHTSA’s AV policy, delegating the safety case.
In regimes designed for human driven vehicles, mechanisms that allow exemptions from motor vehicle
standards may be called upon to provide a path to AV deployment. For example, NHTSA can exempt alimited number of vehicles from US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, provided a vehicle is safer
overall than a vehicle which complies with the standards. Arguably, there are advantages to using thisstandard for AVs. AV developers would have a target for the level of safety they need to meet, providing
greater clarity than they currently have. Also, the overall nature of such a standard might be flexible,
allowing AV deployment using a broad range of technologies and approaches, so long as they improveroad safety.
While the flexibility in NHTSA's exemption processes and California's draft legislation has advantages, it
can also create uncertainty. By having an overall standard or delegating the safety case, these regulatory
approaches effectively leave the safety decision at the discretion of the relevant official, and theirsubjective judgement. In turn, they continue uncertainty around how safe will AVs need to be before© OECD/ITF 201823

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

they are allowed to be commercially deployed. Determining how safe an AV must be to obtain approvalfor deployment is challenged by both public perception and technical issues.
Unrealistic expectations may hinder AV deployment
Existing public perceptions and hype relating to AVs can raise desires for safety standards that are
impractical. Most jurisdictions require AVs to comply with all road rules at all times. Further, substantial
attention has been given to the fact that the driver is the cause of more than 90 per cent of collisions(NHTSA, 2015; Cohen and Cavoli, 2017). A lot of attention has been given to NHTSA’s findings in thecontext of AV deployment. As AVs would eliminate human drivers, they are hoped to eliminate all ofthese collisions.
Also, as computer processors have faster reaction times than human drivers, they are hoped to stop or
avoid a series of collisions that human drivers cannot, even where the other party is at fault. Further,
there is evidence that the community is unlikely to be particularly forgiving of AV malfunctions. Together,
these factors would place relatively high expectations on the level of safety AVs will be able to provide.
They would need to comply with all road rules at all times and avoid as many collisions as possible,
regardless of which party is at fault.
Improving road safety is a central public policy goal for AV deployment and safety standards should behigh. However, using these expectations as a basis for the safety standards AVs will need to meet prior to
obtaining a deployment permit could have negative consequences. AVs may avoid many errors humandrivers make and may have faster reaction times than human drivers, however, avoiding almost all
collisions seems unrealistic. Further, complying with all road rules and being able to stop and avoid
collisions where others are at fault is likely to require almost constant stopping or very low speed.
As a result, regulatory safety standards set to meet high public expectations may delay or prevent AV
deployment. Alternatively, as the CityMobil2 experiment demonstrated, requiring AVs to meet such highsafety standards may severely limit the geographical range and speed of their ODDs and require almost
constant stopping. In turn, AVs may prove unpopular with consumers as meeting safety requirements
makes them deliver a driving experience that is disadvantageous compared to human driving.
This dilemma is an unavoidable outcome of the current immaturity of the AV technology. The technology
needs to be improved to achieve the capability of providing a useful transportation service without
degrading traffic safety. Attempts to short-circuit the regulatory process to promote early
implementation of systems that are not yet mature will produce adverse safety events, which are in turnlikely to produce a public backlash that will delay the eventual widespread implementation of AV
technology.
The public perception issues discussed above highlight how regulators, and industry need to better
integrate their work. In particular, there would be benefits from more integrated work to raise publicawareness of realistic capabilities and limitations that can be expected from AVs. It would be unfortunate
if AVs that could improve road safety are unable to be deployed because they cannot meet an evenhigher standard or cannot do so without making the driving experience undesirable. Instead it isdesirable to set public expectations more realistically, through education about AV capabilities and theimpacts of requiring them to meet particular safety standards, especially on the driving experience.
Equally, regulators could put greater effort into increasing the standard for human drivers. At present,
there are high levels of non-compliance with road rules among human drivers. Increasing enforcement,such as through greater implementation of electronic enforcement mechanisms, would change the24© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

driving experience for human drivers in a way that may make AV driving more competitive (WalkerSmith, 2015).
An absence of testing mechanisms makes deployment approval harder
At the technical level, there are challenges developing tests to demonstrate AV safety. For various
products, but especially motor vehicles, the product must be subjected to and pass tests that objectively
demonstrate the product's compliance with relevant safety standards. At this point, there are no
methods to develop such tests for AVs and their components. However, AV sensors continue to havesignificant limitations, and there is no way to prove the safety of the software that interprets the sensor
data and makes decisions about driving behaviour. Both of these issues point to the likelihood that the
AVs will cause new crashes of their own, the frequency of which cannot be predicted with any certainty.
Much of the objective evidence presented currently about AV safety appears to be at the higher level. It
relates to how often a human driver testing an AV intervenes in the driving task or how many miles AVs
have travelled without a fatal collision. However, these are not necessarily good indicators of safety.
Testers have varying tolerances for intervention and the data on distance travelled safely is notparticularly deep.
As discussed above, current regulatory regimes leave decisions about AV deployment to officials, whohold broad discretions. Given likely negative public responses to AV collisions, it seems unlikely that
officials would be willing to approve AV deployment in the absence of better, objective evidence about
safety. Arguably, there is room for more information sharing and research to better develop the ways inwhich AV safety can be tested and demonstrated.
Current regulatory frameworks can only stretch so far
To date, AV regulatory frameworks largely rely on a hybrid approach (Walker-Smith 2016) that effectively
stretches existing motor vehicle regulatory frameworks to apply to AVs. For example, the term “driver”
might be amended to include operating software or an AV developer. There are several advantages tothis approach. It is consistent with industry views that prefer adapting existing frameworks over creating
new frameworks that may lock in a standard that is too high or too low (CPB, 2015).
It is a relatively easy mechanism by which to ensure that AVs conform to the same norms as humandriven vehicles that currently dominate on the road, especially in relation to road rules. It also reflects
the history of transport regulation. When automobiles first appeared on public roads, they were required
to comply with norms applying to the then dominant transport mode – horses.
While a hybrid has advantages, it also presents challenges. Stretching existing frameworks can be a
relatively blunt mechanism with unintended consequences. Existing road rules have been drafted for ahuman driver, with human capacities that responds to human incentives. Applying these to operating
software may require the application of concepts and mechanisms that are not appropriate. For
example, just as two miles per hour speed limits were not appropriate for automobiles, safe following
distances based on human reaction times may be too conservative for AVs.
Motor vehicle legislation also often uses criminal law as the mechanism to ensure compliance with roadrules. For minor offences, this often involves relatively small fines, while more serious offences require
proof of intent and penalties include imprisonment. Arguably, these mechanisms are not well adapted toAVs, where compliance with road rules is likely to be a function of how the AVs software and hardware
are operating and liability is likely to fall on a corporation. There is also no clear analogy to the process of© OECD/ITF 201825

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

licensing drivers and the process for determining which party is at fault for a crash when the driving
decisions are being made by proprietary computer software that is only understood by its developer.
Importantly, stretching existing frameworks does not change the detailed requirements that present
barriers to AV development and deployment. For example, the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic wasrecently amended to deem vehicle systems which influence the way vehicles are driven to be inconformity with requirements for all vehicles to have a driver (UNECE, 2014 and 2016). However, thedetailed regulations made under the convention remain un-amended. These include barriers to AVs
including requirements that vehicles be designed to allow a driver to override an advanced driverassistance steering system and a limiting it to 12 kilometres per hour (Lutz, 2016).
For the time being, the hybrid approach many jurisdictions have used has been sufficient to create aspace for AV testing. This may continue for a period at the commencement of AV deployment, perhaps
even until AVs reach a critical proportion of all motor vehicles. Up until that point, it is appropriate thatAVs comply with the norms of human driven vehicles. This was the approach taken as cars graduallyreplaced horses.
During this period, the difficulties arising from a hybrid approach may not be widespread. However,using a hybrid approach to regulate AVs seems unsustainable. As AVs enter deployment, policy makers
and regulators will need to revisit motor vehicle regulatory frameworks and either fully adapt existing
frameworks or develop a single regulatory framework that applies well to both AVs and vehicles withhuman drivers or a separate regulatory framework for AVs. In particular, it seems likely that road rules
will need to change to reflect the capabilities of AVs and compliance mechanisms will need to shift froman ex-post criminal enforcement approach to an ex-ante product safety approach.

Regulating the impacts ofautomated vehicle technology

The current regulatory focus is on Automated Vehicle (AV) technology, rather than the broader impacts
AVs may have on transportation. In 2015, the ITF’s Corporate Partnership Board (CPB, 2015: 6) found it“could not find evidence of anticipatory regulatory action addressing the potential use cases that could
result from large-scale deployment of highly autonomous vehicles, such as the provision of quasi-public
transport or taxi-like operations.”
This largely remains the situation today. Even the most recent AV legislation in the US State of Michigan
provides little guidance in relation to the adoption path or use cases for AVs or how to approach theirimpacts. The only measure addressing impacts is a provision that allows AV developers to operate theirvehicle to provide ride sourcing services (SoM, 2016).
Traditionally, policy makers have taken a gradualist approach to regulation in the road transport sector,
regulating or taking other action in response to a development that is perceived to necessitate it. But, as
deployment of AVs approaches, there are arguments for a more proactive approach with a broader
focus. Beyond regulating the technology itself, some argue that government should seek to anticipate
26© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

the impacts of AVs and develop plans to ensure that society is appropriately prepared (Cohen and Cavoli,
2017; 19). There is a range of areas in which AVs could impact society. This final section focuses on theimpacts and mobility policy implications that arise from different AV use scenarios.
As with AV technology, uncertainty surrounds the potential impacts of AVs and the evidence is mixed.
However, academic literature has provided some insight into likely scenarios relating to the impacts ofAVs. Two different, likely scenarios emerge (Cohen and Cavoli, 2017; 9-12; Isaac, 2016; 7-12). Bothscenarios agree that AVs are likely to bring substantial road safety benefits, could allow those who
cannot drive (the un-licenced, children, the elderly and people with certain disabilities) to use a car
without needing a driver and might reduce the time and financial costs of vehicle transport by removing
human drivers. Beyond this the two scenarios differ markedly on what the impacts of AV introduction
will be.
The first scenario involves AVs giving rise to shared mobility and collective efficiency. This scenario
focusses on AVs providing mobility as a service. Shared use AVs would substantially reduce levels of
individual vehicle ownership. These AVs could provide last-mile services that integrate into, andpotentially complement, existing mass transit systems. Alternatively, the price reductions AVs create may
favour door-to-door services, competing with bus services and, potentially, mass rail transit. Smartphone
technology would provide the mechanism to access the vehicles and data analytics would allow service
providers to maximise routing efficiency and convenience.
Services could be provided by ride-sourcing companies like Uber and Lyft or public authorities. Because
ride sharing may be encouraged in this scenario, it could lead to better efficiency of the road network by
reducing the number of vehicles, optimising public transport (thanks to automated public transport) andfreight movement and freeing parking space (Cohen and Cavoli, 2017; 11). A shared mobility (i.e. ridesharing) model would need fewer vehicles to satisfy existing road transport demand, creating
opportunities to reduce congestion and emissions and reclaim road space for other purposes.

Some recent evidence is providing hope that consumer preferences are starting to change in a fashionthat would allow a shared mobility scenario to develop organically. Improvements in IT platforms and the
spread of smartphones have enabled substantial quality and efficiency improvements for shared mobility
services, especially ride sourcing. These, combined with regulatory changes, have lowered the cost ofthese services for many consumers. For some consumers, shared mobility services can now provide on
demand, reliable transport at a price that is a competitive substitute for individual vehicle ownership.
Further, there is some evidence that ride sourcing customers more frequently travel with companions(Rayle et al., 2014), replacing the need for individual vehicle ownership and increasing vehicle occupancy.
Also, Uber has stated that approximately 20% of its trips worldwide are taken using its shared ridesourcing service, UberPool.
The introduction of AVs is hoped to provide a catalyst for the expansion of shared mobility and especiallyshared ride sourcing services. Ford’s plan is to deliver AVs for ride-sourcing service rather than for
individual ownership, at least initially. As AVs remove drivers and the costs associated with them, AVs
have the potential to make ride sourcing (including shared ride sourcing) cheaper. At least one study
predicts that, at entry into operation, the per mile cost of ride sourcing using an AV would be less thanthe per mile cost of owning an AV (Johnson and Walker, 2016).
If the above evidence signifies the beginning of a shift in consumer preferences, a shared mobility
scenario may well arise organically. This would reduce the need for governments to take action to© OECD/ITF 201827

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

promote such a scenario. Also, as consumer preferences would have shifted in favour of shared mobility,
any necessary regulatory changes would likely be less controversial than they are at present.
Equally, however, a shared mobility scenario may not arise organically. There may be a business as usual
scenario. It focusses on the continuation of individual mobility, with or without private vehicle
ownership. The vast majority of manually driven vehicles would eventually be replaced by AVs that are
owned and operated in much the same manner as human driven vehicles are today. At best, car use
would remain stable. But the lower costs and increased accessibility that AVs bring also create potential
for increased demand for vehicle use. Similarly, there is the potential for “zero passenger trips” such as
an AV circling rather than finding parking or someone using their private AV to return an item borrowed
from a friend. All of these factors would increase vehicle kilometres travelled, taking up the additionalroad capacity AVs might provide, exacerbating congestion and emissions. They would also likely make iteasier to travel further, increasing the potential for further urban sprawl.
As with the shared mobility scenario, there is evidence to support the likelihood of a business as usual
scenario. One study in San Francisco (Rayle et al., 2014), a relatively mature ride sourcing market, raises
questions about the extent of changing consumer preferences and raises questions about ride sourcing
being used as a last mile service. It found that, like other shared mobility customers (Shaheen et al.,2014; Dill et al., 2014), ride sourcing customers are a relatively narrow group. On average, they tend to
be more urban, wealthier, have higher education levels and own fewer vehicles than the average
consumer. This raises questions about whether shared mobility is really able to expand to become amainstream or dominant approach to mobility.
Also, a shared mobility scenario relies heavily on private ride sourcing and ride splitting services. To be a
viable substitute, these services would need to generate a reasonable return to investors at prices thatare cheaper than the generalised cost of private vehicle ownership. For at least some consumers, thatwould require ride sourcing/splitting prices that are lower than they are today. However, a number ofride sourcing/splitting service providers subsidise fares and/or are yet to provide a return to investors(Bogage, 2016). This raises questions about the sustainability of existing ride sourcing prices, let alone
the ability to reduce them further. It also raises concerns about the validity of predictions relating AV ridesourcing prices to current prices. In turn, it is not clear what the price of AV ride sourcing will be andwhether it will be competitive with private AV ownership.
Finally, while we cannot predict the purchase price for AVs, AV developers would want to maximize theirinvestment returns. As a result, they would have an incentive to grow markets. Arguably, this favours alow margin high turnover model that utilizes economies of scale to spread research and development
costs across as many units as possible. Such an approach is more likely to promote a business as usual
scenario.
Most commentators expect the ultimate outcome to lie somewhere between each of these scenarios.
They consider that different scenarios will evolve, depending on differing transport needs in different
contexts and how suitable shared or individual mobility is to the relevant context. For example, a sharedmobility scenario seems more likely to arise organically in dense urban areas, where individual vehicle
ownership may already be low and public transport options are already of a high standard. Alternatively,
they consider that a business as usual scenario may exacerbate issues such as congestion to a point
where there is a transition to a shared mobility scenario at a relatively late stage of AV development(KiM, 2017).
However, they also consider a shared mobility scenario is likely to occur in a more limited number ofplaces in the absence of government intervention (Isaac 2016, p. 9). As a result, they also expect that
where exactly the future lies will turn, in part, on the effectiveness of regulation and other government
28© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

interventions that influence the adoption path for AVs (Cavoli et al 2017, p. 102). In turn, there havebeen calls for government to start taking preparatory action to avoid the negative consequences of abusiness as usual scenario (CPB, 2015; 7).
There are numerous regulatory options available to governments that wish to avoid the negative
consequences of a business as usual scenario and capture the benefits of a shared mobility scenario. Key
measures include (Isaac, 2016; 30-31):
Charging for the use of road space per mile, on the basis of the marginal costTaxing vehicle travel

Levies for road travel in and around areas of congestion (charges can vary by time of day,congestion levels and/or vehicle occupancy)Limiting public parking and/or charging for it at a commercial rate (that can vary by time of day)Limiting the number of vehicle registration permits and allocating them by auctionReallocating parking space as pick up and drop off zones.

These measures target the price of individual mobility, aiming to internalise the cost of road transport.
By requiring road users to pay the full costs of their road use, such as the costs of maintaining
infrastructure or congestion, these measures would provide incentives for all road users to ration theirroad use more efficiently. Shared mobility services (especially multi-modal, shared and last-mile services)would be more competitive under these regulatory options. Shared mobility users could flexibly shift
between modes, split the increased costs with other users and avoid parking facilities. As a result, underthese regulatory options, shared mobility services prices would likely increase by less than individual
mobility prices. In turn, they would be more competitive with individual mobility.
Many of these options have been available to government for a number of years and none arecontingent upon AV deployment. For example, Singapore has had road pricing since 1998, London’scongestion charge commenced in 2003 and Stockholm’s congestion tax commenced in 2007. Where
these options have been implemented, they have had positive impacts on congestion, provided funding
for mass transit improvements and incentivised changes in consumer preferences to other, more
efficient modes of transport. However, they have also increased road transport costs to consumers,
reduced the value of consumers’ sunk investments in private vehicles and can be criticised for restricting
freedom of movement and being inequitable to consumers who have poor access to other transportmodes. As a result these are significant reforms that tend to be controversial and take substantial time to
implement. For example, a congestion charge for London was first proposed in 1963, 40 years before it
was implemented. They would also be more likely to obtain public acceptance in response to an existing
problem, rather than in anticipation of problems that might arise in the future. As a result, while they aretheoretically economically elegant and an increasing number of jurisdictions are adopting them,
implementing measures that seek to internalise the costs of transport will face substantial challenges inmany jurisdictions where travellers are accustomed to widespread personal vehicle use, especially inadvance of AV deployment.
Given the challenges in some jurisdictions, they may wish to consider actively encouraging a shift inconsumer preferences towards shared mobility more than discouraging private personal vehicle usage
with punitive measures (relying more on “carrots” than on “sticks”). Governments can use regulatory
and policy measures to remove barriers and facilitate the expansion of shared mobility services,
effectively lowering their price and making them more competitive with individual mobility.

© OECD/ITF 201829

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Last-mile shared mobility services can be facilitated through better integration of fares and information
across transport modes. Transit authorities can move away from closed loop payment systems that
require a specific card/ticket that they administer, to open loop payment systems that link to users’ bankcards or mobile payment systems. Alternatively, they can integrate closed loop payment systems withother shared mobility services. For example, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) has integrated fareswith IGO, a car sharing service. Consumers can use the same fare card to use CTA’s mass transit services
and IGO’s car sharing service. Similarly, apps such as Nimbler can provide consumers with directions that
integrate different modes of shared mobility, such as bike and mass transit. Practices such as these makeusing shared mobility services easier and, in turn, more competitive with individual mobility. Ideally, theywould be expanded to allow consumers to plan multi-modal shared mobility trips, using real-time
information and a single payment.
Equally, governments can remove existing barriers to shared mobility services. For example, California’s
Public Utilities Code prevents fares being levied on an individual basis, requiring them to be levied on thebasis of vehicle mileage or time of use (CPUC §5401). Charging on an individual basis effectively prohibits
ride splitting services, such as UberPool and Lyftline. The California State Legislature is currently
amending legislation to remove this barrier.
All of the measures above can and, arguably, should be implemented prior to AV deployment. Doing sowould assist to shift consumers’ preferences towards shared mobility before AV deployment further
reduces the cost of individual mobility. In turn, this may make it easier for governments to implement
more ambitious reforms, allowing them to capture the benefits of a shared mobility scenario andprevent the negative consequences of a business as usual scenario from arising, rather than requiring
regulators to attempt to reverse them after the fact.

30© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

Conclusion
The potential for automated vehicles (AVs) to improve road safety and mobility while reducing
congestion has generated substantial excitement. However, most experts agree that society’s ability tocapture these benefits and minimize negative impacts depends on the presence of effective regulatory
frameworks. At present, it is difficult to develop the necessary regulatory frameworks as AV technology islargely experimental (Cohen and Cavoli, 2017), creating uncertainty about how AVs will operate, howconsumers will use them and how they will affect society.
In such uncertain circumstances, the current lack of a rush to regulatory action is appropriate. In the next
two years, some small scale commercial operations are likely (ITF, 2017). However, a transition to massuse of AVs that are able to operate on a broad range of public roads will take decades (Isaac, 2016;
Shladover, 2017). In the meantime, current vehicle safety regulations can be stretched adequately (albeit
imperfectly) to accommodate the early commercial deployment of AVs. In turn, regulators will be able touse real world evidence (rather than speculation) to take action at a later stage to ensure that AVs are
deployed safely.
Stretching existing regulatory frameworks will not be sufficient in the long term. Once AVs reach a critical
proportion of all motor vehicles, regulatory frameworks that reflect the capabilities of AVs and thenature of the industry will be necessary. In particular, it seems likely that road rules will need to change
and compliance mechanisms related to them will need to shift from an ex-post criminal enforcement
approach to an ex-ante product safety approach. In the meantime, the research and non-regulatory or
quasi-regulatory approaches some ITF members have adopted provide useful examples of short term
good practice in relation to AV safety.
While road safety is a key concern for AV deployment, there is increasing evidence that regulators needto start preparing for the broader impacts of AVs on society. Many of the potential benefits from theintroduction of AVs are dependent on mass use of shared mobility services. Experts consider, in theabsence of regulatory interventions, this scenario is likely to be limited to dense urban areas, whereindividual vehicle ownership may already be low and high quality public transport is already available.
Outside those areas, the lower costs and better accessibility that AVs should bring can be expected todrive increased demand for vehicle use. This rebound effect is likely to absorb any road capacity initially
freed up by replacing the use of conventional vehicles, potentially exacerbating congestion andemissions. Increased urban sprawl as a result of the large scale use of AVs is also a concern.
The problems associated with un-priced use of infrastructure (such as congestion) exist regardless of thepresence of AVs and there are numerous regulatory options available to deal with them. These measures(such as congestion charging) target the price of individual mobility, aiming to internalise the cost of roadtransport. In turn, these regulatory options make shared mobility services more competitive withindividual mobility, regardless of when they are implemented. Arguably, these measures should be
implemented now, to assist in shifting consumer preferences towards shared mobility and improveexisting transport problems, before AVs make individual mobility even cheaper. In turn, societies may
capture the benefits that AVs offer and mitigate their negative impacts before they arise. Otherwise,
regulators will need to attempt to remedy problems after they have arisen.

© OECD/ITF 201831

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

References
Bogage, J. (2016), Uber’s controversial strategy to finally defeat Lyft, Washington Post.
Cavoli, C. et al, (2017) Social and behavioural questions associated with automated vehicles: a literature
review, London: Department for Transport (DfT).
Cohen, T. & Cavoli, C. (2017), Automation of the driving task: some possible consequences andgovernance challenges, International Transport Forum, Paris.
Corporate Partnership Board (CPB) (2015), Automated and autonomous driving: regulation under
uncertainty, International Transport Forum, Paris.
Department for Transport (DfT) (2015), The pathway to driverless cars; a detailed review of regulations
for automated vehicle technologies, Department for Transport, London.
Dill, J. Mathez, A. Nathan, M. and Howland, S. (2014), Who uses peer-to-peer carsharing? An early
exploration. 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (p. 20). Washington D.C.:
Transportation Research Board.
EC (2012), D2.3.2 Strategic Modelling Results - Summary of results across four cities, CityMobil Project,
European Commission, Brussels.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) (2016), Ford targets fully autonomous vehicle for ride sharing in 2021;
Invests in new tech companies, doubles Silicon Valley team,https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2016/08/16/ford-targets-fullyautonomous-vehicle-for-ride-sharing-in-2021.html (accessed 2 March 2017).
Isaac, L. (2016), Driving towards driverless: a guide for government agencies, Parsons Brinkerhoff, NewYork .
ITF (2015), Urban Mobility System Upgrade - How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic,
International Transport Forum, Paris.
Johnson, C. and Walker, J. (2016), Peak car ownership: the market opportunity of electric automatedmobility services, Rocky Mountain Institute, www.rmi.org/peak_car_ownership (accessed 3 March2017).
KiM (2015), Driver at the Wheel, Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis.
https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/documenten/2015/10/14/driver-at-the-wheel
KiM (2017), Paths to a self-driving future, Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis.
https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/documenten/2017/03/27/paths-to-a-self-driving-future
Lutz, L (2016), Automated vehicles in the EU: proposals to amend the type approval framework andregulation of driver conduct, http://media.genre.com/documents/cmint16-1-en.pdf (accessed 3
March 2017).
Maheshwary, A. (2016), Driverless vehicles: the leading nations for testing without a human driverwww.driverlesstransportation.com/driverless-vehicles-best-nations-testing-without-human-driver13386 (accessed 2 March 2017).

32© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (2015), Critical reasons for crashed investigatedin the national motor vehicle crash causation survey, US Department of Transportation, Washington.
National Transport Council (NTC) (2016a), A roadmap of reform for automated vehicle regulation,
Melbourne www.ntc.gov.au/about-ntc/news/media-releases/a-roadmap-of-reform-for-automatedvehicle-regulation/ (accessed 3 March 2017).
NTC (2016b), Regulatory barriers for automated vehicles: discussion paper, Melbourne.
NTC (2016c), Regulatory options for automated vehicles: discussion paper, Melbourne.
NTC (2016d), Regulatory options for automated vehicles: Annex – NTC analysis of legislation in Australia,
Melbourne.
NTC 2017, Preparing for more automated road and rail vehicles,
www.ntc.gov.au/current-projects/preparing-for-more-automated-road-and-rail-vehicles/ (accessed 3
March 2017).
Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KiM) (2017), Paths to a self-driving future, The Hauge,
Ministry of Infrastructure and Enviroment
https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/reports/2017/03/27/paths-to-a-self-driving-future (accessed
17 May 2017).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008), Introductory handbook forundertaking regulatory impact analysis, Paris.
Rayle, L. Shaheen, S. Chan, N. Dai, D. and Cervero, R. (2014), App-based, on demand ride services:comparing taxi and ridesourcing trips and use characteristics in San Franscisco.
SAE (2017), SAE International’s new standard J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to OnRoad Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems, Washington D.C..
Savage, M. (2017), Test of autonomous commercial vehicle in Colorado (presentation).
Shaheen, S. Cohen, A. and Zohdy, I. (2016), Shared mobility: current practices and guiding principles, US
Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC.
Shaheen, S. Martin, E. Chan, N. Cohen, A. and Pogodzinski, M. (2014), Public bikesharing in north america
during a period of rapid expansion: understanding business models, industry trends and user impacts,
Mineta Transportation Institute.
Shladover S. (2017), Potential implications of road vehicle automation for managed lanes (presentation),Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Session 181, Washington DC .
Shladover, S. and Bishop, R. (2012), Road Transport Automation as a Public-Private Enterprise, EU-US
Symposium on Automated Vehicles, White Paper I.
State of California, Public Utilities Code, Sacramento.
State of Michigan (SoM) (2016), Enrolled Senate Bill No. 995.
Steg, L. (2005), Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2–3 SPEC. ISS.).
TRB 2017, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 188: Shared Mobility and theTransformation of Public Transit, Washington D.C..

© OECD/ITF 201833

Cooperative Mobility Systems and Automated Driving | Summary and Conclusions | ITF Roundtable 167

UNECE (2016), UNECE paves the way for automated driving by updating UN international convention,
http://www.unece.org/info/media/presscurrent-press-h/transport/2016/unece-paves-the-way-forautomated-driving-by-updating-un-international-convention/doc.html (accessed 3 March 2017).
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) (2014), Report of sixty-eighth session of theworking part on road traffic safety, Geneva.
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe), (2016). Review of federal motor vehicle safety
standards for automated vehicles, Washington DC: US Department of Transport,
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/174164.aspx
Walker-Smith, B. (2014), Automated vehicles are probably legal in the United States, 1 Tex. A & M L. Rev.
411.
Walker-Smith, B. (2015), “Regulation and the risk of inaction” in Autonomes Fahren: technische,rechtliche und gesellschaftliche aspekte, Springer link.
Walker-Smith, B. (2016), How governments can promote automated driving, New Mexico law review.

34© OECD/ITF 2018

Cooperative Mobility Systems
and Automated Driving

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
T +33 (0)1 45 24 97 10
F +33 (0)1 45 24 13 22
Email: contact@itf-oecd.org
Web: www.itf-oecd.org

2018-167/Photo credit: Karsten Neglia /Shutterstock.com

Automated vehicles could make roads safer as well as reduce
congestion. Whether society will be able to capture these benefits
while minimising negative impacts depends on effective regulationof self-driving vehicles. The technology is still largely experimental
and mass use is likely to take decades. Today’s regulatory frameworks
can stretch to accommodate early deployment, but they will not be
sufficient in the long term. This report reviews the range of existing
service concepts for automated driving systems and technologies,
the operational environments they require and assesses the need forregulatory action.