California Automated Vehicle Policy

This issue paper highlights a top-ten list of options to align AV policy with California’s priorities for sustainable and equitable transportation. The list is not ordered or ranked from best to worst.

Next steps for researchers and policymakers will be to refine policy mechanisms, identify challenges that require urgent or ongoing action, and estimate outcomes that these policies might affect. 

"Top Ten" Policy Concepts for California Automated Vehicle Policy Consideration (not ranked) 

• Encourage shared AV service to connect under-served Californians to public transit. New grant and public transportation finance opportunities can both support shared AV service that complements transit and allow more flexibility in the use of existing transit capital and operating funds. The State could require that AV passenger service companies that wish to partner with transit agencies demonstrate that they operate a significant share of their service in disadvantaged communities (DACs).
• Discourage personal ownership of AVs and low- and no-occupancy AV travel. Lawmakers could achieve this outcome by levying registration fees and road user fees to price greenhouse gases (GHGs) per mile. A feebate model for these fees can direct revenues to more efficient modes of travel (including public transit, biking, and walking), equitable access, and maintenance of public infrastructure.
• Encourage AVs to be deployed as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). AV electrification could be achieved in several ways, with regulations and incentives (e.g., extra ZEV credits, setting timelines for vehicle suppliers to electrify AVs sooner than legacy petroleum-powered vehicles). The State can also target investments in public charging infrastructure that could meet the needs of AVs.
• Ensure AV passenger service is available to rural and suburban communities, especially low-income or DACs. A balancing act is necessary to ensure that less-dense rural and suburban are not left out. A possible strategy for the State is to develop guidance for communities on ways to conduct a community-needs assessment for rural and suburban communities to lead in determining whether and what types of AV service is a good fit. The State can also award tax credits or subsidies to individuals and companies for meeting AV service goals in rural DACs and other less dense areas that meet specific criteria.
• Address safety both for passengers inside AVs, and for pedestrians, bicyclists, and all people who will interact with AVs. To achieve safety and security outcomes, State policy can expand regulations on passenger service and cargo AVs, using a set of clear safety performance measures (e.g., rates of injuries and fatalities, incidents of cybersecurity attacks) and align data collection methodologies to meaningfully measure these safety outcomes (see #9 for more on data collection). The State can also strengthen AV reporting requirements to provide accountability and more public information for AV-related safety incidents, ensuring there is no disparity in safety outcomes by race, income, or mode—including bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Establish workforce impact mitigation strategies associated with vehicle automation. The State can invest in understanding how partial automation technologies can yield safety benefits for drivers, other vehicles, other road users, and pedestrians. The State can also develop retraining programs that help transportation network companies (TNCs) and other drivers gain the skills they need to find future work, and it can target data collection strategies toward monitoring workforce shifts. A robust stakeholder engagement process that includes drivers will ensure more effective strategies.
• Ensure that booking and payment for AV services allows seamless multi-modal connections and is accessible to all Californians. Strategies to achieve this should center around making AV service complementary to public transit in practice. This can include open-loop payment requirements, as well as open application programming interfaces (open-APIs) to enable booking and payment interoperability with transit service. State agencies can also direct resources to transit and new mobility providers so they can offer online or telephone booking as well as multilingual booking.
• Envision a pathway for achieving equivalent AV passenger service for people with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities, ensuring that AV providers are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This effort might begin with defining key terminology as it relates to AVs—including the terms “accessibility,” “accessible AV service,” and “equivalent AV passenger service”—and applying this terminology across agencies. The State could also include establishing guidelines to connect parallel regulatory efforts aimed at encouraging more wheelchair-accessible service in TNCs with those instructing the AV Program (CPUC rulemaking 12-12-011). The State could also include support for community-led efforts to increase AV availability for people with disabilities and door-to-door services to support AV services (e.g., a trained individual who can aid individuals in accessing the vehicle going beyond the curb). 
• Align data collection across agencies to achieve public objectives. The State can strengthen data-analysis protocols that complement existing and planned data collection strategies. By connecting data to specific performance measures (e.g. wheelchair accessible rides, injuries, fatalities, cybersecurity attacks, etc.) the State can make effective use of data that are being collected by DMV and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). This effort could also include establishing a California data repository or participating in a federal data clearinghouse to make better use of big data from AV service providers to inform state, regional, and local planning while preserving traveler privacy, proprietary interests of companies, and limiting data access.
• Provide direction to both manufacturers and operators on insurance requirements and liability. This effort could include establishing more specific AV insurance minimums to match liability risks for different fleet sizes and risk profiles (e.g., cybersecurity issues, algorithmic priorities, sensors, or infrastructure). It could also identify insurance requirements for companies and individuals who may carry liabilities for operation and use of AVs (e.g., individual owners, fleet owners, and TNCs)
• For more detail see the full issue paper.