Articles

Filter

  • Regulatory Frameworks for Smart Mobility: Current U.S. Regulation of Connected and Automated Vehicles And The Road Ahead

    Survey of current federal and state legislative and regulatory frameworks aimed at advancing the deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles.

  • Infrastructure Finance for the Public Good: How Asset Recycling Can Untangle the New York MTA’s $50 Billion Debt Load

    Abstract Systematic infrastructure underinvestment – a $2.6 trillion ‘gap’ – and accelerating climate change have become facts of life in the United States. Though typically attributed to politics, this Article posits the circumstances as a market disequilibrium rooted in an interplay between unique dimensions of infrastructure and distinctive features of…

  • How Might We Reimagine Transportation Technology to Combat Forced Labor: Conference Explanations and Recommendations From the Law and Mobility Program’s Annual Conference 2023

    The LAMP Annual Conference 2023 considered how we might reimagine transportation technology in a way that combats the systemic vulnerabilities...

  • A Comparative Look at Various Countries’ Legal Regimes Governing Automated Vehicles

    News and commentary about automated vehicles (AVs) focus on how they look and appear to operate, along with the companies developing and testing them. Behind the scenes are legal regimes—laws, regulations, and implementing bodies of different kinds—that literally and figuratively provide the rules of the road for AVs. Legal regimes matter because public welfare hinges on aspects of AV design and operation. Legal regimes can provide gatekeeping for AV developers and operators seeking to use public roads, and they can allocate liability when something goes wrong. Guiding and complementing legal regimes is public policy. Policy documents such as articulations of national strategies are sometimes used to address issues related to legal regimes and to demonstrate a jurisdiction’s support for AV development. Building on its long history analyzing AV policy issues, RAND (with support of its Institute for Civil Justice) collaborated with the University of Michigan Law School’s Law and Mobility Program to study the nature of different AV legal regimes around the world. It selected countries known to be active in this domain. The research team reviewed and shared scholarly and gray literature (which is a type of scholarship produced by an entity in which commercial publications are not the primary focus, such as white papers from a government agency), and it also consulted experts in these regimes from the public and private sectors. Under the supervision of the Law and Mobility Fellow (a lawyer), law students collected and studied materials associated with country-specific legal regimes and drafted summaries guided by RAND’s enumeration of key factors. Availability of information about legal regimes varies—access to documentation, especially in English, is uneven, even for officials in different countries working collaboratively on these issues. That constrained availability is reflected in published legal comparisons, and it motivated the research team’s systematic research, which drew from materials in English and other languages. This article summarizes the makeup of AV legal regimes of Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. It highlights some key contrasts, which will be developed further as the project continues. It focuses on law and policy relating to highly to fully automated vehicles (SAE Levels 4 and 5). Although guided by a common set of topics for each country, each profile reflects the material available and the factors that differentiate national approaches. The remainder of this article introduces the legal regimes of the covered countries in turn. It then provides an overview of key points of comparison and outlines future work.

  • Preemptive Federal Legislation for EV Manufacturers to Sell Direct to Customers

    This article advocates for federal legislation to implement a nationwide EV licensing system that would allow both EV manufacturers and dealers to sell and service their vehicles directly to consumers nationwide. This prospective legislation would preempt dealer franchise laws that prohibit or limit manufacturers from selling their vehicles directly to consumers. This article does not argue that direct distribution is the superior method of distribution; instead, this article argues that manufacturers should have the freedom to pursue direct distribution. As more EV companies enter the market, EV manufacturers need to have the flexibility to use a variety of distribution systems that best suit their business needs. Part II of this article provides background information on the history of dealer franchise laws and the current status of dealer franchise laws. Part III addresses the problems associated with the current car buying process and why some manufacturers prefer to sell their cars directly to consumers. Part III also addresses counterarguments from the dealer lobby. Part IV introduces potential federal legislative reform to preempt state dealer franchise laws to allow EV manufacturers to directly sell their vehicles to consumers.

  • Privacy Frameworks for Smart Cities

    This paper identifies some of the core privacy considerations raised by smart cities – government surveillance and data security in Part I. Then, Part II proposes a set of core principles for smart cities to consider in the development and deployment of smart cities to address privacy concerns. These principles include: (A) human-centric approaches to smart cities design and implementation, (B) transparency for city residents, (C) privacy by design, (D) anonymization and deidentification, (E) data minimization and purpose specification, (F) trusted data sharing, and (G) cybersecurity resilience.

  • Setting the Agenda: The Legal and Historical Context to Best Understand How Transportation Technology Might Be Regulated to Combat Forced Labor

    Transportation is a piece of all human activity. As individuals and as a society, the logistics of getting people and goods from one place to another is a question we answer countless times a day. Just today, billions of people drove to work, took the bus to school, used a rideshare to get to the store, or took the train into the city to enjoy an evening out on the town. This list does not even consider all the items people have ordered online which will be shipped and delivered to homes. Even more exciting is the innovation that inspired all the aforementioned modes of transportation; transportation technology has the amazing potential to make our lives easier, more efficient, and more equitable. But implementing all this technology requires labor, and the technology can only benefit those who have access to it. Most of us have never truly considered whose labor makes mobility possible. Relatedly, it is hard to imagine life without access to transportation if you are a person who has always known how they will get to work. This article will provide a framework to better understand one type of labor within the industry, exploited labor, also known as forced labor. Forced labor is part of the transportation industry and is also impacted by a lack of transportation. Without reliable and safe transportation individuals are at a higher risk of forced labor in other industries. The bottom line is twofold: considering the impacts that an increased demand for new technology will have on people who work in mines, in the supply chain, and in transportation as a service, as well as considering legal tools to maximize access to transportation for historically underserved communities in light of new technology. All this to say that this article will consider how society might reimagine the regulation of emerging transportation technology in a way that combats the systemic vulnerability that leaves people at risk of forced labor. This will include both the labor being performed to manufacture and operate the technology, as well as the impact on access to transportation of the user and nonuser. Though this article will largely analyze the role of automated vehicles, other innovations including reconfigured public transportation and electrification will also be considered. Transportation is at the heart of everything humanity does and yet this article will only scratch the surface of these issues.

  • Contracting Tools for Transportation Data

    Troves of transportation data can be, and are, produced by smart infrastructure. Municipalities collect various kinds of transportation data, including traffic information such as accidents, flows, and volumes; bicycle information such as bike counts; pedestrian information such as pedestrian counts; smart bus stop information; street mapping information; location information for traffic signals; mapping details such as the miles of city streets; and information on roadwork and infrastructure planning such as construction or road closures expected to affect traffic. Governments, educational institutions, non-profit enterprises, and businesses find transportation data useful for purposes such as improving infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, improving vehicle and pedestrian safety, providing public security and emergency services, making transportation services more accessible, improving civic planning and design, research and development of new mobility products and services (including machine learning), and researching other potential uses for the data. Wider availability and sharing of transportation data would help to facilitate the development, testing, and adoption of smart infrastructure and connected and automated modes of transportation (collectively, “smart mobility products and services”). However, there are barriers to the accessibility of transportation data for these purposes. One is that there is a lack of standardization and clarity in the permissions granted when transportation data is made available, and another is that privacy and other concerns prevent much of the data that could be useful from being made available; an example of the latter is the discontinuation of a smart streetlights project in San Diego due to concerns about the potential use of transportation data for surveillance purposes. This paper explores license provisions and contracting tools that data providers can consider using when making transportation data publicly available. Part II describes the kinds of provisions that data providers typically include in the licenses or other terms and conditions that they apply to transportation data. Part III examines the agreements under which specific municipalities in four states (Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, and Arizona) make transportation data publicly available, including pursuant to template agreements. Part IV identifies additional template agreements that are available for use by data providers when making data publicly available. Finally, Part V sets out key considerations for data providers in choosing the terms under which they make their transportation data available.

  • Opportunities and Challenges for Deploying Connected and Automated Vehicles to Address Transportation Disparities in Urban Areas

    As the development and testing of connected and automated vehicles (CAV) accelerates, it is important for government stakeholders, planners, and policymakers to have a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities CAVs will bring to infrastructure, communities, and lifestyles. There is general consensus among scholars and transportation practitioners that CAV will “disrupt” transportation systems, land use patterns, and socioeconomic power structures as they exist today.The implications of CAV on transportation infrastructure have been the subject of numerous academic and professional studies, suggesting both positive and negative effects may occur. Furthermore, in an American context, transportation planning has historically contributed to the vast socioeconomic and racial inequities still seen today, so particular emphasis should be given to the potential for CAV development to compound equity issues. Regardless, the rapid development of CAV technology has led to a compressed timeline for planners and policymakers to put policies, plans, and infrastructure into place to prepare for the mainstreaming of CAVs, and the evolution of the current transportation system. In order to identify strategic ways to leverage CAV to best support communities of all scales, researchers at the University of Minnesota have gathered information from community members and stakeholders across the state. Building on previous research and community discussions surrounding CAV opportunities in Greater Minnesota, this project sought to understand the needs of transportation disadvantaged communities that have limited access to transportation due to level of income, ability, or service extent, and explores whether CAV could be an appropriate solution. This research particularly focused on such communities in the “East Metro” of the Twin Cities, with particular focus given to the east side of Saint Paul, downtown, and Frogtown areas. Much of the equity-related research conducted in the Twin Cities metropolitan area is focused on Minneapolis, and there is a relative gap in the literature for evaluating transportation challenges of the East Metro. Transportation is undoubtedly an issue for everyone, but these challenges are most difficult for individuals with limited access to transportation due to income, ability, or extent of service area. CAVs have the potential to mitigate some of these transportation challenges, but the policy measures discussed in this paper should be considered to ensure that CAV deployment does not recreate or exacerbate the inequities of today's transportation system.

  • Exceptional Driving Principles for Autonomous Vehicles

    Public expectations for automated vehicles span a broad range, from mobility for passengers, to road user safety, to compliance with the traffic code. In most ordinary situations, these expectations can be satisfied simultaneously. But these various expectations can also lead to exceptional scenarios where certain objectives, such as those related to safety, are in tension with road rules. Exceptional driving scenarios challenge motion planning algorithms in automated vehicles to find solutions that are legally grounded, ethically sound, and technically feasible. The general public’s familiarity with exceptional driving scenarios comes from the classic "Trolley Car" problem in philosophy, asking who should live and who should die in an unavoidable collision. These discussions tend to take a consequentialist view by framing the ethical action as the one that achieves the best outcome. By taking a different perspective that views driving as a social contract, the AV's ethical obligations are limited to meeting the duty of care owed to other road users. With this perspective, the existing legal system in the US provides a framework for choosing appropriate behaviors in exceptional driving cases and for answering the Trolley Car problem. This work outlines principles that prioritize care for humans, respect the authority of human-defined traffic law, and ensure that the vehicle avoids decisions that introduce unreasonable risks. Developing AVs that can legally and ethically negotiate exceptional driving scenarios is simply a matter of translating the principles into engineering requirements with no need for new laws or endless philosophical debate.