Governing the future of mobility

Jordan Sanders
Aug 28, 2017 · 4 min read

The full Deloitte paper is available here.

Whether through action or inaction, the federal government will shape the future of transportation. The U.S. Department of Transportation recently released revised guidelines for automated vehicles (AVs) and AV legislation is quickly moving through Congress. These developments have brought increased attention to the federal government’s impact on the mobility industry (and to Greg Rogers’ indispensable work at the Eno Center for Transportation).

The federal government is not monolithic, nor is it an unknowable web of alphabet soup agencies and complex legislation. I worked with Deloitte colleagues RJ Krawiec and Vinn White (former USDOT Deputy Assistant Secretary) to create a simple framework to categorize and summarize the high-level functional roles federal agencies play in the mobility ecosystem in this recently-published paper.

In our framework, one agency may align with multiple categories – USDOT both sets vehicle regulations and rules of the road through NHTSA and FHWA, while also issuing research grants through ITS JPO. I should also point out that many complementary mobility issues are addressed by different agencies – EPA sets emissions standards, while DOE funds R&D of clean energy vehicle technologies.

We posited the following functional roles for federal agencies in the mobility ecosystem:

Regulators and Policymakers

Examples: Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Federal policymakers and regulators can ensure public safety and security as companies and state and local governments navigate new territory. The recent federal AV guidance and proposed legislation are generally a step in the right direction.

Recommendations for regulators and policymakers:

  • Invite industry and state and local regulators to discussions to make sure that the resulting rules are relevant to states and cities, and to avoid creating a patchwork of contradictory regulations that prevent progress and ultimately hurt consumers.
  • Make regulations flexible, allowing for timely exceptions so they do not inhibit advances in technology.
  • Revisit and refine often. Agencies should review and refresh regulations frequently, with an emphasis on outcomes rather than process or product form. That becomes especially critical as federal policies evolve from high-level guidance to increasingly detailed — and binding — rules.
  • Remain technology-neutral to allow for further innovation. There are still plenty of unsettled questions when it comes to self-driving technology. Even looking beyond the car, a host of other mobility systems are still in early stages of development. Prematurely codifying a particular technological solution in regulation risks lock-in and path dependency.
  • Convene the ecosystem. Federal policymakers are among the best positioned to bring all stakeholders together, and gathering their input will be critical to formulating smart, agile regulation. While soliciting public comment is a required step for all policies and regulations, when these venues are accessible and open, like NHTSA’s regular public meetings, it increases the chances of real-time feedback and dialogue between federal agencies and stakeholders.

Researchers and Developers

Examples: Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office

Where federal research dollars are allocated and how quickly grant making and policy decisions are made can greatly influence the market. The federal government spurred early AV development through the DARPA Grand Challenges, and there are many more opportunities to encourage mobility innovations.

Recommendations for researchers and developers:

  • Incentivize the private sector. The USDOT’s Smart City Challenge (administered by ITS JPO) is an ideal example of return on investment for a federal government program. Columbus leveraged a $40 million federal grant into over $500 million of subsequent funding through a variety of public-private partnerships.
  • Focus on areas overlooked by market actors. The fatality rate per 100 million miles traveled is 2.5 times greater in rural than in urban areas according to NHTSA. While future mobility discussions focus heavily on urban applications, federal R&D could help spur rural solutions.
  • Explore the broader societal implications. For example, the CDC has a toolkit for conducting Health Impact Assessments for transportation projects. This process encourages states and cities to convene city planners, health and transportation officials, local businesses, and community developers to document the health benefits/risks of a new mobility model, develop policy recommendations, and then evaluate the overall impact on citizens.
  • Partner across the federal spectrum and broader ecosystem. You get the idea.

Users and Enablers

Examples: US Postal Service (USPS), General Services Administration (GSA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

As users, federal agencies can improve government-operated fleets and invest in new related infrastructure, and as enablers, agencies can spur state and local adoption of shared mobility, autonomous vehicles, and public transit to produce wide-ranging benefits for citizens.

Recommendations for users and enablers:

  • “Future-proof” mobility systems. Technology changes quickly, but federal procurement cycles are long. An agency that commits to a new technology might have to live with it for years, even as better options emerge. Agencies should consider public-private partnerships and flexible procurement processes.
  • Explore creative financing options. For example, transportation-as-a-service, cost sharing, or other approaches could allow agencies to introduce new technologies without requiring a huge up-front investment.
  • Consider how new mobility innovations could achieve related agency objectives. For example, HUD could enable new mobility models through its “Moving to Work” program to connect public housing communities to jobs.

For Washington leaders, their complementary, and at times contradictory, functions make being clear-eyed about the tensions and tradeoffs associated with each role even more essential. And all agencies, regardless of their role, should regularly communicate with government stakeholders across the spectrum as well as the companies, state/local governments, and research institutions outside of this federal framework.

We hope this simple framework jumpstarts conversations and action at federal agencies considering their role in the mobility ecosystem, and that it helps others in that ecosystem better understand and engage with these agencies.

It was a privilege to work with RJ Krawiec, Vinn White, Derek Pankratz, Laura Snebold, Scott Corwin, Bruce Chew, and other former colleagues to produce “Governing the Future of Mobility.” Check out the full paper on Deloitte Insights.

)

Jordan Sanders

Written by

Director of Business & Operations at Phantom Auto. Previously at Ridecell and Deloitte Consulting. Opinions are mine or borrowed from people smarter than me.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade