Pilot project purgatory? Assessing automated vehicle pilot projects in U.S. cities

The rise of Automated Vehicles (AVs) has spurred significant interest in how cities should integrate them into planning. Dozens of U.S. cities are experimenting with AVs through pilot projects, aiming to assess their impact on transportation goals, gauge public interest, and evaluate potential use cases. While the AV industry promotes transformative benefits like increased safety and reduced congestion, some scholars express skepticism, questioning the assumptions embedded in AV technology and challenging the notion of a technological fix for complex urban problems. Despite this growing interest, few U.S. cities have integrated AVs into their long-range planning efforts. Many cities utilize AV pilot projects as a simpler alternative to comprehensive planning, creating an opportunity to study the efficacy of this approach. This paper investigates how these pilot projects function as urban planning and policy tools, examining their trends and potential impact on planning efforts. The study focuses on pilot projects because approximately half of the cities planning for AVs utilize them. This research draws on interviews and document analysis from 20 of the 58 cities sampled, examining the decision-making processes behind AV pilot projects and their intended impact on future planning.

The paper reviews existing literature on AVs within the smart city context. It highlights the "technology push" and "demand pull" forces driving AV development and deployment. The literature critiques the technocratic approach to urban problems often associated with smart city initiatives, emphasizing the potential for reproducing existing inequalities. The role of urban experimentation and pilot projects as technical tools is discussed, noting the inherent political biases and normative assumptions often overlooked in such experiments. Existing research on AVs is categorized, focusing on travel behavior changes, attitudes towards AV adoption, land use impacts, and parking requirements. The review also covers research on AV policy and regulation, highlighting the fragmented nature of current U.S. policy and the various policy guidance documents produced by organizations like the American Planning Association (APA). Previous studies examining regional policy approaches, the preparedness of local governments for AVs, and the policy preferences of urban planners are also summarized. The existing literature on urban experimentation, including its potential benefits and limitations, and the concept of "projectification" which undermines the possibility of larger, more transformative shifts are also reviewed. The authors note that the current literature is predominantly descriptive, lacking critical analysis of the embedded social and political assumptions in AV projects.

This mixed-methods study combined document analysis and interviews. The researchers identified 58 U.S. cities engaged in AV planning using the Bloomberg Philanthropies' online observatory as a starting point and supplemented this data with additional research. The sample included cities ranging in size from 10,000 to 8.5 million residents. Document analysis involved reviewing various city documents including transportation plans, comprehensive planning documents, RFPs, and media reports. This initial analysis categorized city activities into four areas: regulation, testing, planning, and piloting. The researchers conducted 24 interviews with city officials, transit agency representatives, regional planning organization staff, and state DOT representatives in 20 cities. The interview protocol covered the background of the project, its structure, goals and objectives, and assessment methods. Content analysis of the interview transcripts identified key themes. Tables 1 and 2 detail the characteristics of the pilot projects and planning activities, including lead organizations, partners, duration, location, and funding. Thematic analysis of the interviews and document analysis formed the basis for the findings presented.

The study identified five key findings: 1. **Pilot Goals vs. Transportation Goals:** A significant disconnect exists between the stated goals of AV pilot projects and cities' actual transportation goals. While cities expressed goals related to safety, congestion reduction, equity, and sustainability, the pilot projects primarily focused on public introduction to AV technology, assessing AV feasibility for public transit, identifying infrastructure needs, and promoting economic development. Many goals primarily benefit AV companies rather than cities. 2. **Lack of Long-Term Planning:** Most cities lack a long-term vision for AV integration into their mobility systems. Few cities have incorporated AVs into their long-range transportation plans; however, several have developed stand-alone documents or policies to prepare for AVs and emerging technologies. Funding constraints, primarily reliance on grants, significantly limit long-term planning. Cities with financial stakes in their pilot projects demonstrate a more long-term vision. 3. **Emphasis on Economic Development:** There's a strong emphasis on the non-transportation benefits, particularly economic development. Cities often aim to be early adopters of AV technology, believing this will attract businesses and create jobs. This "pro-innovation bias" can overshadow the assessment of transportation-related benefits and risks. 4. **Limited Policy Learning:** Evaluation of AV pilot projects is often limited and focuses on operational data and rider perceptions rather than the achievement of broader transportation goals. The connection between pilot projects and policy development is often unclear, hindering the use of pilot projects for policy refinement. 5. **Failure to Maximize Public Benefit:** Cities are not maximizing the potential public benefits from pilot projects. Data-sharing agreements are often limited, and the benefits primarily accrue to AV companies rather than cities. Cities often fail to clearly articulate what public benefits they aim to achieve, resulting in limited public value from these projects. Public investments in infrastructure, such as DSRC units, may become obsolete quickly due to rapid technological change, raising questions about the return on public investment.

The findings indicate that current AV pilot project approaches are ineffective tools for urban and transportation planning. The disconnect between pilot goals and city transportation goals suggests a lack of clear vision and strategic planning. The limited long-term planning and overemphasis on economic development highlight a potential bias towards technological solutions without sufficient consideration of societal needs. The insufficient policy learning and lack of maximized public benefits indicate inefficiencies and missed opportunities. This research echoes critiques of smart city initiatives, highlighting the potential for industry influence and the marginalization of public voices in shaping urban futures. The study suggests a need for more engaged, deliberative, and anticipatory approaches to AV planning, involving greater public participation and clearer articulation of public value.

The study reveals that current AV pilot projects in U.S. cities offer limited value for informing transportation policy and planning. Cities need to adopt more engaged and deliberative approaches, integrating AVs into long-range transportation plans and developing robust evaluation processes linked to specific city goals. This will require moving beyond the industry-driven narrative and prioritizing public benefits. Future research should focus on exploring alternative models for AV deployment that prioritize public participation and equitable outcomes.

The study's reliance on a sample of 20 cities limits the generalizability of the findings. The subjective nature of interview data necessitates careful interpretation. The focus on pilot projects might not fully capture the range of AV planning activities undertaken by cities.