Can propose or elaborate with ukrainians, not without ukrainians but without ukrainians and help them political, economic, social and also including corruption and this is the big joke for many years this is not you cannot battle corruption in one year its quite difficult in the society of ukraine. We have time for about two more questions so lets do the gentleman right there in the middle standing up and then well come down here. Thank you. Im a president of Georgian Television station. Let me remind you of a statement that appeared in august, 2008 when military confrontation was started against georgia and my question is about russia georgia relations. How do you see these relations in a country where governments declared policies to join nato . Thank you sir. Well, we had the satisfaction of the statement of georgian Prime Minister in new york during the General Assembly of the United Nations that the policy of georgia is to step by step normalization of relations with russia. And here we go we have that we have problems. We have history and we need from both sides work to restore normal relations between our too two states. I think its possible. We have a lot of we have good, important history, long history among our people, among our cultures and i think that moving ahead with this political will i think that normalization will be it is possible. But it will need time. I think this will be our last questi question. My name is audrey all said the, im one of the fellows at the Wilson Center this year. I would like to return to the question about the right to protect. And my question specifically is what russias policy in particular is on right to protect if it construes it as being appropriate to intervene when cultural rights are being threatened, whether an existential threat would have to be present. In other words, russias policy and the way it construes the idea of right to protect. Thank thanks. Well, i think that for the first time we started 20 speak about this when the military force was used against the civilian population and i dont think that we can we can today define in all details when you can use this right or when you dont use this right. But it was the real violation of human rights killing civil population and it was considered important to use this right. How it can be used in other occasions i dont think that today i can somebody can define exact ly i dont think that you can use as its not normal but its close to something something exceptional. We have exceptional situation in ukraine and that right was used. On that note, which reminds us that a lot has not been defined in this area, but i really want to thank you very much for a wonderful explanation. Its very rare we get the view from moscow directly. This is not view from moscow. I am not official. This is my personal view. Thats why i i dont think that everybody in moscow agrees with me. In fact, thats true. Do you feel lonely with your position . Oh, i dont know. Maybe. But thank you very much. It is definitely not an official but a very educated opinion based on years of stellar diplomacy and thank you very, very much. [ applause ] thank you. Tonight on cspan 3, its American History tv with discussions on u. S. Strategy in vietnam at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Then the impact of the jazz age on modern america follows at 45. Then americas role in the world adds umpire or empire. And at 12 30, James Madisons role in writing the u. S. Constitution. American history tv begins tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Next, a discussion about the future of selfdriving cars as specialists review break throughs in technology, the impact on urban transit, and privacy and security concerns. The Kato Institute hosted this discussio discussion. Good afternoon, everyone, welcome to the Kato Institute. My name is matthew feeney, a policy analyst here. Im very excited to welcome you here for what will i hope be an interesting discussion on selfdriving cars. Its an interesting topic because were at a stage in history when where asking questions when it comes to the widespread use of these vehicles and we have three experts here to help talk about it. Before we begin, id like all of you to please turn off your cell phones so we wont be interrupted i would also like to say we will do a q a session after all speakers have had their turn. At which pointly be calling on you the three speakers we have today are randy otoole, Mark Scribner and theyll be discussing a range of different issues such as transit and regional planning, the legal and regulatory issues as well as privacy. Now the first speaker is randall owe tool. Ill introduce them before they speak. Randall otoole is a senior fellow at the Kato Institute where he works on urban growth, public land and transportation issues. Hes the author of a number of books including gridlock, why were stuck in traffic and what to do about it the vanishing automobile and other myths reforming the Forest Service and american nightmare, how government undermines the dream of homeownership. His writings have appeared in Numerous National journals and newspapers and is the author of the most recent policy analyst that will be out later, the policy of implications of autonomous vehicles. He was educated in forestry at Oregon State University and economics at the university of orego oregon. Thank you. Now we have to wait for the slide show to come up. I hope youre all familiar with Driverless Cars and the issues behind them what i want to do is get indepth into how selfdriving cars are going to impact our economy. And in particular urban areas. Already four Different Companies have received licenses to operate selfdriving cars on an experimental bases any california, nevada, and a number of other companies have said that theyre working on selfdriving cars and have demonstrated them in various forms. An google in particular has published a lot of its demonstrations of videos of selfdriving cars dealing with things like getting around traffic detours, dealing with bicycles, dealing with obstructions in the road and so on and so forth. I think the important thing to understand if you arent familiar with the technology is that selfdriving cars have all the computing on board. Theyre not connected to any central computer telling them what to do. Its all on board which means that what is happening with the car is dealing solely with what the car sees and knows about the area. Now the implications of selfdriving cars are, first of all, that we may see a major reduction in congestion because selfdriving cars will have much faster reflexes than humans and most congestion is due to slow human reflexes. Were going see an expansion of mobility. Right now only about two out of three americans have a drivers license. This will enabled nonlicensed people to travel just as much as licensed people. Im looking forward to the day when ill be able to put my dogs in the car and send them to the vet. Were going to see soon the introduction of cars that twenty even have a human driven capability. So these cars will be specifically or especially for people who dont have drivers licenses so, for example, this gentleman is legally blind yet hes happily driving the new google car without humandriven options. Another major implications of selfdrives cars is that it will change the way we look at transportation. Right now about half of all americans say that their main constraint on travel is not cost but time its not the monetary cost but time costs. And with selfdrives caring that time cost largely goes away. You can surf the internet, play games with your children, train dogs on board the car while youre traveling if you have a selfdriving car. That means that will change how we look at transportation and instead of trying to live a place thats near to where we work or do anything, we can have a fairly remote home and have a long commute. When we want to get groceries we send the car, we dont have to send ourselves. Were also probably going see a confluence of selfdriving cars and car sharing. Some people think that in the future all cars will be shared. Im not so sure. I think people will still want to own their own cars but people who dont will be able to use car sharing. And that will change the calculus of driving. Right now most people if they own a car the cost of taking a flip a car is theyre marginal or variable costs which is only about a third of the cost, the total cost of car ownership. So if youre car sharing, the cost of driving is going to be the average cost, a total of the fixed and variable cost. That means you probably wont drive as much or travel as much if youre car sharing than if youre not. That in itself may be one reason why some people wont want to car share, theyll want to own their own cars so they can reduce the marginal cost. What are going to be the implications of selfdriving cars on urban transit . Right now we have urban transit in almost every major city in the country. In fact, lots of little teeny cities and minor cities have urban transit yet outside of new york urban transit plays a fairly minor role in transportation. In the new york urban area about 3 of all commuting done by transit, about 10 or 11 of all travel is done by transit. The next highest in San Francisco at about 18 . These numbers are commuting, but when you talk about all travel the numbers are about onethird of commuting share which means in most urban areas transit carries about 1 or 2 or less of all travel. Its pretty insignificant. Urban transit was mostly private before 1970. Since 1970 its been nationalized or municipal palized and weve poured almost a trillion dollars of subsidies into urban transit and weve seen per capita transit trips for urbanites fall from 50 trips a year to 40 trips a year. So its not been a high success. Right now at one time urban transit was mainly for people who didnt have cars but right now only about 4. 5 of workers in america live in households without cars and most of them dont take transit to work. So transit isnt even important for people who dont have cars much less people do. If you think low income people are the main users of transit, well, it turns out youre most likely to use transit to get to work if you have earned 75,000 a year. More likely than if you earned less than 25,000 a year. So when you subsidize transit to some degree, youre subsidizing the rich rather than the poor. If you think transit is a good way of saving energy, it turns out transit saves hardly any energy at all over driving. If you want to save energy, you encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars such as a prius. If you think transit saves money, it turns out transit costs more than three times as much per passenger mile as driving so thats when you count subsidies of course. We subsidize transit to a far greater degree than wed subsidize driving in order to make transit appear cost competitive with driving. So what happens when we take this heavily subsidized and largely failed transit industry and add Driverless Cars to the mix . Well we look at manhattan where theres two million jobs in about seven square miles and threefourths of them take transit. Its hard to imagine we could substitute selfdriving cars for transit. Rail transit is always going to be important for manhattan as long as theres two million jobs in lower and midtown manhattan. But thats the densest job market in america. The second densest is the chicago loop where theres about 500,000 jobs, about half of them take transit to work. Again, we probably cant see selfdriving cars taking all those people to work but it might help for some. Downtown washington has about 380,000 jobs, about half take transit to work boston has about 240,000 jobs, about half take transit to work. Philadelphia 240,000 jobs, about half take transit to work. In these cases, i dont see selfdriving cars being an ultimate replacement for transit however thats it. Thats pretty much the line, those five or six cities are where transit really makes a big difference and where frying to get rid of transit and replace it with selfdriving cars is going to cause too much congestion. For most of those cities outside of new york, bus transit probably makes more sense than rail transit but thats another issue. Then we go to atlanta. 173,000 jobs in downtown atlanta but only 14 take transit to work. So if we substitute selfdriving car which is will be have faster reflexes and less congestion well i dont think youll see any increase in congestion, youll probably see a reduction in congestion. Houston 170,000 jobs, only 13 take transit to work. Denver, 10,000 jobs, 20 take transit to work but thats not going to be big enough of a market to support transit in the future. So basically outside of five or six cities i dont see transit as being a viable alternative to selfdriving cars and car sharing in the future. I see car sharing and selfdriving cars as almost completely replacing transit everywhere except for those few places. So we have to think about how are we going to wind down transit . How are we going to change transit in the future to adopt to the selfdriving cars . We also have to think about longrange transportation planning. Congress has for years mandated that urban areas have metropolitan planning organizations that engage in 20year Regional Transportation Plans and that rewrite these plans every five years. A few years ago i went through plans for the 70 largest urban areas in the country and i found that about half of them base their plans on what i call the fantasy model which is that well a imagine a World Without cars and design for that world and hope for that people follow our imagination. For example, sacramento wrote this plan in 2006 and they specifically said theyve engage 234d this fantasy that they can live without cars for the last 25 years, which means the last five iterations of their Regional Transportation Plan and for some reason it didnt work out. People are driving more and more even though theyre not building any roads and theres more and more congestion, people are still driving even though theyre spending lots of money on light rail, theyre not luring people out of their cars . So whats the solution . Their solution was to continue the policies of the previous plan. And we see this over and over again in cities across the country engaging in the fantasy rather than the reality building light rail despite fact that Construction Costs are growing to be extremely high, my former hometown of portland in particular seems to be in a race with seattle for who can build the most build the most expensive light rail in the universe. Seattle is right now winning, but portland is coming back with a plan that will have a 2 billion tunnel. And i dont see any of these plans being viable in the future when we have selfdriving cars. I dont see why were going to need to have light rail or anything like that. This is not a surprise. It should be totally predictable that if you engage in fantasy planning that people will not respond to your fantasies. As brown said, the link between transportation is too small to relieve congestion, reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions or save energy. So what happens when we introduce selfdriving cars into urban areas that have been engaging in fantasy planning, which means about half the urban areas in the country. What are selfdriving cars going to do to the amount of travel . Are people going to drive less, because theyre car sharing, and theyll have a higher marginal cost of travel . Or are they going to drive more, because more people are actually going to have access to selfdriving cars . Are they going to drive more, because their travel budget is different . Cost is not the issue, time is the issue, and now they can travel and be productive while theyre traveling. Nobody knows the answers to these questions. And urban planners, frankly, are ignoring them. Not a single Regional Transportation Plan that ive ever seen has even mentioned the possibility of selfdriving cars in the future. Most of them none of them are trying to model it. A few of them have asked these questions. And thrown up their hands and said, there are no answers to these questions. So about 60 American Cities instead are planning for 19th Century Technology like speak cars and light rail rather than planning for 21st Century Technology. What should they be doing instead . I suggest they should focus on dumb infrastructure. What do i mean by dumb infrastructure . Well, the mini tell system is an example of smart infrastructure. They gave everybody in france a dumb terminal to access a smart system that would allow them to do things like make plane reservations, make restaurant reservations, buy theater tickets and things like that. But, the company that was managing it had to keep up the technology. They had to keep their smart infrastructure up, and they couldnt afford to do it, they couldnt keep up with the internet. So instead, they abandoned it in about, what was it, 2003. And today france, just like everybody else, relies on the internet which has the smart in your terminal. And the internet itself is a dumb Communications Infrastructure that doesnt contain the intelligence needed for you to do what you want to do on the internet. In the same way, highways can be smart or dumb. A dumb highway, basically, is pavement. And then the smarts come in your car that knows how to deal with that pavement. A smart highway has all kinds of Communication Systems in it that tells your car things like electronically tells you that theres an accident up ahead or red light up ahead or congestion or whatever. The problem is, maintaining that smart infrastructure is going to be very expensive, and its not going to work very well. So its much better to have dumb infrastructure and let the smarts be in the vehicle. Another example of dumb infrastructure is rail transit or excuse me, smart infrastructure, is rail transit. It only goes to places we build the rail line. The trains will go there reliably as long as we maintain them. So we have a 60 billion maintenance backlog. Trying to provide smart infrastructure, just provide basic dumb infrastructure, which means keep the streets paved, keep the pavement smooth, keep the stripes on the dividing the lines in plain sight. And try to use a consistent form of signage across the country so that your smart car that works in california also will work in new york and virginia. In short, what we should do is try to solve todays problems today. Dont try to foresee the distant future. Instead, just try to leave the future with as many options as possible. So that they can solve their problems without being encumbered by a huge debt that we put out today, in order to build something that turns out not to be worthwhile at all. Build and maintain dumb infrastructure, and i dont know why it didnt show my last point, which is, dont manage vehicletoinfrastructure communications which i think our next speaker will talk about a little bit more. Thank you. Thank you, randal. Up next we have marc scribner, a Research Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where he works on transportation, land use and Telecommunications Policy issues. He has written for usa today, the washington post, and the national review, and his work has been cited by the wall street journal, washington post, boston globe, politico, hes widely cited. The bbc, cspan and more. He received his undergraduate degree in economics and philosophy from George Washington university. Marc . Well, thank you, matthew. And thank you all for being here. Im going to talk about some of the regulatory issues that we have coming up. And im not going to lets just go for the overview. Im going to begin by talking about the recent regulatory developments at the federal and state levels. Ill follow up with some discussion of the national highway traffic administration. And sort of our traditional safety philosophy at the federal level, spoiler alert im not a big fan. Then im going to give some examples of how were already potentially screwing up the regulation of Automated Vehicles. And ill close with some principles for sound public policy. So recent automation policy development. These states in green here are states that enacted legislation that specifically recognizes the legality of Automated Vehicles. These states in yellow are considering similar legislation. So in imme meanting the statutes, we have a few examples so far. Nevada was first out of the gate in 2012. California has released the first part of its rules earlier this year that came into effect last month. These governed manufactured testing. The District Of Columbia here has proposed rules in april. They havent gone anywhere yet. I think youll see why. There are some problems with them. At the federal level, we havent seen any specific regulations yet. Nhtsa did issue a policy back in may 2013. Among other things, what they did there was basically caution states about overregulating, overlegislating at this early stage. And they also laid out the definitions of automation. Ill show you those in a second. While these arent automation specific, there are two recent developments that have come out of nhtsa that will likely impact Automated Vehicles in the future. The first example was this tesla Motor Vehicle safety standard. In august of this year, nhtsa proposed rule making on vehicletovehicle communications, what randal mentioned when he was closing. And ill get to those later. Here are the automation levels as defined by nhtsa. Zero, simple, no automation. That should be pretty obvious. Level four is full selfdriving automation. This is where you can Start Talking about having murphy beds and wet bars in your vehicles, giving new meaning to the term fully loaded. But that is where you have the driver has no responsibility, and possibly no ability to retake Manual Control at any point. These levels in between, im not going to focus so much on them. I dont find them as interesting. Although were seeing level one. Level two vehicles available to consumers. Level three are coming, depending on how the regulatory and liability issues are sorted out. But i want to begin by talking about nhtsa. I think this letter evans quotes gives an idea on where i stand on this. Im not saying anything about the people who work at nhtsa, i just think their philosophy has gotten Highway Safety priorities backwards. So what nhtsa has done for the last two decades, in fact, what its purpose was, was to focus on the effective and safe automobiles. The problem with this approach is that most crashes have always been and continue to be caused by Driver Behavior. So what we end up what happens is, heres the policy failure, so we focus on rare product defects blown way out of proportion. We work to mandate low value, high cost safety technology, particularly technology that deals with postcrash, air bags and the like, and then we downplay everything else. I think the latest example is gms effective ignition switch. I just want to say right now, im not defending gm or their crappy ignition switch, but its garnered a lot of Media Coverage and gone to several congressional hearings. To put this in perspective, this is likely responsible for a few deaths per year since 2005. Compare that to the 30,000 annual deaths annually that can be attributed to Driver Behavior in some part. In fact, since 2005, theres about 130,000 gm deaths that are largely a tributed to behavior that were essentially ignoring. If we were to we might get closer to my position, repeal the Vehicle Safety act. I dont think thats going to happen. What can w