Tag Archives: accommodate


Transportation agencies and urban planners will need to work closely together to ensure infrastructure and land use policies are adapted for the introduction of CAVs on public roads. Some of the key areas of coordination will include transportation network design, infrastructure upgrades, curb space management, parking requirements, and data sharing.

When it comes to transportation network design, agencies will need to consider how CAVs may impact traffic flow and congestion. As CAVs become more common, some lanes on roads may need to be redesigned for exclusive use by autonomous vehicles to optimize traffic flow. This could involve designating certain lanes for shared or priority use by CAVs, buses and high-occupancy vehicles. Planners will also need to model how changes to road and intersection design can take advantage of the improved safety and traffic management capabilities of connected vehicles. For example, reducing standard lane widths to add turning lanes or extend sidewalks.

In terms of infrastructure upgrades, transportation agencies will have to work closely with cities to prioritize upgrades to road signaling, lane markings and signs to support basic vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication. This will allow CAVs to safely navigate intersections and adapt their speed based on real-time traffic conditions transmitted from infrastructure like traffic lights. Agencies will need to map out a plan for incrementally upgrading critical transportation corridors first based on traffic volume and congestion levels. Investments may also be needed in weather sensors along roadways to transmit data on precipitation or visibility to CAVs.

When it comes to curb space and parking requirements, cities will need to re-examine guidelines for on- and off-street parking, loading and pick-up/drop-off zones. With the advent of shared, autonomous and electric vehicles, demand for private parking is expected to decline over time. Curb space will still be needed for pickup/drop-off of people and deliveries. Cities may convert some spaces to quick-loading zones or dedicate certain curbs to autonomous shuttles and transportation network vehicles. Minimum parking requirements for new developments may also need to be reduced accordingly. This will require parking studies as well as coordination between transportation, planning and public works departments.

To effectively plan for CAV integration, transportation agencies also need access to relevant real-time city and vehicle data. This includes traffic volumes, congestion hotspots, vehicular trip origins/destinations and curb space activities. At the same time, cities need data from transportation agencies and CAV operators on fleet sizes, routing plans, dropping-off/picking up zones. Formal data sharing agreements and committees involving public agencies, private firms and research institutions can help establish protocols for sharing pertinent transportation data to support pilot programs and long-term CAV deployment strategies.

On the planning and policy side, transportation agencies and urban planners must ensure CAV integration supports broader community goals like sustainability, equity and livability. Tools like general plans, specific area plans and design guidelines will need amendments promoting transit-oriented development around shared CAV hubs. This could encourage a shift towards more compact, walkable development patterns less dependent on private vehicles. Planning departments may also develop strategies to deploy shared CAV services in an equitable manner. For example, ensuring underserved communities are prioritized for first-mile last-mile connection to fixed transit routes.

A cooperative and comprehensive approach between transportation agencies and urban planners is essential to responsibly guide the transition to an era of connectivity and automation. Regular collaboration through committees, public working groups and joint studies can help synchronize policies, coordinate multi-agency projects and ensure transportation infrastructure adapts to maximize the societal benefits of CAVs while mitigating any negative externalities. Continuous cooperation between stakeholders from government, academia and industry will also be important for future scenario assessment and deployment of other advanced technologies like drones and hyperloop systems in an integrated manner alongside CAVs. With proactive coordination, transportation agencies and cities can help ensure connected and autonomous vehicles are deployed strategically to create safer, more sustainable and accessible communities for all.

Transportation agencies must work closely with urban planners on issues ranging from road designs and infrastructure upgrades to parking reform and data sharing procedures. A collaborative governance framework recognizes CAVs both impact and are impacted by the larger built environment. Coordinated efforts can leverage coming autonomous technology to positively shape patterns of where and how we develop land along with how people and goods move throughout cities. By aligning CAV integration with broader city goals, transportation planners and agencies can facilitate well-planned deployment supporting livability, equity and sustainability.


Traditional higher education accreditation faces challenges in assessing the quality of emerging educational providers that offer new credential types like nanodegrees and microcredentials. Coding academies in particular offer short, intensive, skills-focused programs to teach software development outside the traditional degree framework. Meanwhile, universities and colleges are also experimenting with microcredentials to demonstrate mastery of specific skills or competencies.

For accreditors to properly evaluate these new models, they will need to broaden their standards and review processes. Where accreditation traditionally focused on evaluating institutions based on inputs like facilities and faculty credentials, it will now also need to consider competency-based outputs and student outcomes. Accreditors can draw lessons from the coding academy model that emphasizes demonstrating career readiness over credit hours or degree attainment.

A key first step for accreditors is to establish consistent definitions for terms like microcredentials and alternative providers. Without consensus on what these represent, it becomes difficult to regulate quality. Accreditors should convene stakeholders from traditional and non-traditional education to define domains, credential types, and expected learning outcomes. Common terminology is crucial to building acceptance of new credentials in the labor market and by employers.

Once definitions are clarified, accreditors must adapt their evaluation criteria. Historically, accreditation centered on traditional measures like curriculum design, faculty qualifications, library resources, and physical infrastructure. For non-degree programs, alternative inputs may be more relevant like training methodology, learning materials, placement rates, industry partnerships, and learner feedback. Accreditors need review standards that recognize the instructional design behind competency-based and experiential models not centered around courses or credit hours.

Accreditors also need processes flexible enough to evaluate providers delivering education in non-traditional ways. Coding academies for example may operate entirely online, offer training in flexible modules, and focus more on portfolio demonstration than exams or assignments. Assessment of learning outcomes and career readiness becomes particularly important for these models versus traditional measures of institutional resources. Accreditors will benefit from piloting new evaluation approaches tailored for competency-based and skills-focused credentials.

Extending accreditation to alternative providers protects learners and helps build the credibility of new credential types. The compliance burden of accreditation could discourage innovative models if requirements are not appropriately tailored. Accreditors might consider multiple tiers or categories of recognition accounting for differences in providers like size, funding model, degree of government recognition sought. They could develop fast-track or preliminary approval processes to help new programs demonstrate quality without discouraging experimentation.

Accreditors play a crucial role in raising standards across higher education and validating the value of credentials for students, employers and society. As new education models emerge, accreditation must thoughtfully adapt its processes and criteria to maintain this important oversight and quality assurance function, while still cultivating promising innovations. With care and stakeholder input, accreditors can extend their purview in a way that both protects learners and encourages continued growth of alternative pathways increasingly demanded in today’s changing job market.

For accreditation to properly evaluate emerging education models like coding academies and microcredentials, it needs to broaden its quality standards beyond traditional inputs to also consider competency-based outputs and student outcomes. Key steps include establishing common definitions, adapting evaluation criteria, piloting flexible assessment approaches, and ensuring requirements do not discourage needed innovation while still extending important consumer protections for alternative providers and credential types. Done right, accreditation can promote high-quality options outside traditional degrees in service of lifelong learning.