Shared Autonomous Vehicles Effect on Vehicle-Km Traveled and Average Trip Duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermediate modes of transport, such as shared vehicles or ride sharing, are starting to increase their market share at the expense of traditional modes of car, public transport, and taxi. In the advent of autonomous vehicles, single occupancy shared vehicles are expected to substitute at least in part private conventional vehicle trips. The objective of this paper is to estimate the impact of shared autonomous vehicles on average trip duration and vehicle-km traveled in a large metropolitan area. A stated preference online survey was designed to gather data on the willingness to use shared autonomous vehicles. Then, commute trips and home-based other trips were generated microscopically for a synthetic population in the greater Munich metropolitan area. Individuals who traveled by auto were selected to switch from a conventional vehicle to a shared autonomous vehicle subject to their willingness to use them. The effect of shared autonomous vehicles on urban mobility was assessed through traffic simulations in MATSim with a varying autonomous taxi fleet size. The results indicated that the total traveled distance increased by up to 8% after autonomous fleets were introduced. Current travel demand can still be satisfied with an acceptable waiting time when 10 conventional vehicles are replaced with 4 shared autonomous vehicles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".