Relax on the way to work or work on the way to relax? Influences of vehicle interior on travel time perceptions in autonomous vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impending arrival of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology has the potential to transform how individuals perceive time spent travelling. By removing the need to drive and pay attention to the road, AV users could perform other activities, including those for work or leisure. As a result, AVs are expected to lower the burden of travel and, therefore, the value of travel time (VOTT). Despite the significant impacts that AVs may have on individuals’ choices and the transportation system, few have studied their impacts on travel time perceptions, and even fewer have examined the extent to which these impacts will vary depending on the types of tasks that can be performed within an AV. This study uses stated preference data collected in Fall 2022 to develop mode choice models and subsequently quantify how the availability of three types of AV: privately-owned, exclusive, and pooled AV may shift perceived travel times in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The error-component mixed logit models highlight the cross-nesting between privately-owned AVs and driving. In addition, this study is the first in Canada to distinguish the VOTT reductions by AV type, trip purpose, and interior description (which caters to different tasks). VOTT reductions as large as 42% less than driving a conventional vehicle were estimated. The results of this study provide additional empirical evidence for AV VOTT reductions (particularly in the Canadian context) and can be used to help craft policies in preparation for the arrival of AVs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".