A regional cost-benefit analysis of replacing motorized modes by a shared automated electric vehicle service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared automated electric vehicles (SAEVs) have the potential to transform regional transportation, particularly in low-density areas where accessibility and resource optimization are challenging. However, their integrated economic impact on operators, users, environment, and society have been little explored. This paper presents a cost-benefit analysis methodology, incorporating a flow-based integer programming model, to assess the viability of SAEV services in a regional interurban context. The case study is based on mobility data from the Aveiro and Coimbra regions (Portugal). We evaluate the replacement of all motorized intermunicipal trips with various SAEV configurations, including automated cars (with and without pooling), automated minibuses, and a mixed fleet (cars and minibuses). Results indicate that SAEV providers can achieve profitability with fares ranging from €0.08 to €0.36 per kilometer. Even at these rates, SAEV services generate economic benefits for users, particularly pooled car-based services, as private car expenses dominate current mobility costs. Additionally, all SAEV configurations contribute to cost reductions related to air pollution, noise, global warming potential, and road accidents, with pooled services offering the greatest savings. A series of SAEV transition scenarios using a fleet of pooled cars also demonstrated benefits for all stakeholders, albeit lower than those from fully replacing motorized trips. A second sensitivity analysis confirms that reducing vehicle acquisition costs is key to lowering fares and increasing user savings. This paper represents one of the first evaluations of large-scale SAEV services for intermunicipal trips with significant distances between urban centers, contributing insights into smart and sustainable transportation solutions for such contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".