Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles

By Rico Krueger, T. Rashidi, John M. Rose. 2016

814 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Automotive Engineering, Economics and Econometrics, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/983af14d8a0d7664652f2e228705a20b5b96c036

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Automotive Engineering

1. Kara M. Kockelman
2. Prateek Bansal
3. Adam P. Cohen
4. Susan A. Shaheen
5. Riender Happee
6. B. van Arem
7. Nicolas Hue
8. Fernando Tobal Berssaneti

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Prateek Bansal
2. Kara M. Kockelman
3. Caroline E. Leonard
4. Laurie A. Garrow
5. Brian J. German
6. P. Singleton
7. B. van Arem
8. Z. Wadud

In Marketing

1. Nicolas Hue
2. Fernando Tobal Berssaneti
3. José Alberto Quintanilha
4. Cláudia A. Soares Machado
5. Adam P. Cohen
6. Susan A. Shaheen
7. Caroline E. Leonard
8. Laurie A. Garrow

Citations in the corpus

• Exploring the Factors Affecting Mode Choice Intention of Autonomous Vehicle Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior—A Case Study in China (2019, background): “[24] conducted a stated choice experiment in Australian, participants were asked to make mode choices for a reference trip.”
• Discussing the “positive utilities” of autonomous vehicles: will travellers really use their time productively? (2019, background): “Krueger, Rashidi, and Rose (2016) surveyed 435 Australians about a choice between using their current mode on a reference trip or a shared AV either with or without dynamic ride-sharing.”
• Can sharing a ride make for less traffic? Evidence from Uber and Lyft and implications for cities (2021, background): “A stated choice survey of residents in major metropolitan areas of Australia found that users switching from their personal vehicle would be more likely to choose an exclusive-ride autonomous option over the shared-ride option, which would preclude ride-hail from reducing VMT for a given trip (Krueg”
• Urban air mobility: A comprehensive review and comparative analysis with autonomous and electric ground transportation for informing future research (2021, positive): “(2019), prior results in the literature have shown that using a shared autonomous vehicle alone and sharing the journey are perceived as two distinct mobility options (Krueger et al., 2016), which may be due to psychological barriers or discriminatory attitudes associated with sharing a ride with a ”
• Fully automated vehicles: A cost of ownership analysis to inform early adoption (2017, background): “…improve road safety 12 (Department for Transport 2015a), change the way we travel (Wadud et al. 2016) or change the way 13 we own or share vehicles (Krueger et al. 2016), ultimately also affecting energy use and carbon 14 emissions (Wadud and Anable 2016) and resulting in other broader societal…”
• A multi-level model on automated vehicle acceptance (MAVA): a review-based study (2019, background): “Krueger, Rashidi, and Rose (2016) found that service quality aspects including travel time, waiting time and travel costs were significant determinants of AVA.”