Table 2.
Implications of AVs on public behaviour
| Study | Study area | Key assumptions | Replacement Factor | Average waiting time (min) | Vehicle utilization (%) | VKT increase (%) | Trip cost reduction (%) | Parking demand reduction (%) | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burns, Jordan, and Scarborough (2012) [17] | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Shared AVs replace private trips lower than 70 miles | One AV can replace 10 conventional vehicles | 1 | 75% | – | 90 | – | Shared AVs highly reduce costs |
| Burns, Jordan, and Scarborough (2012) [17] | Babcock Ranch, Florida | Share AVs replace trips within the city only | – | 1 | – | Low trip cost | – | Low number of AVs can serve the city | |
| Burns, Jordan, and Scarborough (2012) [17] | Manhattan, New York | Shared AVs replace the yellow taxicab trips | – | 1 | – | – | 88 | – | Shared AVs highly reduce costs |
| Kockelman and Fagnant (2014) [18] | Austin, Texas, USA | The study estimated the impact of AVs on the environment | 12 | 0.3 | High vehicle utilization and the life span will be short. As a result, newer AV generations might be more environmentally friendly due to the technological development | 11% increase due to relocation to cheap parking areas during low demand | – | 92% (Removal of 11 spaces for each AV) | Reduction on CO and VOC by 34% and 39%due to reduction in engine starts, fuel used to find parking spot and platooning |
| International transport forum (2015) [16] | Lisbon, Portugal | Study two scenarios 50% shared AVs and 100% AVs | 10 | 3.7 | 60 to 75% | 6% increase with 50% AVs and 89% increase with 100% AVs | 80% | High reduction in the parking spaces | |
| Azevedo et al. (2015) [32] | Singapore | Private vehicles are not allowed to access a 14Km2 restricted zone in the CBD in Singapore | – | Reduce with the increase in the AVs until 2500 AVs then stay flat at almost 3 min | – | Increase because of the restricted area | – | – | – |
| Zhang, Guhathakurta, Fang, and Zhang (2015) [19] | City of Atlanta, USA | – | 14 | 0.12 | – | – | – | 90% reduction in the parking demand of the served population (serving 2% of population) | High reduction in the parking spaces |
| Bischoff and Maciejewski (2016) [20] | Berlin, Germany | Autonomous taxis will replace private cars | 11 | 2.5 | 32% | – | – | – | Every AV can replace 11 traditional vehicles |
| Hörl, Erath and Axhausen (2016) [33] | City of Sioux Falls, USA | – | – | 10 to 15 | – | 60% | – | – | High increase in the VKT |
| Zhang and Guhathakurta (2017) [39] | City of Atlanta, USA | Simulate three parking scenarios: free parking, entrance-based charge, and time-based charge | – | – | – | 5% increase in the entrance-based, 14% for the time based | – | 90% reduction in the parking demand of the served population (serving 5% of population with 4.5% reduction in parking demand) | The parking strategy affect the VKT significantly |
| Moreno, Michalski, Llorca and Moeckel (2018) [22] | greater Munich metropolitan area, Germany | Simulation characteristics are based on a survey analysis with 24.5% shared AVs | 2.5 | 5 | – | Up to 8% | – | – | – |
| Zhang, Guhathakurta and Khalil (2018) [23] | Atlanta Metropolitan Area, USA | Vehicles are shared within the same household members | Reduce ownership by 18.3% | – | – | 13.3% | – | – | Reduction in the ownership |