IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v158y2022icp156-179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adoption of partially automated vehicle technology features and impacts on vehicle miles of travel (VMT)

Author

Listed:
  • Asmussen, Katherine E.
  • Mondal, Aupal
  • Bhat, Chandra R.

Abstract

In this paper, we examine vehicle owners’ adoption of five different types of partially automated features (PAFs); lane keeping system, backup camera (BUC), adaptive cruise control (ACC), automatic braking system (ABS), and blind spot monitoring; as well as PAF effects on vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The joint modeling of PAF adoption and VMT is achieved using both individual demographic characteristics as well as psycho-social characteristics. A Generalized Heterogeneous Data Model (GHDM) is estimated, which controls for possible self-selection effects in PAF adoption based on VMT, and thus is able to provide “true” PAF effects on VMT. Our analysis specifically indicates that ignoring this self-selection can lead to a significant underestimation of the VMT increase due to PAF adoption. The results also indicate that women and older individuals (65 years or older) appear to be more inclined to invest in assistive PAFs, because of a perception that these assistive features still leave the human driver in control. However, women are less likely than men to invest in the more active ABS PAF because of heightened safety concerns with technology. In terms of PAF effects on VMT, PAFs focusing on lateral movement assistance appear to have a smaller VMT effect than those that serve longitudinal movement assistance. The highest estimated VMT change of 2,462 miles (13.8% change) is for the case when the package of BUC, ACC, and ABS is installed for middle-aged men. The highest percentage VMT change (40%), though, is for the same package of BUC, ACC, and ABS for older women. Overall, there are considerable variations in VMT impact across demographic groupings, suggesting that a single aggregate percentage improvement in safety benefits may suffer from the well-known ecological fallacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Asmussen, Katherine E. & Mondal, Aupal & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "Adoption of partially automated vehicle technology features and impacts on vehicle miles of travel (VMT)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 156-179.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:158:y:2022:i:c:p:156-179
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2022.02.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856422000441
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2022.02.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ke, Yue & McMullen, B. Starr, 2017. "Regional differences in the determinants of Oregon VMT," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 2-10.
    2. Bhat, Chandra R. & Pinjari, Abdul R. & Dubey, Subodh K. & Hamdi, Amin S., 2016. "On accommodating spatial interactions in a Generalized Heterogeneous Data Model (GHDM) of mixed types of dependent variables," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 240-263.
    3. Robert S. Chirinko & Edward P. Harper, 1993. "Buckle up or slow down? New estimates of offsetting behavior and their implications for automobile safety regulation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(2), pages 270-296.
    4. Lex Borghans & Bart H. H. Golsteyn & James J. Heckman & Huub Meijers, 2009. "Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 649-658, 04-05.
    5. Gary Solon & Steven J. Haider & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "What Are We Weighting For?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 301-316.
    6. Matthias N. Sweet & Kailey Laidlaw, 2020. "No longer in the driver’s seat: How do affective motivations impact consumer interest in automated vehicles?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2601-2634, October.
    7. Bhat, Chandra R. & Mondal, Aupal & Asmussen, Katherine E. & Bhat, Aarti C., 2020. "A multiple discrete extreme value choice model with grouped consumption data and unobserved budgets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.
    8. Maddala,G. S., 1986. "Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521338257, October.
    9. Clifford Winston & Vikram Maheshri & Fred Mannering, 2006. "An exploration of the offset hypothesis using disaggregate data: The case of airbags and antilock brakes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 83-99, March.
    10. Meier-Pesti, Katja & Penz, Elfriede, 2008. "Sex or gender? Expanding the sex-based view by introducing masculinity and femininity as predictors of financial risk taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 180-196, April.
    11. Brown, Anne E., 2017. "Car-less or car-free? Socioeconomic and mobility differences among zero-car households," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 152-159.
    12. Lex Borghans & Bart H.H. Golsteyn & James J. Heckman & Huub Meijers, 2009. "Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity," Working Papers 200903, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    13. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    14. Traynor, Thomas L, 1993. "The Peltzman Hypothesis Revisited: An Isolated Evaluation of Offsetting Driver Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 237-247, October.
    15. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    16. Mustapha Harb & Yu Xiao & Giovanni Circella & Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Joan L. Walker, 2018. "Projecting travelers into a world of self-driving vehicles: estimating travel behavior implications via a naturalistic experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1671-1685, November.
    17. Hardman, Scott PhD & Chakraborty, Debapriya PhD & Kohn, Eben, 2021. "A Quantitative Investigation into the Impact of Partially Automated Vehicles on Vehicle Miles Travelled in California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt58t7674n, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    18. Imre Keseru & Cathy Macharis, 2018. "Travel-based multitasking: review of the empirical evidence," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 162-183, March.
    19. Morris, Eric A. & Blumenberg, Evelyn & Guerra, Erick, 2020. "Does lacking a car put the brakes on activity participation? Private vehicle access and access to opportunities among low-income adults," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 375-397.
    20. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1995. "Selection corrections for panel data models under conditional mean independence assumptions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 115-132, July.
    21. Peltzman, Sam, 1975. "The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(4), pages 677-725, August.
    22. Dannemiller, Katherine A. & Mondal, Aupal & Asmussen, Katherine E. & Bhat, Chandra R., 2021. "Investigating autonomous vehicle impacts on individual activity-travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 402-422.
    23. Fraedrich, Eva & Heinrichs, Dirk & Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J. & Cyganski, Rita, 2019. "Autonomous driving, the built environment and policy implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 162-172.
    24. Marikyan, Davit & Papagiannidis, Savvas & Alamanos, Eleftherios, 2019. "A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 139-154.
    25. Rico Krueger & Taha H. Rashidi & Vinayak V. Dixit, 2019. "Autonomous Driving and Residential Location Preferences: Evidence from a Stated Choice Survey," Papers 1905.11486, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    26. Sen, Anindya, 2001. "An Empirical Test of the Offset Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 481-510, October.
    27. Peterson, Steven & Hoffer, George & Millner, Edward, 1995. "Are Drivers of Air-Bag-Equipped Cars More Aggressive? A Test of the Offsetting Behavior Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 251-264, October.
    28. Bhat, Chandra R., 2014. "The Composite Marginal Likelihood (CML) Inference Approach with Applications to Discrete and Mixed Dependent Variable Models," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 7(1), pages 1-117, July.
    29. Wu, Jingwen & Liao, Hua & Wang, Jin-Wei, 2020. "Analysis of consumer attitudes towards autonomous, connected, and electric vehicles: A survey in China," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    30. Antonio Nicita & Simona Benedettini, 2012. "The Costs of Avoiding Accidents.Selective Compliance and the 'Peltzman Effect' in Italy," Department of Economics University of Siena 631, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    31. Fábio Duarte & Carlo Ratti, 2018. "The Impact of Autonomous Vehicles on Cities: A Review," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 3-18, October.
    32. Bhat, Chandra R., 2015. "A new generalized heterogeneous data model (GHDM) to jointly model mixed types of dependent variables," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 50-77.
    33. Aggelos Soteropoulos & Martin Berger & Francesco Ciari, 2019. "Impacts of automated vehicles on travel behaviour and land use: an international review of modelling studies," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 29-49, January.
    34. Benedettini, Simona & Nicita, Antonio, 2012. "The costs of avoiding accidents: Selective compliance and the ‘Peltzman effect’ in Italy," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 256-270.
    35. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bhat, Chandra R. & Mondal, Aupal, 2022. "A New Flexible Generalized Heterogeneous Data Model (GHDM) with an Application to Examine the Effect of High Density Neighborhood Living on Bicycling Frequency," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 244-266.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dannemiller, Katherine A. & Mondal, Aupal & Asmussen, Katherine E. & Bhat, Chandra R., 2021. "Investigating autonomous vehicle impacts on individual activity-travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 402-422.
    2. Clifford Winston & Vikram Maheshri & Fred Mannering, 2006. "An exploration of the offset hypothesis using disaggregate data: The case of airbags and antilock brakes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 83-99, March.
    3. Berlemann, Michael & Matthes, Andreas, 2014. "Positive externalities from active car safety systems," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 313-329.
    4. Bhat, Chandra R. & Mondal, Aupal, 2022. "A New Flexible Generalized Heterogeneous Data Model (GHDM) with an Application to Examine the Effect of High Density Neighborhood Living on Bicycling Frequency," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 244-266.
    5. Fatemeh Nazari & Mohamadhossein Noruzoliaee & Abolfazl Mohammadian, 2023. "Behavioral acceptance of automated vehicles: The roles of perceived safety concern and current travel behavior," Papers 2302.12225, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    6. Devon McAslan & Farah Najar Arevalo & David A. King & Thaddeus R. Miller, 2021. "Pilot project purgatory? Assessing automated vehicle pilot projects in U.S. cities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Li, Dun & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2022. "Potential adoption of robotaxi service: The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmental awareness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 120-135.
    8. Pudāne, Baiba & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2021. "A day in the life with an automated vehicle: Empirical analysis of data from an interactive stated activity-travel survey," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    9. Germà Bel & Óscar Gasulla & Ferran A. Mazaira-Font, 2020. "The effect of health and economic costs on governments' policy responses to COVID-19 crisis, under incomplete information," IREA Working Papers 202008, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jun 2020.
    10. Andrew L. Kun & Raffaella Sadun & Orit Shaer & Thomaz Teodorovicz, 2022. "Multitasking while driving: a time use study of commuting knowledge workers to access current and future uses," CEP Discussion Papers dp1841, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    11. Lv, Jinpeng & Lord, Dominique & Zhang, Yunlong & Chen, Zhi, 2015. "Investigating Peltzman effects in adopting mandatory seat belt laws in the US: Evidence from non-occupant fatalities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 58-64.
    12. Attié, Elodie & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Vinayak, Pragun & Dias, Felipe F. & Astroza, Sebastian & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Garikapati, Venu M., 2018. "Accounting for multi-dimensional dependencies among decision-makers within a generalized model framework: An application to understanding shared mobility service usage levels," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-137.
    14. Sun, Shanshan & Wong, Yiik Diew, 2023. "Drivers’ attention economy and adoption to autonomous vehicle," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 108-118.
    15. Grimm, Michael & Treibich, Carole, 2016. "Why do some motorbike riders wear a helmet and others don’t? Evidence from Delhi, India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 318-336.
    16. Ampudia, Miguel & Ehrmann, Michael, 2017. "Macroeconomic experiences and risk taking of euro area households," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 146-156.
    17. Júlio Lobão, 2024. "The Influence of Gender on Individuals’ Ability to Predict Their Own Risk Tolerance: Evidence from a European Country," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Anderson, D. Mark & Sandholt, Sina, 2016. "Booster Seats and Traffic Fatalities among Children," IZA Discussion Papers 10071, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Annie Tubadji & Toby Denney & Don J. Webber, 2021. "Cultural relativity in consumers' rates of adoption of artificial intelligence," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 1234-1251, July.
    20. Che, Maohao & Wong, Yiik Diew & Lum, Kit Meng & Wang, Xueqin, 2021. "Interaction behaviour of active mobility users in shared space," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 52-65.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:158:y:2022:i:c:p:156-179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.