Discussing the “positive utilities” of autonomous vehicles: will travellers really use their time productively?
Abstract
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are expected to reshape travel behaviour and demand in part by enabling productive uses of travel time—a primary component of the “positive utility of travel” concept—thus reducing subjective values of travel time savings (VOT). Many studies from industry and academia have assumed significant increases in travel time use and reductions in VOT for AVs. In this position paper, I argue that AVs’ VOT impacts may be more modest than anticipated and derive from a different source. Vehicle designs and operations may limit activity engagement during travel, with AV users feeling more like car passengers than train riders. Furthermore, shared AVs may attenuate travel time use benefits, and productivity gains could be limited to long-distance trips. Although AV riders will likely have greater activity participation during travel, many in-vehicle activities today may be more about coping with commuting burdens than productively using travel time. Instead, VOT reductions may be more likely to arise from a different “positive utility”—subjective well-being improvements through reduced stresses of driving or the ability to relax and mentally transition. Given high uncertainty, further empirical research on the experiential, time use, and VOT impacts of AVs is needed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A moderate reduction in the value of time, in the order of 10%, is suggested.
“Moderate reduction in the value of time (VOT, in the order of 10%) is suggested in Singleton (2018).”
From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Singleton, 2018
The VOT reduction will be lower than what is anticipated in other studies.
“Singleton (2018) provide a comprehensive discussion of the pertinent studies, asserting that the VOT reduction will be lower than what is anticipated in other studies.”
From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Singleton, 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 173
- Authors
- Singleton, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Utah State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Singleton, Patrick A.
- Venue
- Transport Reviews
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-05-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-65
- ISSN
- 0144-1647 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5327
- OpenAlex
- W2801849030
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 9.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transport Reviews (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, value of travel time, travel time use, shared autonomous vehicles, in-vehicle activities, subjective well-being, travel behavior, commuting stress, long-distance travel
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review