Cited by 173Transportation and Mobility InnovationsTransportation Planning and OptimizationHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Discussing the “positive utilities” of autonomous vehicles: will travellers really use their time productively?

Singleton, Patrick A.·2019·Transport Reviews

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

Crossref · 10.1080/01441647.2018.1470584

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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