CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Transportation and Mobility InnovationsTransportation Planning and OptimizationElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure

Framework for planning the mobility service based on autonomous vehicles

Foldes, David, Csiszar, Csaba·2018·2018 Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP)
DOI 10.1109/scsp.2018.8402651
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) facilitate alteration in the passenger transportation. Shared, demand-driven mobility services based on small-capacity AVs emerge in urban areas. In order to provide highly personalized services and to enhance the acceptance of AVs, the user expectations are to be revealed. The research question is what kind of information is needed to plan various service types with the consideration of user expectations and operational constraints. Accordingly, the planning functions, as well as their input and output data have been identified. Then, the connections between the functions have been explored. In order to provide input data for planning functions, we have elaborated a data collection method applying a questionnaire survey with stated preferences. Based on the survey data correlations could be revealed between socio-demographic characteristics or mobility habits and expected mobility service attributes. The results can be used as a framework for planning mobility services based on AVs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/scsp.2018.8402651

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 user-centric approach to AV mobility services improves the acceptance and usability of AVs in urban environments.

    “The acceptance and usability of AVs in urban environments are eventually improved by this user-centric approach, which assists in designing services that are in line with passengers' wants and preferences [59,60].”

    From Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature (2024) · cites this paper as [59]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says user expectations should be considered when planning AV mobility services to improve acceptance, supporting the user-centred planning and acceptance parts of the claim. The paper does not say this approach improves usability, nor does it demonstrate that the proposed approach has already improved either outcome. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Correlations between users' sociodemographic traits, mobility preferences, and predicted aspects or features of mobility services offered by AVs are discovered through surveys and studies.

    “Correlations between users' sociodemographic traits, mobility preferences, and predicted aspects or features of mobility services offered by AVs are discovered through surveys and studies [59].”

    From Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature (2024) · cites this paper as [59]

  • The average willingness to pay for adding complete Level 4 automation to vehicles ($7253) is much greater than the willingness to pay for adding partial Level 3 automation ($3300).

    “In terms of willingness to pay (WTP), the average WTP for adding complete (Level 4) automation to their vehicles ($7253) is much greater than the WTP for adding partial (Level 3) automation ($3300) [59].”

    From Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature (2024) · cites this paper as [59]

    The State of the Art section (p. 1) discusses willingness to use autonomous-vehicle services, not willingness to pay for vehicle automation. Searches for $7,253, $3,300, and Level 3 versus Level 4 automation found no passage supporting the quoted comparison; the pilot-survey discussion (p. 5) does not report those figures either. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. [1][1] J-F. Cordeau, G. Laporte, J-Y. Potvin, M.W.P. Savelsbergh. 'Transportation on Demand,' in Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Transportation. Vol 14, North Holland, 2007, pp. 429-466. DOI: 10.1016/S0927-0507(06)14007-4 - · DOI
  2. [2][2] L. Davison, M. Enoch, T. Ryley, M.Quddus, C.Wang. (2013). A survey of Demand Responsive Transport in Great Britain. Transport Policy 31 , pp. 47-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.11.004 - · DOI
  3. [3][3] D.J. Fagnant and K.M. Kockelman. (2014). The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agentbased model scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 40 , pp. 1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001 - · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4][4] W. Gruel, J.M. Stanford. (2016) Assessing the long-term effects of autonomous vehicles: a speculative approach. Transportation Research Procedia 13 , pp. 18-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.003 - · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5][5] S. Szigeti, C. Csiszár, and D. Földes. (2017). Information Management of Demand-Responsive Mobility Service Based on Autonomous Vehicles. Procedia Engineering . 187 , pp. 483-491. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.404 - · DOI
  6. [6][6] T. Tettamanti, I. Varga, and Z. Szalay. (2016). Impacts of Autonomous Cars from a Traffic Engineering Perspective. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering. 44(4) , pp. 244-250. DOI: 10.3311/PPtr.9464 - · DOI
  7. [7][7] A.M. Pereira, H. Anany, O. Pribyl, and J. Prikryl, 'Automated Vehicles in Smart Urban Environment: A Review,' in Smart City Symposium 2017 (SCSP2017) , Prague, 2017. DOI: 10.1109/SCSP.2017.7973864 - · DOI
  8. [8][8] E. Adell, A. Várhelyi, and L. Nilsson, 'The Definition of Acceptance and Acceptability,' in Driver Acceptance of New Technology: Theory, Measurement and Optimization , CRC Press, 2014, pp. 11-21. -
  9. [10][10] R. Madigan, T. Louw, M. Dziennus, T. Graindorge, E. Ortega, M. Graindorge, and N. Merata. (2016). Acceptance of Automated Road Transport Systems (ARTS): An Adaptation of the UTAUT Model. Transportation Research Procedia. 14 , pp. 2217-2226. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.237 - · DOI
  10. [11][11] R. Krueger, T.H. Rashidi, and J.M. Rose. (2016). Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 69 , pp. 343-355. DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2016.06.015 - · DOI · Paper page
  11. [12][12] A. Alessandrini, R. Alfonsi, P.D Site, and D. Stam. (2014). Users' preferences towards automated road public transport: results from European surveys. Transportation Research Procedia. 3 , pp. 139-144. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.099 - · DOI
  12. [13][13] J. Piao, M. McDonald, N. Hounsell, M. Graindorge, T. Graindorge, and N. Malhene. (2016). Public Views towards Implementation of Automated Vehicles in Urban Areas. Transportation Research Procedia. 14 , pp. 2168-2177. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.232 - · DOI · Paper page
  13. [14][14] D. Christie, A. Koymans, T. Chanard, J.M. Lasgouttes, and V. Kaufmann. (2016). Pioneering driverless electric vehicles in Europe: the City Automated Transport System (CATS). Transportation Research Procedia. 13 , pp. 30-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.004 - · DOI
  14. [17][17] L. Owczarzak and J. Zak. (2015). Design of passenger public transportation solutions based on autonomous vehicles and their multiple criteria comparison with traditional forms of passenger transportation. Transportation Research Proedica. 10 , pp. 472-482. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.001 - · DOI · Paper page
  15. [18][18] D. Nicolaides, D. Cebon, and J. Mile, 'An autonomous taxi service for sustainable urban transportation,' in Proceeding of 2017 Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP2017) , Prague, 2017. DOI: 10.1109/SCSP.2017.7973353 - · DOI
  16. [20][20] O.J. Ibarra-Rojas, F. Delgado, R. Giesen, J.C. Muñoz. (2015). Planning, operation, and control of bus transport systems: A literature review, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 77 , pp. 38-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2015.03.002 - · DOI
  17. [21][21] C. Csiszár, D. Földes. (2018). System Model for Autonomous Road Freight Transportation Promet-Traffic & Transportation. 30(1) , pp. 93103. DOI: 10.7307/ptt.v30i1.2566 - · DOI
  18. [22][22] Y. Shiftan, S. Kaplan, S. Hakkert. (2003). Scenario building as a tool for planning a sustainable transportation system. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment . 8, pp. 323-342. DOI: 10.1016/S1361-9209(03)00020-8 - · DOI
  19. [23][23] S. Guo, Y. Liu, K. Xu., D.M. Chiu, 'Understanding Passenger Reaction to Dynamic Prices in Ride-on-demand Service,' in Proceeding of Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops , Kona, USA, 2017. DOI: 10.1109/PERCOMW.2017.7917517 - · DOI
  20. [24][24] M. Stiglic, N. Agatz, M. Savelsbergh, M. Gradisar. (2017). The benefits of meeting points in ride-sharing systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 82 , pp. 36-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2015.07.025 - · DOI
  21. [25][25] T.M. Haladyna, 'Guidelines for Developing MC Items,' in Developing and Validating Multiple-Choice Test Items . Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2011, pp. 97-127. -
  22. [26][26] T. Nemoto, D. Beglar, 'Developing Likert-Scale Questionnaires,' in Proceeding of JALT2013 , Tokyo, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foldes, D., & Csiszar, C.
Venue
2018 Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-05
Pages
1-6
DOI
10.1109/scsp.2018.8402651
OpenAlex
W2817137177
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.85
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP) (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Emberi Eroforrások Minisztériuma (ÚNKP-17-3, ?NKP-17-3-I)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, shared mobility, demand-responsive transport, user expectations, stated preference, planning framework, sociodemographic factors, mobility behavior, urban passenger transport

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