Modeling Determinants of Autonomous Vehicle Utilization in Private and Shared Ownership Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The abstract provides a concise summary of the study's objectives, methods, and findings. However, it could be improved by clearly specifying the key contributions of the research to the field. For instance, emphasize the novelty of using intercept surveys compared to other survey methodologies. Consider briefly mentioning the policy or practical implications of the findings to strengthen the relevance of the study.

Introduction

The introduction effectively sets the context for the study, but the narrative could be streamlined. For example, avoid redundancies when discussing the "Three Revolutions" framework and its implications. The research gap and objectives are stated but could be more explicitly framed. For example, clearly highlight why focusing on discretionary trips is novel and valuable in understanding AV adoption.

Materials and Methods

While the methods are described in detail, some clarifications are needed:

The rationale for choosing Ann Arbor as the study site should be expanded, linking its characteristics to the broader implications of the findings.

Explain why only discretionary trips were considered and whether this limits the generalizability of the results.

Justify the exclusion of cost considerations in respondents’ willingness to adopt AVs. A brief discussion of the potential impact of this omission on the results would strengthen the study's transparency.

Provide more details about the survey instrument design process and how it was validated to ensure reliability and comprehensiveness.

Results

The results section is well-structured, but some enhancements could make it more reader-friendly:

Add more narrative explanation of the statistical findings to help readers interpret the implications without relying solely on tables.

In the discussion of multinomial logit model results, provide clearer interpretations of key coefficients, especially those that showed significance for specific variables such as age and intersection density.

Consider adding additional visualizations, such as maps or heatmaps, to better illustrate geographic patterns and their relationship with AV adoption.

Discussion

The discussion offers thoughtful interpretations but could be further refined:

Explicitly connect the findings to the broader literature on AV adoption. For instance, compare your results with studies that used stated preference methods to emphasize the value of your intercept survey approach.

Elaborate on the implications of your findings for urban planning and policy, particularly in terms of promoting shared AV models versus privately-owned AVs.

Address limitations more explicitly. For example, discuss the relatively small sample size and the potential biases inherent in intercept surveys conducted at specific locations.

Conclusion

The conclusion is concise but could better summarize the practical and theoretical implications of the study. Consider explicitly stating how your findings can inform policymakers or stakeholders in the AV industry.

Suggest directions for future research, such as examining the impact of trip purposes other than discretionary trips or including cost considerations in future surveys.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in this manuscript is generally clear and sufficient to convey the research. However, a thorough language review is recommended to ensure clarity and improve the flow of the text. Simplifying sentence structures and addressing minor issues will enhance the manuscript's overall presentation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are many surveys on willingness to shift to AV. The novelty of the specific is that it compares shared to individual use as well as it relates it to geofenced location data on origin/destination. That brings some results of significant value. The paper could be improved if: a) Familiarization of responders to AV technology was clearer and included in the key parameters (i.e. it may be that this instead of age constitutes the key preference indicator). b) the “intersections” infrastructure complexity factor was better defined (it may include multiple levels of infrastructure layout). c) lack of relation to intended trip length/duration or –at least- not clearly presented. Finally, data are from 2017 and pre-COVID19; so of limited use.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf