Common use of Mode Choice Clause in Contracts

Mode Choice. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2017) presented individuals with various scenarios and asked them to choose the car they would use for their commute based on the characteristics of their current commutes. A vehicle choice model which includes three options is estimated: continue use a regular car; buy and shift to a privately-owned AV, or shift to SAV. Five latent variables were identified based on factor analysis: technology interest, environmental concern, enjoy driving, public transit attitude, and pro-AV sentiments. Only three of these factors played a significant role in estimating the choice decision: enjoy driving, environmental concern, and pro-AV attitude. The effects of the attitudinal variables were very significant and could be influenced by educational campaigns. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2017) asked respondents to choose the most preferable vehicle option to purchase among the four described alternatives: non-automated gasoline vehicle, non-automated electric vehicle, automated gasoline vehicle, and automated electric vehicle. Young adults, well- educated and tech-savvy respondents, those with high annual VMT and those who have long- distance work trips, are found to be more willing to choose automated and electric automated options. Table 4 presents a summary of findings focusing on mode choice. Age, Seniors ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2017) Licensed drivers Enjoy driving ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2017) Do not telecommute Shabanpour et al. (2017) Experienced accidents Residential location, downtown Residential location, suburban (work in the city) Parking price ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2017) Pro-AV attitude Experienced accidents Trip cost (If trip cost PAV < Regular car) HH income Education price > regular car) Trip cost (If trip cost PAV > Regular car) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2017) Age, seniors ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2017) Pro-AV attitude Environmental concern Age, seniors Commute frequency Number of young children in HH Trip cost (If trip cost SAV <