See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348209943

Connected and Automated Vehicles: Opportunities and Challenges for

Transportation Systems, Smart Cities, and Societies

Chapter · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-8670-5_11

CITATIONS READS

12 1,122

2 authors:

Anshuman Sharma Zuduo Zheng

The University of Queensland The University of Queensland
21 PUBLICATIONS 545 CITATIONS 110 PUBLICATIONS 4,603 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Disruptions of emerging personal mobility technologies View project

Integrated car following and fuel consumption modelling in the traditional, connected and autonomous vehicle environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zuduo Zheng on 16 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CONNECTED AND AUTOMATED VEHICLES: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, SMART CITIES, AND SOCIETIES
Anshuman Sharmaa, Zuduo Zhenga,1
a
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT
Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) technology offers a great potential solution to
massive road transport issues in the areas of safety, mobility, and the environment. For road
transport, the CAV technology promises to reduce traffic congestion, increase road capacity,
enhance traffic stability, and reduce vehicle emissions. However, the path to the full
implementation or a high market penetration of CAVs has some critical challenges. This
chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of the opportunities associated with CAVs.
These include congestion reduction, road safety improvement, environment protection, societal
productivity, and economic benefits. Further, this chapter discusses five major challenges,
namely: transition period, economic issues, privacy and security issues, legislative issues, and
ethical issues that need to be addressed before the wide scale deployment of CAVs.
KEYWORDS: Automated vehicles; Connected vehicles; Human factors; Road safety;
Traffic congestion

1. Introduction
In the 71st session of the United Nations general assembly, over 170 countries came together
to consider the topic on “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a universal push to transform
our world” (“General Assembly of the United Nations,” 2016). There are 17 SDGs in total, and
the 9th and 11th goals are “Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure” and “Sustainable cities”
(“Sustainable Development Goals,” 2016). Undoubtedly, modern transportation systems will
play a key role in achieving both these goals and, by extension, enable further sustainable
development. However, road crashes, congestion, fuel consumption, and emissions are the
major externalities of modern transportation systems, which impede sustainable development
due to their enormous negative impact on mobility, economy, public health, and environment.

1
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3138 9989.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Zheng)
Annually, more than 1.3 million road traffic fatalities have been reported globally (WHO,
2018). Beyond these serious traffic accidents, traffic congestion has a significant impact on the
economy and the environment. In 2015, the annual average wasted hours per commuter in
traffic in London and Los Angeles were 101 and 81, respectively (“INRIX 2015 Traffic
Scorecard,” 2015). For the year 2013, around 25% of CO2 emissions were estimated to be
attributed to transport globally (Olivier et al., 2013). In Australia, traffic congestion costs are
predicted to rise to $30 billion by 2030, and road crashes alone cost around $27 billion annually
to the national economy (BRITE, 2015). Moreover, road transport is responsible for about 16%
of total greenhouse gas emissions in Australia (Ausroad, 2015). In order to achieve sustainable
economic growth and environmental health globally, it is imperative that we optimise traffic
operations and traffic control through technological innovations, efficient operations and
control, and effective policies.

Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) technology has great potential as the solution to
massive road transport issues in the areas of safety, mobility, and environment (“Automated
and Connected Vehicles,” 2015). Experts predict that by 2030, CAVs will be mainstream,
fundamentally transforming the automobile industry and how we travel (McCarthy et al.,
2015). This prediction has engendered numerous studies and research programs (“Google Self-
Driving Car Project,” 2009; “Intelligent Transportation Systems - Connected Vehicle Pilot
Program,” 2015; Hawes, 2015; Hendrickson et al., 2014; Smith, 2015). Other emerging
technologies such as connected vehicles (CVs) also appear promising in potentially delivering
solutions at the individual vehicle and infrastructure levels.

The estimated proportion of vehicle fleet likely to be equipped for connected intelligent
transportation systems (C-ITS) is 50-65% in Australia and above 90% in the USA by the year
2037 (Weeratunga and Somers, 2015; Wright et al., 2014). Further, the global market of CVs
is expected to reach USD 131.9 billion by 2019 (Transparency Market Research, 2013). This
has led to an influx of research and development activities in more countries (including
Australia), with governments, car manufacturers (e.g. GM, Toyota), and high-tech companies
(e.g. Google, Uber) investing heavily in CAV road testing. According to Bloomberg
Philanthropies and the Aspen Institute [6], as of August 2019, 100 cities worldwide and more
than 4 cities in Australia were hosting testing activities for CAVs. It is no exaggeration to say
that CAVs research, development, and deployment is a new global race. Figure 1 represents
CAVs interactions at critical roadway sections. At signalised intersections, CAVs can receive
prior information about signal timings and adjust their dynamics. Similarly, CAVs can sense
pedestrians when approaching a pedestrian crossing and then decelerate as required to allow
safe crossing of pedestrians. As shown in Figure 2, CAVs can potentially interact with one
another and safely pass through intersections without relying on traffic signals.

Figure 1. Traffic interactions of CAVs at critical roadway sections. (a) Signalised intersection;
(b) Pedestrian crossing.

Figure 2. CAVs interact at intersection without traffic signals

(source: https://www.transportation.gov/)

Recent hiccups such as Google’s driverless car crash (BBC, 2016), and the fatal crash of
Tesla’s autonomous car (The New York Times, 2016) raise severe and still unanswered
questions regarding CAV’s technical competency, its impact on surrounding traffic, and overall
road safety. Other key issues associated with CAVs to be investigated before their wide-scale
deployment in the real world are privacy, economic, security, and legal issues. This chapter
explains various opportunities and challenges of CAVs. More specifically, this chapter answers
the following questions: (i) How can CAVs assist in mitigating the ever-increasing traffic
congestion? (ii) What are the expected road safety benefits of CAVs? (iii) How can CAVs
assist in tackling the problem of vehicular pollution? (iv) How can CAVs increase societal
productivity and improve overall mobility? (v) What are the economic, privacy, environmental,
and legislative concerns associated with CAVs?

This chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses various vehicle categories. Section 3
details CAVs benefits whereas Section 4 presents issues that may hinder CAVs’ smooth
deployment. Finally, the conclusion of this chapter is provided in Section 5.

2. Vehicle Categories
This section defines and discusses various vehicle categories.

Connected vehicles (CVs) are vehicles equipped to provide surrounding traffic information to
drivers via vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I), and vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) communications. V2X communication includes transmission of information
to vehicles, infrastructure, pedestrians, aftermarket devices, and any entity that may affect the
CV’s dynamics. The key advantages of CVs include enhancing traffic efficiency by alleviating
traffic congestion, improving traffic safety, and reducing traffic emissions (Kim, 2015). The
driver has full control of the longitudinal (i.e. car-following) and lateral (i.e. lane-changing)
driving tasks, and the role of connectivity is only to assist the driver in decision-making by
providing information such as position and speed of the lead vehicle, the gap with the lead
vehicle, and an incident at the downstream,

V2V and V2I research began under the vehicle infrastructure integration initiative in the year
2003. However, its origin dates back to 1996 when General Motors introduced the first
connected cars (Galler and Asher, 1995; Qi et al., 2009). These cars had an internal system that
connected to an OnStar Advisor when airbags were deployed. The OnStar Advisor then relayed
the transmitted information to emergency responders (Auto connected car news, 2014). The
global race of mastering CVs technology has picked up the pace in the last 10 years. Some of
the communication platforms available today for V2V and V2I communications are Dedicated
Short Range Communications (DSRC), Wi-Fi, Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave
Access (WiMAX), Cellular Bluetooth, and 3G/4G/5G. The US Department of Transport has
adopted 5.9 GHz DSRC as the primary platform for CVs safety applications. The authors note
that 5.9 GHz DSRC is a secure, low latency (latency is a time delay measure between sending
and receiving information), wireless mobile data communication technology. A more detailed
discussion on DSRC is presented in Bettisworth et al. (2015).

Automated Vehicles (AVs; also termed as autonomous vehicles) are vehicles enabled to
perform all the driving tasks in all the cases encountered with no human intervention required.
Notably, this definition represents the highest level of automation (level 5). The Levels of
automation as per Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (SAE, 2016) are discussed below.
In the year 2016, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has also adopted
the same levels of automation. Note that in this chapter, the terms “automated” and
“autonomous” are used interchangeably.

Level 0 (No Automation): All the driving tasks are in drivers’ hands. The system may
issue warning messages but it is at drivers’ discretion to comply or not.
Level 1 (Driver Assistance): The driver assistance system executes either steering or
acceleration/deceleration. Human driver performs the rest of the driving tasks and
monitors the driving environment.
Level 2 (Partial Automation): The driver assistance system executes both steering
and acceleration/deceleration. Human driver performs the rest of the driving tasks and
monitors the driving environment.
Level 3 (Conditional Automation): The automated driver assistance system executes
all the driving tasks and monitors the environment. Human driver has to respond
appropriately whenever the system requests the driver to take over.
Level 4 (High Automation): The automated driver assistance system executes all the
driving tasks and monitors the environment even if the human driver does not respond
appropriately to the system’s request.

Level 3 and Level 4 are driving mode specific (a driving mode refers to a driving
scenario such as high speed cruising, merging/diverging, low speed following, etc.).
For instance, it is possible that an AV performing at level 4 automation will be capable
of performing all the driving tasks as well as monitoring the driving environment in
case of low speed following, high speed cruising, and merging/diverging. However, the
 driver has to perform the driving tasks in case of traffic jams where more tactical aspects
of driving are involved.

Level 5 (Full Automation): The automated driver assistance system executes all the
driving tasks in all the driving modes under all roadway and environmental conditions.

It is important to highlight that driving tasks performed by the automation only include
the operational (steering, acceleration/deceleration, monitoring, etc.) and tactical (lane-
change, responding to a sudden event, etc.) aspects of driving. Strategic aspect of
driving tasks (e.g., origin-destination points) is not involved.

Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) are automated vehicles with communication
capability. This connectivity can be added at each of the five automation levels described
above. However, CAVs in general refer to AVs operation at level 5 automation with
communication capability. It is expected that adding communication to automation will make
automated vehicles safer and more efficient.

3. Opportunities of CAVs
CAVs will have a profound impact on traffic depending on two major factors: (1) the level of
autonomy available in the market; and (2) the penetration level in the traffic stream. This
section focuses on CAVs with level 5 automated vehicles, and the impact of CAVs penetration
level is discussed later.

3.1 Congestion reduction and overall improved mobility

Traffic congestion is characterised by slower speeds, the stop-and-go phenomenon, longer
travel time, and longer vehicular queuing. Traffic congestion can be triggered by many factors
such as insufficient road capacity, driver errors, inadequate mass transit options, inefficient
traffic signals, and improper road design and planning. Where such congestion occurs, this not
only increases the travel time to the desired destination but it also slows down the economy.
Congestion is becoming an epidemic in large cities. Traffic congestion can cost approximately
0.5-3% of the GDP of developed economies and up to 5% of the GDP of developing economies
(Cox and Hart, 2016). In Australia, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional
Economics estimated in 2015 that congestion costs Australia $16.5 billion per annum, and that
without major policy changes, the cost to the Australian economy would increase to $27.7 to
$37.3 billion annually by 2030 (BITRE, 2015). Other negative impacts of traffic congestion
include fuel wastage, pollution due to increased emissions, wear and tear of vehicles, and other
social issues such as road rage due to stressed and frustrated drivers.

Proponents of CAVs advocate its potential in assisting to mitigate traffic congestion by virtue
of each CAV being able to automatically adjust its speed and spacing depending on the traffic
flow condition at the upstream. Early evidence of CAVs’ capability to withstand the negative
effects of congestion are reported in the studies investigating cooperative adaptive cruise
control (CACC) vehicles. These studies suggested that CACC vehicles could improve traffic
flow stability, increase road capacity, avoid stop-and-go driving, and improve traffic flow
efficiency (higher average flow and average speed) in general (Ge and Orosz, 2014; Milanés
et al., 2014; Naus et al., 2010; Ngoduy, 2013; Ploeg et al., 2011; Shladover et al., 2012; van
Arem et al., 2006). Recently, several studies have examined the capability of CAVs to mitigate
traffic congestion using simulation-based approaches. For instance, Wang et al. (2016)
proposed and implemented decentralised and distributed algorithms to model CAVs
(longitudinal control only) and concluded that CAVs could remedy the capacity drop
phenomenon and improve the stability of traffic flow upstream of the jam area. Moreover, Ye
and Yamamoto (2018a and 2018b) demonstrated that higher market penetration of CAVs in
the heterogeneous traffic flow of CAVs and traditional vehicles increases road capacity.
Similar conclusions have been reported in other studies as well (Monteil et al., 2014; Rajamani
and Shladover, 2001; Rios-Torres and Malikopoulos, 2017; Xie et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2017).

3.2 Road safety improvement

Road traffic fatalities are an unacceptable consequence of transportation. Each day around 3700
lives are lost globally in road traffic crashes, and more than half of those are pedestrians,
motorcyclists, and cyclists (WHO, 2018). Driver errors and inappropriate road infrastructure
and system design are the main causes of crashes. Owing to limited perception, anticipation,
and judgement capabilities, drivers are bound to make errors. In addition, impaired or distracted
driving leads to driver errors. In all likelihood, driver errors are related to a high proportion of
crashes. For example, in the US in 2013 driver errors were estimated to account for around
94% of all crashes (NHTSA, 2015). The safety benefits of CAVs are centred on the elimination
of driver errors. These vehicles are equipped with Radar, LiDAR, cameras, and artificial
intelligence technology to detect and track road objects. Unlike human drivers, these vehicles
do not experience fatigue, distraction and other human factors which often lead to driver errors.
Moreover, CAVs can adjust their driving behaviour based on the information received from
surrounding vehicles and roadside units via V2V and V2I communication. With the fusion of
all these technologies, CAVs can become error-free and thereby dramatically improve the
safety performance of road traffic.

Based on the historical crash data, a few studies have attempted to predict the safety impact of
CAVs. Fagnant and Kockelman (2015) suggested that a 90% reduction in crashes could
potentially be achieved based on the number of crashes due to human error. Drawing parallels
to the introduction of automation in aviation and rail, and subsequently its success in aviation
and rail due to appropriate infrastructure, proper navigation, and efficient traffic management,
Hayes (2017) conjectured that road crashes can also be reduced to 1% of the present situation.
Papadoulis et al. (2019) modelled the longitudinal behaviour of CAVs and evaluated CAVs’
safety benefits using the Surrogate Safety Assessment Model. They conjectured that estimated
traffic conflicts are reduced by 12–47%, 50–80%, 82–92% and 90–94% for 25%, 50%, 75%
and 100% CAVs penetration rates, respectively. Ye and Yamamoto (2019) modelled the
heterogeneous flow of traditional vehicles and CAVs, and reported that traffic safety improves
with the increase of the penetration rates of CAVs as indicated by higher TTC (time to
collision) values and lower frequency of safety-critical situations.

3.3 Environment protection and energy saving

Transportation is one of the major contributors of air pollution through tailpipe emissions
(volatile organic compounds (VOC), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon dioxide (CO2)),
evaporative emissions, resuspension of road dust, and particles from wear and tear. As the third
largest consumer of energy and the largest consumer of petroleum products, our transportation
systems produce over 80% of air pollution in urban areas worldwide (UNESC, 2009). This has
a severe consequence on public health because exposure to ambient air pollution increases
morbidity and mortality, and is a leading contributor to the global disease burden (Cohen et al.,
2017). In Australia, road transport is responsible for about 16% of total greenhouse gas
emissions in Australia (Whitehead, 2015). Transport-related greenhouse gas pollution levels
increased by 3.4% in the 12 months to December 2017 and since 1990, they have increased by
62.9%, a higher rate than any other sector (The Climate Council of Australia, 2018). Road
transport is estimated to be responsible for up to 30% of particulate emissions (PM) in
European cities and up to 50% of PM emissions in Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) countries – mostly due to diesel traffic (WHO, 2012).
CAVs have the potential to reduce vehicular pollution. Firstly, CAVs can remedy traffic
congestion as described in Section 3.2, and this will directly reduce the harmful effects of traffic
congestion on air quality. Secondly, CAVs can contribute to energy and fuel savings. Zohdy
and Rakha (2016) developed a CACC control algorithm for intersection control and reported
fuel savings of 33%, 45%, and 11% for a traffic signal, all-way-stop, and roundabout,
respectively. Moreover, Kamalanathsharma and Rakha (2016) demonstrated that Eco-CACC
could provide fuel savings within the vicinity of signalised intersections in the range of 5% to
30%. Other studies also reported significant fuel consumption savings with CACC and CAVs
(Kamal et al., 2016; Qin Yanyan et al., 2018; Rios-Torres and Malikopoulos, 2017). Finally,
CAVs can lessen traffic emission, which also leads to improvements in air quality because
these technologies emit no ozone-forming precursors or particulate matter that can cause
respiratory illnesses. Qin Yanyan et al. (2018) performed numerical simulations of the mixed
traffic of traditional vehicles and CAVs (longitudinal control only), and reported a reduction
of 16%, 22%, and 16% in CO, NOx, and HC emissions respectively at only 10% penetration
rate of CAVs as compared to no CAVs in the traffic stream. Moreover, the emission reduction
increases with the increase of the penetration rate of CAVs. Liu et al. (2017) smoothened the
driving cycles designed by the US Environmental Protection Agency to represent CAVs
driving profiles and estimated traffic emissions by using Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(popularly known as “MOVES”). They reported that the mean emission reductions that could
be achieved by CAVs compared to traditional vehicles are 10.89%, 19.09%, 13.23%, 15.51%,
and 6.55% for VOC, PM2.5, CO, NOx, and SO2, respectively. Similar conclusions on the
potential for CAVs to achieve lower emissions are reported in other studies (Lee and Park,
2012; Tu et al., 2019; Yang and Jin, 2014).

Meanwhile, CAVs can also lead to significant energy savings as automation allows vehicles to
adjust their motions more precisely and optimize their trajectories in anticipation of upcoming
events (Vahidi and Sciarretta, 2018). CAVs can also be designed to move in a coordinated and
more efficient manner. Optimised control, anticipated driving and coordinated driving are some
of the features of CAV’s that will increase energy efficiency. The harmonising effect of energy-
efficient motion of these vehicles can lead to additional energy saving. Overall, research shows
that CAV can contribute to 3-20% energy saving (Vahidi and Sciarretta, 2018).

3.4 Increased societal productivity

CAVs have several societal benefits. The three major societal benefits are detailed below.
Reduced travel cost. Travel cost is calculated based on the effort required of a traveller (level
of comfort, safety, etc.), travel time, and financial costs (Milakis et al., 2017). Travel cost is
expected to decrease with the introduction of CAVs. Firstly, CAVs reduce congestion related
delays that results in less travel time and thereby less travel cost. Secondly, the cost of the fuel
component of the travel cost will be reduced thanks to CAVs. Lastly, the discomfort during
travelling is also a cost to travellers, and a greater travel comfort is anticipated from CAVs
because of enhanced efficiency and smoothness of traffic. All these can reduce driver stress
and tedium and thereby reduce travel cost.

Enhanced accessibility. In general, accessibility has four components including land-use,

transportation, temporal, and individual (Geurs and van Wee, 2004). The land-use component
is a mix of opportunities at the destination (e.g., jobs, shopping mall, facilities for recreation),
demand at the origin, and the interaction between origin and destination. The temporal
component involves time available to people to participate in activities, and opportunities
available at different times at different destinations. The individual component reflects the
requirements of the individual, capabilities of individuals, and opportunities available for
individuals. The transport component involves the transport mode availability to travel between
origins and destinations, and the comfort, reliability and safety provided by available modes.
With CAVs, the prospects of enhancement in accessibility are higher because CAVs could
affect all the components of accessibility (Alessandrini et al., 2015; Milakis et al., 2017). The
land use component will be affected since CAVs could push the development of new centres
for opportunities, the enhancement of previous destinations, and trigger changes in land use,
e.g., diminishing demand for on-street and off-street parking. CAVs could perform various
activities without any human intervention and thus, overcoming the time dependence of
activities, and thereby impacting the temporal component of accessibility. Furthermore, CAVs
influence the individual component of accessibility e.g., elderly travellers, children, travellers
without a driver licence, and travellers with a physical disability may travel to their desired
destination by using CAVs. Lastly, travel cost is expected to be reduced as CAVs penetration
increases, as explained in the previous section, which will impact the transport component of
the accessibility.

Childress et al. (2015) reported that perceived accessibility was enhanced when investigating
the households’ accessibility patterns in the presence of CAVs based transportation system. A
20% average increase in vehicles miles travelled (VMT) was observed for households located
in more remote areas. Thakur et al. (2016) studied the travel behaviour and residential location
choices (determined by the accessibility to employment) of people in Melbourne, Australia.
They reported a 3% increase for the population in the far suburbs and a 4% decline in the inner
suburbs in the year 2046. Kim et al. (2015) developed an activity-based model to examine the
impact of automated vehicles on travel behaviour on the assumption that a 50% increase in
road capacity is expected with the introduction of automated vehicles. They reported an
increase in accessibility for the whole Atlanta region (a 4% increase in VMT). Likewise, Meyer
et al. (2017) suggested there could be moderate accessibility gains in rural municipalities with
an assumption that automated vehicles are available for children, elderly travellers, travellers
without a driver licence.

Improved mobility. CAVs or shared CAVs are an attractive mobility option for travellers
from different demographics especially for non-drivers, elderly travellers, travellers with
physical disability, and those who do not have access to private transportation (Anderson et al.,
2014; Fagnant and Kockelman, 2015; Krueger et al., 2016; Meyer et al., 2017). Higher travel
time reliability, greater comfort, increased utility of in-vehicle time, inexpensive mobility on
demand, and better last-mile connectivity are potential reasons for this affinity towards CAVs.
Introduction of CAVs can also bring ample employment opportunities for travellers mentioned
above since transportation will no longer be a barrier for employment. Harper et al. (2016)
estimated how vehicles miles travelled could change with automated vehicles. Non-drivers and
drivers with medical conditions could increase light-duty vehicle miles travelled by 9% and
2.6%, respectively.

3.5 Economic benefits

Davies (2018) observes that CAVs could potentially add 7 trillion dollars to the world economy
and save thousands of lives over the next decades. Vehicle production and sales of CAVs have
the potential to rise due to the increased VMT since CAVs offer improved mobility at a reduced
cost. Zhao and Kockelman (2018) predicted an increase of 20% VMT across Austin, Texas
after the introduction of CAVs.

Fagnant and Kockelman (2015) presented a comprehensive analysis of the economic benefits
of CAVs, and found that at 10% market penetration rate of automated vehicles, total savings
of USD 16.8 billion could potentially be realised due to congestion reduction and fuel saving.
Separately, a saving of USD 5.5 billion was predicted to be realised from the reduced volume
of crashes (Fagnant and Kockelman assumed a 50% reduction in crashes and injury rate). They
reported overall economic benefits totalling USD 196 billion with 90% automated vehicles
market penetration, which is consistent with the findings of Manyika et al. (2013).
4. Challenges of CAVs
4.1 Transition period
Despite universal optimism about the market penetration of CAVs in the near future, and the
rapid upward trajectory of the technological maturity we are witnessing, research on the
operation, control, and optimisation of mixed traffic flow is rather limited because the impact
of CAVs on transport systems, while revolutionary, is also evolutionary. Consequently, for the
foreseeable future, CAVs will need to co-exist with traditional vehicles (i.e., the present-day
vehicles without communication capabilities and driver assistance) in a mixed traffic flow, as
depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Traffic mixed with traditional vehicles and CAVs (source: https://www.sogeti.com/)

In the case of CAVs, the operational and tactical decisions are automated and human
intervention, up to a certain level, will be required for strategic decisions such as deciding
origin-destination points. In addition, as discussed previously, CAVs operation is error-free.
On the other hand, in traditional vehicles, human drivers are in control of operational, tactical,
and strategic decisions throughout the course of driving. However, due to limited perception,
anticipation, and judgement capabilities, drivers are bound to make errors that can jeopardise
traffic efficiency and, more importantly, traffic safety. The major differences in function
allocation between human and hardware/software systems like automated vehicles are
comprehensively addressed in the updated “Fitts List” as reproduced in Table 1 (Schoettle,
2017). Fitts’ description of strengths and weaknesses across different aspects between human
and hardware/software is valid for a comparison between human drivers and an automated
system. As commented in Crist and Voege (2018), “one of the key premises of Fitts still holds
today in light of driving functionality – tasks that humans are better at than automated driving
systems should be performed by humans and tasks that automated driving systems are better at
performing than humans should be performed by automated driving systems.” The resultant
mixed traffic flow of CAVs and traditional vehicles will have complex characteristics because
of the differences in vehicular dynamics of CAVs and traditional vehicles, and understanding
such characteristics of this mixed traffic will be critical in achieving the potential benefits of
CAVs.

Table 1. Summary of differences between the human and the hardware/software system
functions across different aspects as per the updated “Fitts List” (Schoettle, 2017).

Aspect Human Hardware/Software System

Speed Relatively slow Fast
Power output Relatively weak, variable control High power, smooth and accurate
control

Consistency Variable, fatigue plays a role, Highly consistent and repeatable,

especially for highly repetitive especially for tasks requiring
and routine tasks constant vigilance
Information Generally single channel Multichannel, simultaneous
processing operations
Memory Best for recalling/understanding Best for precise, formal
principles and strategies, with information recall, and for
flexibility and creativity when information requiring restricted
needed, high long-term memory access, high short-term memory
capacity capacity, ability to erase
information after use
Reasoning Inductive and handles ambiguity Deductive and does not handle
well, relatively easy to teach, slow ambiguity well, potentially
but accurate results, with good difficult or slow to program, fast
error correction ability and accurate results, with poor
error correction ability
Sensing Large, dynamic ranges for each Superior at measuring or
sense, multifunction, able to apply quantifying signals, poor pattern
judgement, especially to complex recognition (especially for
or ambiguous patterns complex and/or ambiguous
patterns), able to detect stimuli
beyond human sensing abilities
(e.g., infrared)
Perception Better at handling high variability Worse at handling high variability
or alternative interpretations, or alternative interpretations, also
vulnerable to effects of signal vulnerable to effects of signal
noise or clutter noise or clutter

Recently, several studies have focused on understanding and modelling the mixed traffic of
CAVs and traditional vehicles (D. Chen et al., 2017; Z. Chen et al., 2017; Fernandes and Nunes,
2012; Ghiasi et al., 2017; Gong and Du, 2018; Jia et al., 2019; Jia and Ngoduy, 2016; Jiang et
al., 2017; Rios-Torres and Malikopoulos, 2018; Ye and Yamamoto, 2018c; Zhao et al., 2018).
These studies appear to converge on a conclusion that with the increase in the penetration rate
of CAVs, the positive impacts of CAVs such as increased capacity, enhanced stability, reduced
emissions, etc., become visible.

Due to the paucity of real data, the aforementioned studies assessed the dynamics of CAVs and
the mixed traffic using simplified models and under strong assumptions. They also ignore
critical factors e.g., human factors since they will play a major and a predominant role in
governing the mixed traffic dynamics. Learning from the recent studies on CVs using driver
simulator data can assist in understanding the complexity and challenges in modelling and
assessing the mixed traffic flow of future vehicles and traditional vehicles (Ali et al., 2019,
2018; Sharma et al., 2019a, 2019b).

First, modelling of future vehicles such as CAVs should consider human factors that may
impact its dynamics. For instance, Sharma et al. (2019a) reported that driver compliance is a
critical human factor that impacts the behaviour and success of CVs (the advantages of CVs
nullify if drivers do not comply). Consequently, they modelled the car-following behaviour of
CVs by considering driver compliance. Ali et al. (2019) modelled the decision making
behaviour of drivers during the mandatory lane changing by using a game theory approach in
the connected environment. Sun et al. (2018) also incorporated human factors such as response
time in the CV car-following model to realistically represent the behaviour of CVs when
examining the stability of the CVs.

Second, considering the spatial arrangement/distribution of CAVs in the traffic stream can
produce more realistic and reliable results. Sharma et al. (2019b) demonstrated the importance
of the spatial arrangement of CVs in a platoon at a given penetration rate and its impact on the
traffic flow efficiency and safety. Importantly, an inefficient arrangement of CVs will not
enhance traffic flow efficiency and safety even where there is a high penetration rate of CVs.
Finally, a realistic representation of a traditional vehicle is of utmost importance when
modelling such mixed traffic. For example, traditional vehicle models should consider
perception and estimation errors, multivehicle anticipation, and other human factors.

4.2 Economic Disruption and Issues

The advent of CAVs will disrupt several industries. In the US, the public transportation and
taxi industries account for USD 66 billion and USD 20 billion in annual revenue, respectively
in the USA. Ridesharing apps have already caused a 6.7% annual decrease in taxi service
between 2011 and 2016, and decreases as large as 30% in Los Angeles and 65% in San
Francisco, California. With the addition of CAVs to ridesharing services, a 50% decrease in
taxi revenues would cause a shift of USD 10 billion in revenue toward ridesharing. This will
signal a shift from private mode of transport to ridesharing, which has already started to ascend
in major cities of the United States and other developed nations. If CAVs eventually become
mainstream, they will have a strong economic impact, with a total effect potentially as much
as USD 1.2 trillion annually or USD 3,800 per American per year (Clements & Kockelman,
2017).

The economy of manufacturing the tools to deploy CAVs successfully is complicated. Maps,
radars and cameras are already in use in most of the vehicles. There is continuous progress in
developing more futuristic versions of these tools to make CAVs better and safer. Moreover,
there is a high use of LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and machine learning required in
driverless vehicles. LIDAR is used at the top of the vehicles to detect signals and laser beams.
It requires a higher level of 3D mapping and HD-quality cameras. It is expensive to
manufacture LIDAR, which are sophisticated and robust enough to not be affected by the
present external environmental factors. This manufacturing cost, in turn, raises the prices of
commercial CAVs and make them unaffordable for common people (Fagnant and Kockelman,
2015). Numerous start-ups and technological giants are investing millions of dollars into fixing
all these problems (Davies, 2018).

Furthermore, CAVs are employing deep machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI)
algorithms. Traditional vehicle manufacturers are investing billions of dollars into including
artificial intelligence in their R&D departments, e.g., Ford has invested a billion dollars into its
artificial intelligence unit Argo AI to build autonomous vehicles by 2021 (Biggs, 2017).
Moreover, a change in the way industries operate is possible with employees expected to
possess expertise in multiple fields. For instance, mechanical engineers need to constantly
upgrade their skills or learn new skills in order to stay relevant as companies start to use more
ML and AI in the designing of driverless vehicles. This changes the way the auto industry has
functioned traditionally.

In addition, CAVs will affect jobs in the transportation sector, rendering jobs where workers
are primarily responsible for driving a vehicle, such as a taxi, truck, bus; and jobs associated
with driving such as traffic police officers, and driving instructors potentially irrelevant. CAVS
can also profoundly impact vehicle service sector. For instance, the demand for low-skilled
labour will likely decrease, while new services that require skilled labour such as for checking
the electronics and software will likely emerge and flourish. Groshen et al. (2019) conducted a
simulation-based study to understand the impact of autonomous vehicles on jobs and concluded
that 1.3 to 2.3 million jobs would be lost over a 30-year time period. This study raised serious
concerns regarding the imposition of this high cost on displaced workers. The study reported
that hundreds of thousands of US workers would be displaced and each displaced worker will
loose on average $80,000 in total. In developing countries like India, there have been a lot of
hurdles faced by the companies trying to get CAV’s on the road. A primary reason being the
number of jobs it can negatively affect. The main concern of drivers losing their jobs due to
CAVs has led to calls for ban on the testing of the CAVs (Dhabhar, 2018).

Another industry which will face big changes due to the advent of CAVs is the insurance
industry. Safety improvements as a result of CAVs will require insurance agencies to adapt and
possibly reconstruct their fundamental business models. Insurance companies sell policies to
individual vehicle owners, and human drivers are liable for car crashes. Insurance agencies
currently net $180 billion annually in the United States by insuring against automobile
accidents and related medical costs (Clements and Kockelman, 2017). When there is a crash
involving the CAVs, the automotive companies and the vehicles software providers will likely
become the main liable parties since computers control CAVs. Klynveld Peat Marwick
Goerdeler (KPMG) estimated that CAVs could shrink the insurance industry by 60% (Albright
et al., 2015). This will change the landscape of the insurance industry, and will require novel
legal frameworks to capture any potential liability of software and hardware manufacturers for
any future crash

4.3 Privacy and Security Issues

For the proper functioning of CAVs, a huge amount of data will be collected and used, such as
location, origin and destination, vehicle information, and trip information. Inevitably, some of
the data will be private and sensitive. The huge amount of data generated from the interactions
between users and CAVs is usually stored in the cloud, which is always under threat from cyber
attackers. Further, the surveillance of GPS-based positioning and RADAR and LIDAR based
detection raises a number of privacy concerns. For example, the collected GPS data can contain
information about a user’s home and office address, social and casual activities (Iqbal & Lim,
2010). The importance of cyber security to safeguard this highly personal, and oftentimes
sensitive, cannot be overstated, and there is a strong likelihood that such datasets would be
under constant threat from hackers. Recently, two hackers proved this was possible when they
remotely took control of a Jeep Cherokee a few years ago (Law, 2019). However, limited
research has been conducted to assess this privacy threat in real-life scenarios. To avoid the
misuse of data, protocols and safeguards will need to be established so that the sensor data
obtained from CAVs are used only for their intended purposes, which should remain as narrow
as possible while still maintaining an idealised spectrum of functionality in CAVs.

A major threat to security with the rise of CAVs comes from the potential weaponizing of
CAVs to conduct terrorism activities. In 2014, the FBI Strategic Issues Group prepared a report
warning that autonomous cars could be used as lethal weapons since criminals may override
their safety features (Harris, 2014). When the power of a vehicle is controlled by a single press
of a remote switch, the scope of harm that it can cause rises massively. With an increase in
radicalism and fanaticism, the ways to use the CAVs dangerously is multiplied. To cope up
with the challenges related to CAVs’ security risks, the legislature will need to consider how
every single CAV should operate, which government agencies can handle any data obtained,
and how to mitigate misuse of such data. This in turn may lead to more concerns with the
privacy issues since data of every CAV could potentially be shared with agencies. Accordingly,
there remains a tension between the need for access to secure the safety of the public and any
privacy issue of a user (driver or passenger) within the CAV network. This requires any trade-
off between security and privacy be dealt with judiciously.

4.4 Legislative Issues

There are also many important legal issues related to operating CAVs on public roads. Different
jurisdictions (both at national and sub-national levels) may adopt differing regulatory
frameworks regarding the testing, and deployment of automated vehicles. In the US, 21 states
and the District of Columbia have passed automated vehicle legislation, and 6 states have
executive orders passed (Hubbard, 2018). At the national level, the US National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy
in 2016 governing the use of CAVs. However, the policy provides guidance rather than
imposes a statutory obligation on manufacturers, and sets forth a standard framework for levels
of autonomy, vehicle performance, a model state policy, and current and future regulatory tools
for the deployment of CAVs (Hubbard, 2018). In addition, each state in the USA has defined
its own unique set of terms related to automated vehicles, and addressed various other legal
issues including study request, licensing, registration, insurance, liability, operator
requirements, infrastructure, vehicle testing and operation, commercial vehicle operation, and
privacy. The consequent regulatory landscape around CAV technology is complex. Further, as
CAV technology progresses and new terms related to automated vehicles come up, the
legislation will continue to be updated and new statutory obligations may arise.

Several European countries have also introduced regulations for automated vehicles on public
roads and require the issuance of autonomous testing permits. Germany passed a law in 2017
allowing companies to test self-driving cars on public roads, while in The Netherlands, the
Council of Ministers first approved driverless vehicle road testing in 2015. Likewise, the UK
has passed a bill to draw up the liability and insurance policies related to autonomous vehicles.

In Asia, similar statutory frameworks around the testing of autonomous vehicles are being
developed. Shanghai, China recently issued its first self-driving licenses in 2018. In South
Korea, the K-city project is the largest town model ever built for self-driving car
experimentation. In India, there is testing of CAVs, however, concerns regarding job loss have
led to calls on banning the CAVs (Dhabhar, 2018).

4.5 Ethical Issues

CAV technology promises to reduce road crashes by eliminating driver errors. Consider a
scenario where a CAV is approaching a pedestrian crossing. Suddenly, the CAV experiences a
mechanical failure and is unable to stop. If the CAV continues on this path, it will crash into a
bunch of pedestrians crossing the street or if the CAV swerves hitting one bystander thereby
killing him/her and saving the pedestrians or if the CAV swerves and crashes into a wall thereby
killing the passengers to save the pedestrians. What should the CAV do and who decides the
course of action? This scenario captures the trolley problem that represents a classic clash
between utilitarianism and deontological ethics (Thomson, 1985). Once CAVs start travelling
on public roads, these kinds of scenarios will certainly occur. Similar scenarios with less severe
consequences are also quite possible where CAVs must carry out complex calculations to
decide the course of action involving a trade-off (e.g., increasing the risk to passengers versus
hitting pedestrians).
The “Moral Machine Experiment” was the largest-ever survey on machine ethics, designed to
explore the moral dilemmas faced by automated vehicles. Responses were obtained from 233
countries and territories, of which 130 countries had at least 100 respondents (Awad et al.,
2018). In one of the scenarios, respondents had to choose between the two possible outcomes
of an autonomous vehicle brake failure. If the autonomous vehicle stayed on course, it would
result in the death of three elderly pedestrians who are crossing on a ‘do not cross’ signal,
whereas if the vehicle swerved, this would result in the death of three passengers. This choice
is primarily an ethical dilemma within itself. There will be no black and white answer, and the
choice will differ from person to person, based on a variety of factors, including culture and
individual values and beliefs. With the removal of the human driver this decision will not be
made by the occupant of the vehicle but the vehicle itself. In their recent paper published in
Nature, Awad et al. (2018) stated that “Never in the history of humanity have we allowed a
machine to autonomously decide who should live and who should die, in a fraction of a second,
without real-time supervision. We are going to cross that bridge any time now.” This
underscores the importance and urgency of having a thoroughly-designed ethical system in
place to ensure that these decisions are ethically justifiable.

German Ethics Commission on Automated and Connected Driving proposed ethics rules in
2017 (Luetge, 2017). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the only attempt to provide
official guidelines for the ethical choices of autonomous vehicles. Two important guidelines
are presented below.

German Ethical Guideline 7 “in hazardous situations that prove to be unavoidable,

despite all technological precautions being taken, the protection of human life enjoys
top priority in a balancing of legally protected interests. Thus, within the constraints of
what is technologically feasible, the systems must be programmed to accept damage to
animals or property in a conflict if this means that personal injury can be prevented”

German Ethical Guideline 9 “In the event of unavoidable accident situations, any
distinction based on personal features (age, gender, physical, or mental constitution)
is strictly prohibited. It is also prohibited to offset victims against one another. General
programming to reduce the number of personal injuries may be justifiable. Those
parties involved in the generation of mobility risks must not sacrifice non-involved
parties”
Guideline 7 unambiguously states that avoiding injury to humans takes priority over avoiding
damage to property or animals, while guideline 9 states that collision programming should be
independent of any personal feature bias. Importantly, guideline 9 does not take an
unambiguous stand on the collision programming of automated vehicles in scenarios when
there is a trade-off between the number of lives that the vehicle can save. Justifiably, this
guideline was not accepted unanimously by the committee’s members (Luetge, 2017). Nyholm
and Smids (2016) reported the ethical issues when deciding how to program automated vehicle
to respond to unavoidable accident scenarios. Their study suggests that the ethical issues relate
to (i) decision-making faced by groups and/or multiple stakeholders; (ii) risk and/or decisions
uncertainty; (iii) morally loaded (situations involving significant ethical dilemmas)
prospective decision-making and/or contingency planning; (iv) both backward-looking1 and
forward-looking2 moral and legal responsibility; and (v) open-ended ethical reasoning taking
wide ranges of considerations into account.

Today, proponents of driverless vehicles face additional critical and unanswered ethical
questions other than the question raised above (Bogle, 2018). First, which risks are worth
taking? Second, is the CAV making a choice, or are we? Third, is there a moral code we can
all agree on? Fourth, should we choose our own CAV’s moral code? Last, can we ever trust
CAVs? These questions must be answered before CAVs can be accepted as a mainstream
mobility tool.

5. Conclusion
Experts predict that connected and/or automated vehicles (CAV) will fundamentally transform
how humans travel and revolutionise the automobile-related industry through the creation of a
safe, efficient, and effective interoperable wireless communication network. Globally,
governments are beginning to appreciate the importance of this technological revolution to
their national interest (economy and security in particular). This has seen nations join the race
to be world leaders in connected and automated vehicle research and development. As a result,
CAV research and development has been rapidly growing over the past 10 years, with CAV
technology improving rapidly, and a number of commercially-realised features have entered
the market. However, the adoption of CAV technology remains highly complex. The main

1
Backward-looking responsibility is the responsibility that people can have for something that has occurred in
the past either because of them or something they allowed to happen.
2
Forward-looking responsibility is the responsibility that people can have to prevent something to happen in the
near or distant future.
opportunities and challenges related to the deployment of CAVs have been comprehensively
reviewed in this chapter.

From a road transport perspective, CAV technology promises to reduce traffic congestion,
increase road capacity, enhance traffic stability, reduce vehicle emissions and its harmful effect
on air quality, and improve fuel economy. From a societal public policy perspective, CAVs
have the potential to improve mobility for the elderly, the young, and people with a physical
disability. Additionally, with appropriate planning and implementation, CAVs can enhance the
overall accessibility of a city and reduce travel cost.

At the same time, the path to a full implementation or a high market penetration of CAVs faces
many critical challenges. For example, the initial cost of CAVs will be high due to its current
low market penetration. Adoption of the technology can also lead to job loss and interrupt
insurance industries. The sensorised data associated with CAVs and the collection,
transmission, storage and subsequent use of such data can lead to serious privacy and security
issues, underscoring the numerous complicated regulatory and ethical issues still at play.
Currently, limited ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks governing CAVs are available
for supporting the appropriate adoption of CAVs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was partially funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) through Dr
Zuduo Zheng’s Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA; DE160100449).

References
Albright, J., Bell, A., Schneider, J., Nyce, C., 2015. Automobile insurance in the era of autonomous vehicles.
Alessandrini, A., Campagna, A., Site, P.D., Filippi, F., Persia, L., 2015. Automated Vehicles and the Rethinking
of Mobility and Cities. Transportation Research Procedia, SIDT Scientific Seminar 2013 5, 145–160.
Ali, Y., Zheng, Z., Haque, Md. M., 2018. Connectivity’s impact on mandatory lane-changing behaviour:
Evidences from a driving simulator study. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 93,
292–309.
Ali, Y., Zheng, Z., Haque, Md. M., Wang, M., 2019. A game theory-based approach for modelling mandatory
lane-changing behaviour in a connected environment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies 106, 220–242.
Anderson, J.M., Nidhi, K., Stanley, K.D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., Oluwatola, O.A., 2014. Autonomous vehicle
technology: A guide for policymakers. Rand Corporation.
Auto connected car news, 2014. Definition of Connected Car – What is the connected car? Defined. auto
connected car news. URL http://www.autoconnectedcar.com/definition-of-connected-car-what-is-the-
connected-car-defined/ (accessed 4.20.19).
Austroads, 2015. Concept of operations for C-ITS core functions. Sydney, NSW.
Automated and Connected Vehicles [WWW Document], 2015. Centre for Advanced Automative Technology.
URL http://autocaat.org/Technologies/Automated_and_Connected_Vehicles/ (accessed 9.13.16).
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., Rahwan, I., 2018. The Moral
Machine experiment. Nature 563, 59–64.
Bettisworth, C., Burt, M., Chachich, A., Harrington, R., Hassol, J., Kim, A., Lamoureux, K., LaFrance-Linden,
D., Maloney, C., Perlman, D., Ritter, G., Sloan, S.M., Wallischeck, E., 2015. Status of the dedicated
short-range communications technology and applications : report to Congress.
Biggs, J., 2017. Ford invests $1 billion in Pittsburgh-based Argo AI to build self-driving cars by 2021.
TechCrunch. URL http://social.techcrunch.com/2017/02/18/ford-invests-in-pittsburgh-based-argo-ai-to-
build-self-driving-cars-by-2021/ (accessed 11.21.19).
BITRE, 2015. Traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian capital cities (Information Sheet 74). Bureau of
Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), Canberra, Australia.
Bogle, A., 2018. 5 big ethical questions about driverless cars we still need answered [WWW Document]. ABC
News. URL https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-21/self-driving-autonomous-cars-five-
ethical-questions/9567986 (accessed 11.28.19).
Chen, D., Ahn, S., Chitturi, M., Noyce, D.A., 2017. Towards vehicle automation: Roadway capacity formulation
for traffic mixed with regular and automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological
100, 196–221.
Chen, Z., He, F., Yin, Y., Du, Y., 2017. Optimal design of autonomous vehicle zones in transportation networks.
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 99, 44–61.
Childress, S., Nichols, B., Charlton, B., Coe, S., 2015. Using an Activity-Based Model to Explore the Potential
Impacts of Automated Vehicles. Transportation Research Record 2493, 99–106.
Clements, L.M., Kockelman, K.M., 2017. Economic Effects of Automated Vehicles. Transportation Research
Record 2606, 106–114.
Cohen, A.J., Brauer, M., Burnett, R., Anderson, H.R., Frostad, J., Estep, K., Balakrishnan, K., Brunekreef, B.,
Dandona, L., Dandona, R., Feigin, V., Freedman, G., Hubbell, B., Jobling, A., Kan, H., Knibbs, L., Liu,
Y., Martin, R., Morawska, L., Pope, C.A., Shin, H., Straif, K., Shaddick, G., Thomas, M., van Dingenen,
R., van Donkelaar, A., Vos, T., Murray, C.J.L., Forouzanfar, M.H., 2017. Estimates and 25-year trends
of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global
Burden of Diseases Study 2015. Lancet 389, 1907–1918.
Cox, C., Hart, A., 2016. How autonomous vehicles could relieve or worsen traffic congestion.
Crist, P., Voege, T., 2018. Safer Roads with Automated Vehicles? (Corporate Partnership Board Report).
ITF/OECD.
Davies, A., 2018. What Is a Self-Driving Car? The Complete WIRED Guide. Wired.
Dhabhar, C., 2018. Decided Not To Allow Driverless Cars In India: Nitin Gadkari. CarandBike An NDTV
Venture.
Fagnant, D.J., Kockelman, K., 2015. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and
policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 77, 167–181.
Fernandes, P., Nunes, U., 2012. Platooning With IVC-Enabled Autonomous Vehicles: Strategies to Mitigate
Communication Delays, Improve Safety and Traffic Flow. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems 13, 91–106.
Galler, B., Asher, H., 1995. Idea Project Final Report, Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communication For Collision
Avoidance And Improved Traffic Flow.
Ge, J.I., Orosz, G., 2014. Dynamics of connected vehicle systems with delayed acceleration feedback.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 46, 46–64.
General Assembly of the United Nations [WWW Document], 2016. URL http://www.un.org/en/ga/ (accessed
10.7.16).
Geurs, K.T., van Wee, B., 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research
directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12, 127–140.
Ghiasi, A., Hussain, O., Qian, Z. (Sean), Li, X., 2017. A mixed traffic capacity analysis and lane management
model for connected automated vehicles: A Markov chain method. Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological 106, 266–292.
Gong, S., Du, L., 2018. Cooperative platoon control for a mixed traffic flow including human drive vehicles and
connected and autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 116, 25–61.
Google Self-Driving Car Project [WWW Document], 2009. . Google Self-Driving Car Project. URL
http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar (accessed 11.10.16).
Groshen, E.L., Helper, S., MacDuffie, J.P., Carson, C., 2019. Preparing US workers and employers for an
autonomous vehicle future.
Harper, C.D., Hendrickson, C.T., Mangones, S., Samaras, C., 2016. Estimating potential increases in travel with
autonomous vehicles for the non-driving, elderly and people with travel-restrictive medical conditions.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 72, 1–9.
Harris, M., 2014. FBI warns driverless cars could be used as “lethal weapons.” The Guardian.
Hawes, M., 2015. Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: The UK Economic Opportunity. KPMG.
Hayes, B., 2017. Leave the Driving to It [WWW Document]. American Scientist. URL
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/leave-the-driving-to-it (accessed 11.15.19).
Hendrickson, C., Biehler, A., Mashayekh, Y., 2014. Connected and Autonomous Vehicles 2040 Vision.
Hubbard, S.M.L., 2018. Automated Vehicle Legislative Issues. Transportation Research Record 2672, 1–13.
INRIX 2015 Traffic Scorecard, 2015. . INRIX. URL http://inrix.com/scorecard/ (accessed 11.10.16).
Intelligent Transportation Systems - Connected Vehicle Pilot Program [WWW Document], 2015. URL
http://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/ (accessed 8.10.16).
Jia, D., Ngoduy, D., 2016. Enhanced cooperative car-following traffic model with the combination of V2V and
V2I communication. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 90, 172–191.
Jia, D., Ngoduy, D., Vu, H.L., 2019. A multiclass microscopic model for heterogeneous platoon with vehicle-to-
vehicle communication. Transportmetrica B: Transport Dynamics 7, 448–472.
Jiang, H., Hu, J., An, S., Wang, M., Park, B.B., 2017. Eco approaching at an isolated signalized intersection under
partially connected and automated vehicles environment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies 79, 290–307.
Kamal, M.A.S., Taguchi, S., Yoshimura, T., 2016. Efficient Driving on Multilane Roads Under a Connected
Vehicle Environment. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 17, 2541–2551.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2016.2519526
Kamalanathsharma, R.K., Rakha, H.A., 2016. Leveraging Connected Vehicle Technology and Telematics to
Enhance Vehicle Fuel Efficiency in the Vicinity of Signalized Intersections. Journal of Intelligent
Transportation Systems 20, 33–44.
Kim, K., Rousseau, G., Freedman, J., Nicholson, J., 2015. The travel impact of autonomous vehicles in metro
Atlanta through activity-based modeling. Presented at the The 15th TRB National Transportation
Planning Applications Conference.
Kim, T., 2015. Assessment of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication based Applications in an Urban Network
(PhD). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Krueger, R., Rashidi, T.H., Rose, J.M., 2016. Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 69, 343–355.
Lee, J., Park, B., 2012. Development and Evaluation of a Cooperative Vehicle Intersection Control Algorithm
Under the Connected Vehicles Environment. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems
13, 81–90.
Liu, J., Kockelman, K., Nichols, A., 2017. Anticipating the emissions impacts of smoother driving by connected
and autonomous vehicles, using the MOVES model. Presented at the Transportation Research Board
96th Annual Meeting.
Luetge, C., 2017. The German Ethics Code for Automated and Connected Driving. Philosophy and Technology
30, 547–558.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Bisson, P., Marrs, A., 2013. Disruptive technologies: Advances that
will transform life, business, and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute San Francisco, CA.
McCarthy, J., Bradburn, J., Williams, D., Piechocki, R., Hermans, K., 2015. Connected & Autonomous Vehicles.
ATKINS.
Meyer, J., Becker, H., Bösch, P.M., Axhausen, K.W., 2017. Autonomous vehicles: The next jump in
accessibilities? Research in Transportation Economics 62, 80–91.
Milakis, D., Arem, B. van, Wee, B. van, 2017. Policy and society related implications of automated driving: A
review of literature and directions for future research. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 21,
324–348.
Milanés, V., Shladover, S.E., Spring, J., Nowakowski, C., Kawazoe, H., Nakamura, M., 2014. Cooperative
Adaptive Cruise Control in Real Traffic Situations. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems 15, 296–305.
Monteil, J., Nantes, A., Billot, R., Sau, J., El Faouzi, N., 2014. Microscopic cooperative traffic flow: calibration
and simulation based on a next generation simulation dataset. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 8, 519–
525.
Naus, G.J.L., Vugts, R.P.A., Ploeg, J., van de Molengraft, M.J.G., Steinbuch, M., 2010. String-Stable CACC
Design and Experimental Validation: A Frequency-Domain Approach. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology 59, 4268–4279.
Ngoduy, D., 2013. Instability of cooperative adaptive cruise control traffic flow: A macroscopic approach.
Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 18, 2838–2851.
NHTSA, 2015. Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
U.S. National Highway Safety Administration.
Nyholm, S., Smids, J., 2016. The Ethics of Accident-Algorithms for Self-Driving Cars: an Applied Trolley
Problem? Ethic Theory Moral Prac 19, 1275–1289.
Olivier, J.G.J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., Peters, J.A.H.W., 2013. Trends in Global CO2 Emissions.
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Ploeg, J., Scheepers, B.T.M., van Nunen, E., van de Wouw, N., Nijmeijer, H., 2011. Design and experimental
evaluation of cooperative adaptive cruise control, in: 2011 14th International IEEE Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). Presented at the 2011 14th International IEEE Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 260–265.
Qi, Y., Chen, X., Yang, L., Wang, B., Yu, L., 2009. Vehicle infrastructure integration (VII) based road-condition
warning system for highway collision prevention.
Qin Yanyan, Wang Hao, Ran Bin, 2018. Stability Analysis of Connected and Automated Vehicles to Reduce Fuel
Consumption and Emissions. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems 144, 04018068.
Rajamani, R., Shladover, S.E., 2001. An experimental comparative study of autonomous and co-operative vehicle-
follower control systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 9, 15–31.
Rios-Torres, J., Malikopoulos, A.A., 2018. Impact of Partial Penetrations of Connected and Automated Vehicles
on Fuel Consumption and Traffic Flow. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 3, 453–462.
Rios-Torres, J., Malikopoulos, A.A., 2017. Automated and Cooperative Vehicle Merging at Highway On-Ramps.
IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 18, 780–789.
SAE, 2016. NHTSA adopts SAE international standard defining autonomous vehicles [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.sbdautomotive.com/en/nhtsa-sae-international-standard (accessed 10.9.16).
Schoettle, B., 2017. Sensor fusion: A comparison of sensing capabilities of human drivers and highly automated
vehicles. University of Michigan, Sustainable Worldwide Transportation, Tech. Rep. SWT-2017-12.
Sharma, A., Zheng, Z., Bhaskar, A., Haque, Md.M., 2019a. Modelling car-following behaviour of connected
vehicles with a focus on driver compliance. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 126, 256–
279.
Sharma, A., Zheng, Z., Kim, J., Bhaskar, A., Haque, M.M., 2019b. Assessing the efficiency and safety of the
mixed traffic flow of Connected Vehicles and Traditional Vehicles (ready for submission).
Shladover, S.E., Su, D., Lu, X.-Y., 2012. Impacts of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on Freeway Traffic
Flow. Transportation Research Record 2324, 63–70.
Smith, B., 2015. Automated and Autonomous driving: Regulation under uncertainity. International Transport
Forum.
Sun, Jie, Zheng, Z., Sun, Jian, 2018. Stability analysis methods and their applicability to car-following models in
conventional and connected environments. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 109, 212–
237.
Sustainable Development Goals [WWW Document], 2016. UNDP. URL
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html (accessed 10.7.16).
Thakur, P., Kinghorn, R., Grace, R., 2016. Urban form and function in the autonomous era. Presented at the
Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 38th, 2016, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The Climate Council of Australia, 2018. The Climate Council Annual Report. The Climate Council of Australia
Limited.
Thomson, J.J., 1985. The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal 94, 1395–1415.
Transparency Market Reserach, 2013. Connected Car Market - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth,
Trends and Forecast 2013 - 2019 [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/connected-car.html (accessed 5.1.19).
Tu, R., Alfaseeh, L., Djavadian, S., Farooq, B., Hatzopoulou, M., 2019. Quantifying the impacts of dynamic
control in connected and automated vehicles on greenhouse gas emissions and urban NO2
concentrations. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 73, 142–151.
UNESC, 2009. Major Issues in Transport: Transport and Environment. United Nations Economic and Social
Council (UNESC).
Vahidi, A., Sciarretta, A., 2018. Energy saving potentials of connected and automated vehicles. Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 95.
van Arem, B., van Driel, C.J.G., Visser, R., 2006. The Impact of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on Traffic-
Flow Characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 7, 429–436.
Wang, M., Daamen, W., Hoogendoorn, S.P., van Arem, B., 2016. Cooperative Car-Following Control: Distributed
Algorithm and Impact on Moving Jam Features. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems 17, 1459–1471.
Weeratunga, K., Somers, A., 2015. Connected vehicles: are we ready? Internal report on potential implications
for Main Roads WA.
Whitehead, J.E., 2015. The expected and unexpected consequences of implementing energy efficient vehicle
incentives (phd). Queensland University of Technology.
WHO, 2018. Global status report on road safety. World Health Organisation (WHO).
WHO, 2012. WHO Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database. World Health Organisation (WHO).
 Wright, J., Garrett, J.K., Hill, C.J., Krueger, G.D., Evans, J.H., Andrews, S., Wilson, C.K., Rajbhandari, R.,
Burkhard, B., 2014. National Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis.
Xie, Y., Zhang, H., Gartner, N.H., Arsava, T., 2017. Collaborative merging strategy for freeway ramp operations
in a connected and autonomous vehicles environment. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 21,
136–147.
Yang, H., Jin, W.-L., 2014. A control theoretic formulation ofgreen driving strategies based on inter-vehicle
communications. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 41, 48–60.
Ye, L., Yamamoto, T., 2019. Evaluating the impact of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic safety.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 526, 121009.
Ye, L., Yamamoto, T., 2018a. Modeling connected and autonomous vehicles in heterogeneous traffic flow.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 490, 269–277.
Ye, L., Yamamoto, T., 2018b. Impact of dedicated lanes for connected and autonomous vehicle on traffic flow
throughput. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 512, 588–597.
Ye, L., Yamamoto, T., 2018c. Modeling connected and autonomous vehicles in heterogeneous traffic flow.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 490, 269–277.
Zhao, L., Malikopoulos, A., Rios-Torres, J., 2018. Optimal Control of Connected and Automated Vehicles at
Roundabouts: An Investigation in a Mixed-Traffic Environment, 15th IFAC Symposium on Control in
Transportation Systems CTS 2018 51, 73–78.
Zhao, Y., Kockelman, K.M., 2018. Anticipating the Regional Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicle
Travel in Austin, Texas. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 144, 04018032.
Zhou, M., Qu, X., Jin, S., 2017. On the Impact of Cooperative Autonomous Vehicles in Improving Freeway
Merging: A Modified Intelligent Driver Model-Based Approach. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems 18, 1422–1428.
Zohdy, I.H., Rakha, H.A., 2016. Intersection Management via Vehicle Connectivity: The Intersection Cooperative
Adaptive Cruise Control System Concept. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 20, 17–32.

View publication stats