Author
Abstract
A growing body of literature argues that autonomous vehicles (AVs) will substantially increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT), contributing to congestion, induced demand, and environmental externalities. Recent work by Naz and Mattingly (2026) synthesizes 25 studies and concludes that AV deployment is associated with an average increase in VMT across both shared and non-shared AV scenarios. However, the underlying literature remains dominated by simulation-based approaches, synthetic demand modeling, and legacy travel survey data collected prior to widespread rideshare adoption and operational AV deployment. This paper critically reassesses the methodological foundations of the AV–VMT literature through a structured inventory and classification of the studies included in Naz and Mattingly’s meta-analysis. The analysis identifies recurring endogenous mechanisms embedded within the literature, including reductions in generalized travel cost, travel burden, and value of travel time (VOTT), which structurally privilege AV adoption and systematically inflate projected VMT outcomes. At the same time, few studies incorporate observed AV rider behavior, empirical occupancy rates, operational pricing dynamics, or adaptive fleet learning. Drawing on emerging evidence from operational AV systems, including Waymo fleet data, shows that he share of empty VMT declined from ~63% to ~44% since 2023 for real world deployments while passenger serving VMT increased from 37% to 56%. This underscores an argument that AVs should be understood not as static hypothetical vehicles, but as adaptive operational mobility systems embedded within platform, pricing, and fleet management constraints. The paper concludes by proposing a minimum operational data standard for future AV–VMT research and argues that the field must transition from hypothetical scenario modeling toward empirically grounded operational evaluation.
Suggested Citation
Riggs, William, 2026.
"Are We Modeling but Not Measuring VMT for AVs? Reframing the AV–VMT Debate Through Operational Evidence,"
SocArXiv
hqmxc_v1, Center for Open Science.
Handle:
RePEc:osf:socarx:hqmxc_v1
DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/hqmxc_v1
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:hqmxc_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.