How will vehicle automation and electrification affect the automotive maintenance, repair sector?

Abstract

Automation and electrification in road transport are trends that will influence several economic sectors of the European economy. The automotive maintenance and repair (M&R) sector will experience the effects of such transitions in the long term. This paper assesses the research in the road transport to derive the factors that may influence the M&R demand based on Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) uptake. Starting from current scientific research and grounded on interviews with experts, the paper reviews major drivers influencing M&R demand and provides indications on possible future effects. While for BEVs, previous work has been conducted to estimate the M&R cost variations, the research addressing the impacts of AVs deployment on the M&R sector is at its incipient stage, hence the views of experts were paramount to shed light on this topic. We identified a scientific consensus that BEVs have less M&R requirements compared with Conventional Vehicles (CVs). For AVs, our analysis and expert views identify some important factors influencing M&R requirements: hardware components, software that enables autonomy, the rise in vehicle kilometres travelled leading to higher wear and tear of replaceable parts, the need for adequate cleaning services, especially for fleets and shared vehicles. Further work should look at the impact of regulations and the non-insurable risks linked to M&R requirements.

Full text

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
Available online 26 November 2021
2590-1982/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
How will vehicle automation and electrication affect the automotive
maintenance, repair sector?
Monica Grosso
a
,
*
, Ioan Cristinel Raileanu
b
, Jette Krause
a
, María Alonso Raposo
a
,
Amandine Duboz
a
, Ada Garus
a
, Andromachi Mourtzouchou
a
, Biagio Ciuffo
a
a
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy
b
Independent Researcher, Milan, Italy
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Maintenance and repair sector
Battery electric vehicles
Autonomous vehicles
Economic impact
Road transport
ABSTRACT
Automation and electrication in road transport are trends that will inuence several economic sectors of the
European economy. The automotive maintenance and repair (M&R) sector will experience the effects of such
transitions in the long term. This paper assesses the research in the road transport to derive the factors that may
inuence the M&R demand based on Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) uptake.
Starting from current scientic research and grounded on interviews with experts, the paper reviews major
drivers inuencing M&R demand and provides indications on possible future effects. While for BEVs, previous
work has been conducted to estimate the M&R cost variations, the research addressing the impacts of AVs
deployment on the M&R sector is at its incipient stage, hence the views of experts were paramount to shed light
on this topic. We identied a scientic consensus that BEVs have less M&R requirements compared with Con-
ventional Vehicles (CVs). For AVs, our analysis and expert views identify some important factors inuencing
M&R requirements: hardware components, software that enables autonomy, the rise in vehicle kilometres
travelled leading to higher wear and tear of replaceable parts, the need for adequate cleaning services, especially
for eets and shared vehicles. Further work should look at the impact of regulations and the non-insurable risks
linked to M&R requirements.
Introduction
The need to hedge the impact of vehicles on environment health and
to reduce the different types of emissions will lead to great trans-
formations in the transport sector (Alonso Raposo et al., 2019). It could
continue to boost research and innovation in transport related tech-
nologies, along with the development of alternative less polluting ve-
hicles. Among the technological innovations that the road transport
sector is experiencing nowadays, electrication and automation are
among the most disruptive.
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are seen as a good option for
reducing greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions. Still, their price
remains high compared to conventional vehicles (CVs) and this makes
them affordable to only a small part of consumers. Additionally, a faster
eet electrication is hindered by the limited range of BEVs and the
heterogeneous distribution of charging facilities which could make
longer trips challenging.
Market uptake of BEVs could be accelerated by governmental in-
centives deployed as observed in Santos and Rembalski (2021). World-
wide many countries have put in place subsidies schemes to encourage
BEV uptake that target mainly consumers, but also producers. Such
policies have mixed impacts on market development and social welfare
as identied in Yang et al. (2019). Taxation policies represent additional
incentives used to increase eet electrication, including reduced rates
or exemption from registration, annual ownership, fuel or other types of
taxes levied on vehicles owners. The increasing number of charging
facilities is deployed mostly by the private sector and in some areas
through public authorities’ support (IEA, 2019).
Vehicle automation is still under development, mainly at testing
stage, and needs to overcome even bigger challenges (costs, certica-
tion, litigation, liability, perception, security and privacy) (Fagnant and
Kockelman, 2015) to make it acceptable and ready for full scale
deployment. The costs of all the technologies needed (sensors, lidars,
cameras, etc.) for an autonomous vehicle (AV) is still prohibitive (Nunes
* Corresponding author at: Via Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Varese, Italy.
E-mail address: monica.grosso@ec.europa.eu (M. Grosso).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/transportation-
research-interdisciplinary-perspectives
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100495
Received 5 August 2021; Received in revised form 25 October 2021; Accepted 30 October 2021

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
2
and Hernandez, 2020) and only a few companies manage to use and test
their capabilities.
The technological advancements of BEVs and AVs, although at
different pace, are changing and will modify even further the automo-
tive sector with cascade effects on people’s mobility and freight trans-
port. The possible consequences of such transitions will not remain
limited to the vehicle manufacturing sector, but will go much beyond,
impacting digital, energy, communication, insurance sectors to name a
few (Alonso Raposo et al., 2021). Clements and Kockelman (2017) es-
timate the impacts on thirteen industrial sectors in the USA, showing the
important economic magnitude that this disruption could create on a
wider scale due essentially to accidents reduction and increase in pro-
ductivity. Asselin-Miller et al. (2017) provide an indication on possible
global market opportunities linked to AVs deployment indicating that
major economic benets would be experienced by Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) and telecommunications sectors, as
well as software industry. A study conducted in Spain by Alonso et al.
(2020) on the economic impacts of AVs shows that 3 industries would
experience a positive trend: freight, passenger transport and techno-
logical industry. The impacts and its knock-on effects that the technol-
ogy could bring to road transport could act as potential obstacles or
enablers for, not only, the transformation of the transport system but
also for society (Alonso Raposo et al., 2019).
Among the sectors that could benet or suffer from BEV and AV
deployment, assessing the impacts on the maintenance and repair
(M&R) sector remains challenging. A McKinsey & Company (2021)
analysis indicate that eet electrication and autonomous driving could
change the importance of specic vehicles components and the fre-
quency of maintenance and repair interventions. Still, many aspects can
inuence the demand in M&R services which makes it difcult to come
up with a clear trend.
The structural differences between BEVs and conventional vehicles
trigger modications in the type of maintenance services needed, in
terms of spare parts and accessories that require replacement during the
lifespan of the electrical vehicle to ensure its adequate functioning. As
presented in Dombrowski and Engel (2014) the automotive aftermarket
is impacted in various ways and at multiple level (e.g., parts manufac-
tures, distribution, workshops) by the increase in electric mobility.
While for BEVs substantial data and analysis is available, showing a
possible decrease in such demand (Delucchi and Lipman, 2001; Propfe
et al., 2012; Letmathe and Suares, 2017; Palmer et al., 2018), the
assessment of AVs effects is even more challenging, as no full automated
vehicles are deployed yet. The present paper will focus on investigating
and estimating the potential impact that BEVs and AVs deployment
could have on the M&R sector in Europe. Starting from current scientic
research and grounded on interviews of experts in the eld, the paper
reviews major drivers inuencing M&R service demand and provides
indications on possible future effects.
After providing some background information on the M&R sector in
Europe in Section 2, the methodology used in this study is presented in
Section 3. Section 4 illustrates major ndings of a literature review on
demand and cost estimation of M&R of BEVs and AVs. In Section 5 the
main results of the current analysis are presented. The key takeaways
and concluding remarks are included in Section 6.
The maintenance and repair sector in Europe
1
In this paper, the M&R sector is dened according to the NACE Rev.2
Classication, code G4520
2
which includes activities under the Main-
tenance and Repair of motor vehicles. The M&R sector represents
around 0.9% of EU GDP and employs about 1,34 million persons in the
EU MSs (European Commission, 2018a; European Commission, 2018b).
The economic situation and evolution of the M&R sector should be
viewed in relation to the size of the vehicle market. In this regard, the
situation in the EU Member States (MSs) is diverse. Fig. 1a and 1b
presents the relation between employment and turnover in the sector
and the vehicle stock in the EU MSs in 2018. To ensure readability of the
information, the data was separated in two gures given the high dif-
ferences in the stock of vehicles. Fig. 1a presents the situation in big
vehicle markets with a stock above 10 million vehicles and Fig. 1b shows
medium and smaller markets. The size of the bubble represents the total
number of road vehicles (cars, vans, trucks, busses, two wheelers) in
2018.
Overall, at EU 27 level the M&R sector has seen a positive evolution
in the period 2011–2018. The number of M&R enterprises increased by
more than 10% (with 43,300 additional companies in this period,
reaching 452,830 in 2018). The growth can be attributed mainly to
strong increases in Poland, France, Spain, Germany and Lithuania. Italy
had the highest number of enterprises in the EU in 2018 with more than
70,400 companies, representing 15.6% of the total number of M&R
enterprises in EU 27, although a small contraction was registered in the
last years.
The M&R sector employs around 1.34 million persons in EU 27,
showing a positive trend during the period 2011–2018, with more than
49,000 additional persons employed in the sector. EU MSs that regis-
tered strong positive employment trends in this period were Poland,
Germany, Hungary and Lithuania while a reduction was observed in
France, Italy, Greece and Belgium. Germany holds the highest number of
people employed in the sector with more than 287,000 persons in 2018
representing 21.4% of the total EU 27 value. Additional, MSs with more
than 100,000 persons employed were Italy, France, Spain and Poland.
These 5 MSs represent more than 2/3 of the total number of persons
employed in M&R in EU 27 and have a similar proportion in terms of the
share of population to the total population living in EU 27.
The turnover of enterprises active in M&R in the EU has undergone a
positive evolution between 2011 and 2018
3.
The highest increase was
registered by rms in Poland and Germany. The combined turnover of
the top 4 states (Germany, France, Italy and Spain) represents more than
61% of the total turnover of the sector in the EU 27.
In terms of value added, the situation in the M&R sector is presented
in Fig. 2a and b. Germany, France, Italy and Spain hold the largest
markets, with Germany leading, having more than 10,9 billion euro in
value added. From 2011 to 2018, France, Greece, Belgium and Slovakia
have registered the steepest decrease in terms of value added. Strong
increases were registered in Germany, Austria and Sweden.
Methodology
The analysis presented in this paper stems from an initial assessment
of current scientic research in the eld based on which it was possible
to derive the factors that may inuence the increase or decrease in M&R
demand based on BEV and AV uptake. It also focuses on identifying
trends and factors that can have a potential impact on M&R if AVs
represent the majority of vehicles in the transport system. As BEVs and
AVs differ both in terms of technology and deployment, the analysis
used was different.
As the technology for BEVs is in a much-advanced phase, the analysis
of previous scientic research provided sufcient evidence to sustain an
1
The analysis in this section is limited to EU-27 MS since 1 February 2020. It
does not include information related to the situation of the maintenance and
repair sector in the United Kingdom.
2
NACE REV. 2 Statistical classication of economic activities in the European
Community, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598
/5902521/KS-RA-07–015-EN.PDF
3
Exception made for Belgium, Greece and France.
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
3
estimation of M&R cost variations. In contrast, the scarcity of references
addressing the impacts of AVs deployment on the M&R sector imposes a
different approach and we used semi-structured interviews with auto-
motive and transport experts to limit the literature insufciency.
The selection of relevant literature was carried out based on the
relevance to the topic and limited to the last ten years, as no major
contributions could be found earlier. No geographical boundaries were
dened.
Fig. 3 illustrates the different methodological approaches used for
BEVs and AVs.
In the case of BEVs, after a detailed analysis of Literature Review (LR)
on the topic, the list of possible elements affecting BEVs M&R was
dened and the related results assessed by 5 researchers working as
transport economists at the Joint Research Centre (JRC). Through
several iterative discussions, the experts convened to dene an average
BEVs M&R variation value.
The outcome of the AVs LR helped to develop a framework to provide
a qualitative indication of the increase/decrease in the demand for M&R
of AVs based on specic factors and taking into account different
deployment scenarios. To test the soundness of factors, trends and
changes identied in AVs literature, it was necessary to involve trans-
port system and automotive experts that provided qualitative insights on
Fig. 1. Employment and turnover of M&R sector by size of vehicle market. Chart a) refers to EU markets with stock greater than 10 million vehicles, while chart b)
refers to the other EU markets. Source: Own elaboration based on data from Eurostat and JRC, reference year 2018 for employment, turnover and vehicle stock, For
Finland the employment and turnover data from 2017 are used. Note: Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Czechia (CZ), Denmark (DK), Germany (DE), Estonia (EE), Ireland
(IE), Greece (EL), Spain (ES), France (FR), Croatia (HR), Italy (IT), Cyprus (CY), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Hungary (HU), Malta (MT),
Netherlands (NL), Austria (AT), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovenia (SI), Slovakia (SK), Finland (FI), Sweden (SE).
Fig. 2. Evolution of M&R value added. Chart on the left refers to EU Member States with annual value added greater than 500 million
€
, while the chart on the right
to the other EU MSs. Source: Own elaboration based on data from Eurostat. Finland data for 2017. Czech Republic and Malta missing data in 2011. Note: Belgium
(BE), Bulgaria (BG), Czechia (CZ), Denmark (DK), Germany (DE), Estonia (EE), Ireland (IE), Greece (EL), Spain (ES), France (FR), Croatia (HR), Italy (IT), Cyprus
(CY), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Hungary (HU), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Austria (AT), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovenia
(SI), Slovakia (SK), Finland (FI), Sweden (SE).
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
4
the impact of AVs on the M&R sector.
Expert opinions collected through interviews are an important
source of information and facilitate the understanding of complex issues
in areas where limited knowledge is available. Such methodology has
been widely applied also in transport research as documented in Zhang
et al., 2021. The online interviews method was chosen to collect the
views of experts that were living in various countries (e.g., Belgium,
Germany, United Kingdom, South Korea). We acknowledge the limita-
tions of the method chosen, especially in terms of the reduce richness of
information produced by the interviews as described in Johnson et al.
(2019), still taking into consideration the restrictions in traveling and
organising face to face interviews due to COVID-19 we consider it to be
the best alternative available for collecting the data. Experts in transport
system and the automotive sector were identied following a purposive
sampling approach as described in Etikan et al. (2016).
The interviewed participants were selected from a list of experts
previously known by the authors through research events or engage-
ment activities. In all, 30 experts were contacted by email or LinkedIn
between October 2020 and January 2021, 9 experts accepted to take
part in the research. Of these, 4 were from the automotive sector asso-
ciations representative at EU or MS level, 3 from automotive consulting
companies and 2 were working in automotive companies. All the experts
interviewed had experience within the transport sector, namely in
transport systems, automotive aftermarket, automotive hardware/soft-
ware companies and automotive consulting. 3 of the experts had AVs
related experience.
Information about the 9 experts are presented in Table 1.
Starting from previous LR on the topic, the experts could elaborate
on the factors identied and complement with additional information
and data based on their experience in the transport/automotive eld,
moreover a section on future mobility scenarios and a concluding part
for additional comments/material complemented the questionnaire (see
Annex 1). These inputs have been framed in a semi-structured ques-
tionnaire that was used to guide the discussion with transport experts
during the online interviews. The experts were asked to state whether a
certain factor could have a positive or negative impact on the M&R
sector, its ranking, from 1 (less important) to 5 (very important) and
possibly to dene a share of increase/decrease in cost compared to CVs
(Table 2).
The experts were interviewed via internet collaboration tools be-
tween the months of November 2020 – January 2021, with the in-
terviews lasting from 30 to 75 min. The authors put in writing the
answers provided, which were then sent to each expert for approval or
further adjustment. Each expert had the possibility to check his/her
contribution and to clarify specic views.
Literature review results
Previous work dealing with demand and cost estimation of M&R of
BEVs and AVs has been reviewed and the main ndings are presented
hereafter.
Fig. 3. Methodological approach.
Table 1
Details about the experts interviewed.
Field of activity Field of experience Years of
experience
Years of AV
related
experience
EU Automotive
Association
Automotive 20+–
EU Automotive
Association
Automotive
aftermarket
15+–
EU Automotive
Association
Automotive
aftermarket
20+–
Automotive
Association
Automotive 10+–
Automotive
Company
Automotive
technology
5+–
Automotive
Supplier
Software automotive
and AVs
5+5+
Consulting Automotive; AVs 20+8+
Consulting Automotive and
consulting for
automotive
5+–
Consulting Consulting on
transport and AVs
5+2+
Source: Own elaboration based on the information collected from the experts
interviewed.
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
5
Maintenance and repair cost of battery electric vehicles
Details, calculations and specic values/percentage differences be-
tween the maintenance costs of BEVs and CVs are covered in various
papers. Most of them are related to vehicle costs analysis.
Delucchi and Lipman (2001) identied M&R cost as an important
part of the operational cost of a vehicle and developed a rst estimation
of the M&R costs for the lifecycle of a vehicle, namely 5.05 US¢/mile for
a CVs (including oil but excluding inspection, cleaning and towing) and
3.72 US¢/mile for BEVs. These values represent a 26% decrease in M&R
cost of BEV compared to CV.
Propfe et al. (2012) look into the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over
a period of four years. M&R cost calculations took into account the mean
time between failures /replacements and the required input for replac-
ing specic components. The relative M&R cost of BEVs compared to
CVs was estimated to be around 19% lower. In absolute values, the cost
of M&R calculated for CVs was 2.892
€
and for BEVs 2.348
€
(over a 4-
year period and with an average of 10,000 km/year driven).
More recently, Letmathe and Suares (2017) analysed the TCO for
specic BEVs
4
and CVs models grouped into small, medium, and large
size vehicles. The cost for M&R was considered part of the vehicle
operating expenditures along with energy consumption, other variable
costs (e.g., car care), insurance, vehicle taxes, other xed costs (e.g.,
renting a parking space), and the cost for battery leasing in the case of
BEVs. M&R costs taken from a vehicle costs database
5
account for: oil
changes, inspections, wear and tear damages, a xed repair annual lump
sum and replacement of the starter battery
6
. The paper also considered
different drivers’ proles (occasional, normal, and frequent) based on
the annual vehicle kilometres travelled. The decrease in the cost of M&R
for BEVs models compared to CVs varies between 25 and 35%.
In Palmer et al. (2018), TCO and M&R costs were estimated for two
countries, Japan and the UK, and two states in the USA, California and
Texas. The percentage decrease of BEVs M&R costs compared with
equivalent CVs is 23% in Japan and the UK, 24% in Texas and 30% in
California.
7
The table below provides a broader overview of the LR on the topic,
showing the different values in M&R cost in BEVs and CVs. The BEVs
TCO analyses show a general trend towards a decrease in their cost
overtime, which may lead to close the cost gap with CVs in the near
future (Liu et al., 2021).
Maintenance and repair cost of autonomous vehicles
To our knowledge, previous scientic publications related to M&R
Table 2
List of papers reviewed for M&R cost of BEVs and CVs.
Authors
(year)
M&R costs
estimations/
assumptions (% BEVs
lower than CVs)
Country/
Region
Type of vehicle
considered in
the analysis
K¨
onig et al.
(2021)
28%* Small, 16%*
Medium, −2%*
1
Large
and 11%* SUV
Germany Passenger Cars
Liu et al.
(2021)
At least 40%*, but
increasing considering
the value of vehicle
USA Passenger Cars
Harto (2020) 50%* lifetime average USA Passenger Cars
Lutsey and
Nicholas
(2019)
57%* car, 55%*
crossover, 59%* SUV
USA Passenger Cars
Moon and Lee
(2019)
50% Korea Passenger Cars
Van Velzen
et al. (2019)
50% The
Netherlands
Passenger Cars
Palmer et al.
(2018)
23% Japan; 30%
California; 24% Texas;
23% United Kingdom *
Japan;
California;
Texas; United
Kingdom
Passenger Cars
Weldon et al.
(2018)
18% Ireland Passenger Cars
and Light
Commercial
Vehicles
Logtenberg
et al. (2018)
47% Canada
(includes
regional values)
Passenger Cars
Danielis et al.
(2018)
30% or 35% based on
the values identied in
literature
Italy Passenger Cars
Letmathe and
Suares
(2017)
25–31% Small Vehicles
30–35% Medium
Vehicles Class
(depending on the
Annual vehicle mileage)
Germany Passenger Cars
Hoekstra et al.
(2017)
70% Netherlands Passenger Cars
Mitropoulos
et al. (2017)
30% USA Passenger Cars
Kleiner and
Friedrich
(2017)
33% (40 ton long-
haulage) 46% (12 ton
urban)
Germany Trucks (40 ton
and 12 ton)
Bubeck et al.
(2016)
25% Germany Passenger Cars
Madina et al.
(2016)
65%* Spain;
Germany; The
Netherlands
Passenger Cars
Rusich and
Danielis
(2015)
50% Italy Passenger Cars
Gnann et al.
(2014)
19% Small; 17%
Medium; 16% Large and
LCV*
Germany Passenger Cars
and Light
Commercial
Vehicles
Tae et al.
(2014)
20–30% Germany;
United
Kingdom
Light
Commercial
Vehicles
Lebeau et al.
(2013)
35% Belgium Passenger Cars
Macharis et al.
(2013)
50% Belgium
(Brussels-
Capital Region)
Light
Commercial
Vehicles
Davis and
Figliozzi
(2013)
50%* USA Trucks
Lee et al.
(2013)
50%- 75% USA Trucks
Propfe et al.
(2012)
19%* Germany Passenger cars
Egbue and
Long (2012)
25%* USA Passenger Cars
Table 2 (continued )
Authors
(year)
M&R costs
estimations/
assumptions (% BEVs
lower than CVs)
Country/
Region
Type of vehicle
considered in
the analysis
Feng and
Figliozzi
(2012)
50% USA Commercial
Vehicles -
Delivery Trucks
Delucchi and
Lipman
(2001)
26%* USA Passenger cars
*The % difference was calculated based on the nominal values provided /used in
the paper Source: Own elaboration based on the information collected in the
BEVs Literature review;
1
In K¨
onig et al. (2021) M&R costs reported for large
BEV are higher than those for a large CV.
4
With at least 100 new vehicles registration in the German market.
5
ADAC (2015). More details about this database are available at: htt
ps://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/
6
For cars used more than 30,000 km/year.
7
Calculations based on the nominal values provided in the paper.
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
6
demand and cost estimation associated to AVs are less abundant. Up
until February 2021, there were no available papers extensively
covering this topic and the potential increase/decrease comparison with
CVs costs. Nonetheless hereafter we report the relevant studies
identied.
Information on the M&R costs of AVs presented in Chen et al. (2016)
and Loeb and Kockelman (2019) cover only the case of shared autono-
mous electric vehicles (SAEV). The assumption made in Chen et al.
(2016) is that the M&R cost of a SAEV is the same as for a CV, namely
ranging from 5.5 to 6.6 US¢/mile with a midpoint at 6.1 US¢/mile. Loeb
and Kockelman (2019) look at the cost of deploying a SAEVs eet in
Austin, Texas, using similar values to Chen et al. (2016). In this paper,
the vehicle cleaning cost is included in the high costs’ scenario, which
accounts for 2.6 US¢/mile.
Given the incipient stage of deployment of AVs in transport networks
and the challenges these vehicles must overcome to be considered safe to
travel unattended the scarcity of the literature looking into the costs of
AVs, and more specically into M&R costs is understandable.
Results of own assessment and from experts’ interviews
In this section, we illustrate the result of our analysis: we rst look at
BEVs and then at AVs deployment effects on the automotive M&R sector.
Estimated impact of battery electric vehicles deployment on maintenance
and repair
Overall, there is a clear consensus that M&R cost for BEVs is lower
than for CVs. This cost decrease is attributed to the following factors:
BEVs have fewer moving parts (Palmer et al., 2018; Logtenberg et al.,
2018; Mitropoulos et al., 2017; Lebeau et al., 2013; Feng and Figliozzi,
2012), do not need oil and lters changes (Moon and Lee, 2019; Log-
tenberg et al., 2018; Lebeau et al., 2013) and have regenerative braking
systems that have a lower impact on wear and tear of different com-
ponents (Palmer et al., 2018; Logtenberg et al., 2018; Hoekstra et al.,
2017; Lebeau et al., 2013).
Given the large range of values proposed in LR, from cautious ones
19% (Propfe et al., 2012), to more extreme ones 70–75% (Lee et al.,
2013; Hoekstra et al., 2017) the value proposed in this paper is a
cautious approach in line with the literature, which is an average value
of 30% of maintenance cost reduction of BEV compared CVs.
Estimated impact of autonomous vehicles deployment on maintenance and
repair
This analysis presents an estimate of potential increase/decrease in
demand for M&R for AVs. The outcome of this analysis is reported here
after.
The AV deployment scenarios are the ones illustrated below, for
which different degrees of effects in the M&R demand are expected.
Autonomous conventional vehicles for private use (ACVs) - in
this scenario the automated features are installed in CVs and the ma-
jority of vehicles in the transport system continues to be owned by
private individuals;
Autonomous electric vehicles for private use (AEVs) - in this
scenario, the technology that enables the vehicle to be autonomous is
installed in electric vehicles and the majority of vehicles in the transport
system continues to be owned privately by individuals;
Shared autonomous conventional vehicles (SACVs) – in this case,
CVs become autonomous and the majority of vehicles in the transport
system is owned by companies/public providers and used for transport
needs by individuals;
Shared autonomous electrical vehicles (SAEVs) - in this last sce-
nario, AVs are electrical and the eet is owned by companies/public
providers and used for transport needs by individuals.
The actual deployment of AVs in the transport system will probably
be a dynamic combination of the scenarios previously described. For the
ease of the analysis, this paper estimates the impact of AVs on the M&R
sector by looking at each scenario separately and disregarding the ef-
fects that could unfold when combining them.
The factors that could inuence M&R demand due to AVs’ deploy-
ment have been identied in LR and are presented in Table 3.
Overall demand for maintenance could increase in the SACVs sce-
nario, considering the anticipated increase in vehicles kilometres trav-
elled (VKT) for eets and ride sharing services as documented in Henao
and Marshall (2019) and the induced wear and tear of components. For
the SAEV and ACV scenarios, the changes in demand for maintenance
are difcult to establish. For the AEV scenario, overall M&R demand
could decrease in line with the estimations of reduced M&R costs for EVs
compared to CVs.
New maintenance service niches could be developed to check
directly and remotely the functioning of the autonomous driving sys-
tems, to update various software and to ensure permanent connectivity
to different networks and environment elements. All these services could
increase M&R demand and costs in all scenarios, in line with the analysis
in Litman (2020). To alleviate the burden of such expenses, these ser-
vices could be provided in assistance packages that would imply regular
payments.
Previous work on AVs’ benets and threats (Litman, 2020; Gkart-
zonikas and Gkritza, 2019; Wadud et al., 2016) highlights the reduction
in the number of crashes and probability of accidents, this would imply a
decreasing need for outstanding M&R interventions in all scenarios
considered.
Narayanan et al. (2020) summarizes the estimations regarding the
expected variations in VKT in the case of shared autonomous vehicles
and identies fteen studies that anticipate an increase of VKT which
ranges from +2% (Kondor et al., 2019) up to +89% (International
Transport Forum, 2015) and ve studies that predicted a decrease in
VKT up to a maximum of −45% (Lokhandwala and Cai, 2018).
The empty travel of AVs could be considered as an inuencing factor.
For shared eets, this could be due to relocation, pick-up drives, or
return-to-base drives. While in case of private use, the vehicles could be
travelling empty searching for a parking place or avoiding to pay high
parking fees (B¨
osch et al., 2018). Empty VKT are likely to increase the
Table 3
Estimation of increase /decrease in demand for M&R of AVs based on the
literature reviewed.
Factors that could
inuence M&R demand
due to AVs deployment
Privately
owned
ACVs
Privately
owned
AEVs
Shared
SACVs
Shared
SAEVs
Maintenance in general þ/¡– þ þ/¡
Autonomous driving
system Hardware and
Software (sensors,
controls, software
updates and
navigation, etc.)
þ þ þ þ
Connectivity þ þ þ þ
Outstanding maintenance
interventions (e.g.
reduced probability of
accidents)
– – – –
Additional empty VKT
(vehicle kilometres
travelled)
þ þ þ þ
Cleaning N.C. N.C. þ þ
Reduced eet size – – þ þ
Increase demand for
travel and the total VKT
þ þ þ þ
Lower acceleration and
deceleration
– – – –
+(increase); ¡(decrease); +/¡(difcult to establish); N.C. (no change).
Source: Own elaboration based on the information collected in the AVs Litera-
ture review.
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
7
demand for M&R for AVs in all scenarios.
The cleaning cost has also been considered as an additional expense
associated to shared AVs deployment. The cost of such services will
increase the M&R demand in shared scenarios as regular cleaning would
be necessary to ensure an adequate level of comfort for users, while
cleaning is unlikely to impact additionally the privately owned AVs
(Litman, 2020).
Autonomous taxis and shared autonomous mobility services have the
potential to substitute privately owned and used vehicles and to lead to a
decrease in eet size as anticipated in Boesch et al. (2016) and Burghout
et al. (2015). This has the potential to reduce the demand for M&R from
private users, but could increase the demand in the shared scenarios.
Wadud et al. (2016) indicate that an increase in travel demand could
occur due to the reduction in costs of driver’s time and rise in the
number of people that could be served by AVs. This could increase the
demand for maintenance in all scenarios considered.
Previous literature (Wadud, 2017) indicates that AVs could be pro-
grammed to accelerate and decelerate smoothly imposing less pressure
on wear/tear of specic components; this factor could further reduce the
demand for M&R in all scenarios.
Overall, the two electric AVs scenarios, either privately owned or
shared eets, could lead to a reduction of M&R costs. This could
essentially be attributed to the electrical components, rather than to the
automation technology. The privately owned electric AVs would have a
slightly lower M&R costs than shared electric AVs when including the
cost of cleaning.
In order to validate the LR ndings and to gain further insights on the
factors, trends and changes identied for M&R of AVs, we organised
semi-structured interviews with transport system and automotive
experts.
The experts were rstly asked about their general opinion on
whether AVs would have higher or lower M&R requirements compared
to CVs and what could be the elements/reasons for such a variation. The
answers showed that it remains highly difcult to estimate accurately
the impact of AVs’ deployment on M&R. Most experts indicated that the
expected decrease in accidents would lead to less M&R interventions,
but repairing/replacing and calibration/recalibration of complex hard-
ware components installed in AVs could prove to be costly procedures.
Next, based on LR ndings, the respondents were asked to provide
their view on a selected list of factors that have the potential to inuence
the demand for M&R of AVs. The results obtained are presented in
Table 4, where for each factor, the overall tendency of increase or
decrease in M&R demand is presented, together with a ranking of the
different factors, where 1 indicates that the factor is not important at all
and 5 that the factor is very important.
The experts were also asked to estimate the possible share of cost
variation of the identied factors compared to CVs. Still, the high degree
of uncertainty associated with AV deployment and the lack of available
data on this last point impeded the respondents to provide reliable in-
formation. The overview of the retrieved information is summarised in
Table 4.
For each of the factors, the additional insight provided by the experts
is presented below. The factors listed as “Others” were identied spon-
taneously by experts during the interviews.
Hardware for autonomous driving
Hardware components and software programs that will enable ve-
hicles to be fully autonomous are seen as highly inuencing factors in
the future that could determine an increase in M&R demand.
The AVs will be equipped with more various hardware components
(sensors for camera, radar, lidar, etc.) than the average CV on the road
today and many of its parts require highly accurate calibration to ensure
proper functioning that could lead to an increase in M&R demand.
Experts with a background in automotive companies and the after-
market sector pointed out that hardware wear and tear could have less
inuence on M&R of AVs, while the hardware calibration/recalibration
could constitute an important factor. This view is based on the experi-
ence with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) available
nowadays
8
. ADAS hardware calibration represents a post-repair or
replacement service process which ensures the proper functioning of
vehicle sensors and which is done static, dynamic or in combination.
Automotive consultancy experts share the view of a potential in-
crease in M&R of AVs determined by hardware components, mainly
attributed to the high number of components and their complexity.
Higher number of components increases system complexity and hence
adds possible operational issues, leading to a raise of replacing and
calibrating costs.
The views of the experts interviewed are in line with the ndings of
the LR which emphasized the importance of hardware components for
providing a vehicle with autonomous capabilities (Koopman and Wag-
ner, 2017, Pendleton et al., 2017).
Software for autonomous driving
The software part of AV is also regarded as an important factor for
M&R by all the experts interviewed. Most of them anticipate that pro-
cesses like software Over the Air updates (OTA)
9
will represent a com-
mon feature and could have an impact on the M&R demand.
Panel of experts working in automotive companies have emphasized
that OTA would change the nature of M&R services and determine the
implementation of new processes. This could bring regulatory chal-
lenges that have a potential impact on M&R costs, particularly in the
introductory phase.
Use of OTA has multiple implications for the M&R sector, since ve-
hicles could no longer be required to have regular physical checks of
specic software applications. For vehicle owners, OTA reduces some
indirect costs related to maintenance such as time and money spent for
service centre visits. Still, particular concerns about OTA are related to
security and protection of the software from external threats and about
the need for rigorous testing and regulatory validation of system
modications.
Specialized literature contains a series of proposals to overcome the
OTA security concerns such as: special secure protocol for OTA in
Table 4
Summary of experts’ estimations on the impact of AVs on M&R.
Factors Impact of AVs on M&R demand
compared to CVs
Ranking (1 not
important at all, 5
very important)
AVs Hardware þ4
AVs Software þ4
Connectivity / 2
Additional
empty VKT
/ 1
Increased
demand in
VKT
þ3
Cleaning
services
þ4
Others Fleet electrication –
Cybersecurity needs can add to
the M&R costs of AVs.
þ
M&R of AVs will require new
special equipment and people
with appropriate skills to use it
þ.
+(increase); ¡(decrease); +/¡(difcult to establish); NC (no change); / no
signicant impact foreseen.
Source: Own elaboration based on the information provided by experts
interviewed.
8
ADAS Sensor Calibration Increases Repair Costs available at: https://www.
aaa.com/autorepair/articles/adas-sensor-calibration-increases-repair-costs
9
OTA represents remote enhancements brought to cars rmware and soft-
ware that provide access to new features or x issues and security gaps.
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
8
Nilsson and Larson (2008), blockchain technology in Baza et al. (2019),
STRIDE
10
which is a scheme for OTA software updates over cloud that is
specically designed for AVs in Ghosal et al. (2020).
Additionally, some experts pointed out that AVs could be equipped
with systems and software enabling remote diagnostics and failure
detection. Predictive diagnostics as described in Hackner and Lehle
(2017) increase availability and optimize the maintenance intervals of
vehicles, transforming unplanned breakdowns into predictable mainte-
nance interventions which further have the potential to reduce main-
tenance time and costs.
However, automotive consulting experts indicated that a stronger
development of software applications in the short and medium term is
needed to ensure that AVs overcome the challenges of adequately
operating in extraordinary weather and trafc conditions.
Connectivity
The impact of connectivity technologies on the M&R of AVs is still
difcult to assess and the current deployment situation provides limited
information. Regular check-ups of connectivity features would be
deemed necessary, but the actual costs and relevance for M&R in-
terventions cannot be currently estimated.
Connectivity could enhance vehicle automation (Ha et al., 2020) and
would be an embedded part in the deployed AVs. Connectivity for AVs
could include the remote vehicle ignition, doors unlocking, fuel use, and
data exchange among vehicles (V2V), to the infrastructure (V2I), to the
cloud (V2C) and to everything (V2X).
Most of the experts interviewed indicated that connectivity would be
embedded in the AVs, but this factor will have a small inuence on the
M&R. One expert suggested that connectivity does not represent a
distinct factor and that it could be split into the hardware and software
parts.
Additional empty vehicles kilometres travelled
Additional empty travel is seen as a less important factor for the M&R
of AVs by the experts interviewed. Most experts suggested that the ex-
pected impact may be further reduced through optimization of AVs
operation and allocation.
Deployment of AVs, either private or shared, in the transport system
may lead to additional empty travel for various reasons such as: repo-
sitioning, use of AVs as mobility service robots, return to origin if
parking is not available at the destination (Meyer et al., 2017). Empty
travel can partially offset some of the benets of AVs and may increase
congestion (Liu et al., 2017).
The views expressed by the experts are in line with the research ef-
forts to develop optimization-based strategies that decrease empty kil-
ometres travelled and traveller waiting time in the case of shared-use
AVs mobility service (Hyland and Mahmassani, 2018).
Increased demand in vehicles kilometres travelled
All the experts in the panel consider the estimated increase in VKT as
a relevant factor for the M&R of AVs. A rise in VKT could lead to a higher
usage of replaceable parts in AVs and an increase in terms of M&R de-
mand. One expert indicated that, for autonomous EVs to cope with the
estimated increase in VKT, battery management would play a very
important role.
Deployment of AVs may increase the demand for VKT based on many
determinants. Harb et al. (2021) present a comprehensive review of the
AVs literature, including their impact on travel behaviour and VKT, and,
although various methodologies are used in the papers analysed, a large
majority indicated an increase of the VKT with a range from 1% to 90%.
Taiebat et al. (2019) provide examples of main determinants for an in-
crease in VKT, based on literature: induced travel demand, new demand
from underserved travellers, a response to reduced cost of driving,
empty travelling, etc.
Cleaning services
The experts viewed cleaning as an important factor that will increase
the operational cost of AVs. Importance of the cleaning could be
intensied by sanitary concerns over the spread of viruses and diseases
(e.g. Covid-19 pandemic). The hygienic concerns represent an important
challenge, especially for shared AVs and could impact the trust and use
of shared services if regular and suitable cleaning procedures are not
deployed.
Although cleaning is not at the core of M&R activities, the cleaning
services may be a relevant factor in the case of AVs. Litman (2020) sees
cleaning as an important factor that would determine a change in ma-
terials used for the interior of vehicles and as an operational cost,
especially for autonomous taxis that will require more frequent clean-
ing. One expert mentioned that cleaning could be relevant for ensuring
the adequate functioning of various sensors the AVs are equipped with.
Other additional factors
During the interviews, the experts had the possibility to complement
the list of identied factors with additional elements that could come
from their background or expertise.
The additional factors mentioned were:
Changes in technology and delivery of services: M&R for AVs could
require new special equipment for performing specic tasks (e.g. sensor
calibration) or could imply the use of automated inspection systems;
some maintenance services (upgrades/updates) could be performed
remotely.
Cybersecurity needs and concerns: considering the important roles
played by software and connectivity in the functioning of AVs, an in-
crease in cybersecurity needs and threats is foreseen. These may lead to
additional costs for reducing or removing any negative effects which
consequently could have a positive effect on the demand for M&R.
Transformation of the workforce in the M&R sector: deployment of AVs
may transform the nature of the M&R services and could increase the
need to upskill and regularly train the sector’s employees in order to
keep up with the technological changes. The investment in human
capital may impact the costs of M&R services for AVs in the short and
medium term.
Fleet electrication: large scale use of electric AVs could lead to a
decrease in M&R costs, primarily attributed to the fact that electric
vehicles have lower M&R needs compared with conventional ones. This
aspect was highlighted spontaneously by some of the interviewed ex-
perts, without knowing that this topic was also within the scope of this
research, and reconrmed the ndings of the BEVs analysis.
Expert views on possible scenarios for the deployment of automated
vehicles and additional relevant aspects
Another aspect investigated with the experts interviewed for this
paper was the suggested deployment scenarios of AVs. The experts were
presented with the four possible scenarios identied in the LR stage,
namely autonomous conventional vehicles for private use (ACVs),
autonomous electric vehicles for private use (AEVs), shared autonomous
conventional vehicles (SACVs) and shared autonomous electrical vehi-
cles (SAEVs).
About half of the experts indicated that SAEVs scenario could be the
one for a mature market of AVs, still, the cost of the shared service will
play an important role. The remaining experts pointed out that AEVs for
private use could reach around 70–80% of the global vehicle market,
especially based on personal attributes and preferences of individuals.
Some mentioned that the autonomous capabilities could be installed on
conventional vehicles, but this would represent a reduced part of the
vehicle stock.
The experts’ views indicated that the transition to electrical vehicles
10
STRIDE represents a secure and scalable software update technique devel-
oped and proposed in Ghosal et al., (2020)
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
9
is seen as inevitable and this would bring changes and challenges also in
terms of demand and cost for M&R.
Additional relevant aspects regarding the future deployment of AVs
and its anticipated impact on M&R include:
•the high importance of the regulatory framework of the AVs
ecosystem, especially regarding new M&R services suppliers, future
market players, software providers, shared services providers, etc.,
which needs to empower and protect consumers;
•the idea that AVs could be designed and built for the specic purpose
the vehicle would serve (e.g. shared AVs could have a different
design than privately used ones) and this usage prole could further
impact the wear and tear of different components;
•the fact that deployment of AVs would require and determine
massive shifts and changes at industry level. This could include new
or different business choices such as general maintenance centres
linked or run by the original equipment manufacturers vs. the
specialization of M&R service providers on particular task/
components.
Conclusions
In 2018, the automotive M&R sector employed more than 1.34
million people in the EU 27 MS and this labour force provided services
for a stock of vehicles close to 308 million. Although BEVs represented
less than 1% of that stock, the push for electrication and cleaner ve-
hicles in the future would have a transformative impact on the M&R
sector among others. AVs are still in a testing phase, but their future
deployment could bring further changes in the M&R sector too.
In this paper, we analysed the scientic literature to identify po-
tential factors and trends that may inuence M&R demand based on BEV
and AV uptake. BEVs and AVs remain very different in technological and
deployment terms; these differences inuenced the approach used in
assessing their impacts on the M&R sector. For BEVs, literature review
and experts’ judgment supported the denition of the relevant factors
and the quantication of their order of magnitude. For AVs, after
identifying relevant inuencing factors through LR, experts’ interviews
were used to validate LR ndings and to gather additional insights.
We identied a scientic consensus that BEVs have less M&R re-
quirements compared with CVs, since BEVs have fewer moving parts, do
not need oil and lter changes and have regenerative braking systems
that reduce the wear and tear of different components. In terms of
magnitude, a realistic assumption is that the M&R cost for BEVs is at
least 30% lower than that of CVs.
For AVs, our analysis indicates the following important factors
inuencing M&R requirements: hardware components, software that
enables a vehicle to drive autonomously, the rise in VKT that may lead to
a higher wear and tear of replaceable parts, and the need for adequate
cleaning services, especially for eets and shared vehicles. Additional
factors are the connectivity and the empty vehicles kilometres travelled.
In terms of possible deployment scenarios of AVs, the interviews with
transport and automotive experts have indicated that the future is
electric; moreover, it could be distinguished by shared mobility options
or private ones, or by a combination of the two. Also, experts pointed out
that ACVs could represent a minor part of the vehicle stock in the future.
The LR and experts’ inputs highlighted some additional relevant
aspects that could shape the M&R of AVs, more specically: regulatory
aspects; cybersecurity challenges; the transformation of the workforce
and skills requirements of future employees in the sector; and the impact
of system diagnostic features and of preventive/predictive maintenance.
Further work should look at the impact of regulations and the non-
insurable risks linked to M&R requirements as these factors were not
covered by the current analysis and were not discussed during the in-
terviews with the experts since they had a more technical background.
Such factors are important for M&R of BEVs, and would be particularly
relevant for AVs considering the expected shift and increase in liability
costs as presented in Shannon et al. (2021) and in responsibility – based
allocation of liability costs according to Pütz et al. (2018).
Another area that needs further investigation and evidences is linked
with the potential structural transformation of the M&R sector with the
deployment of AVs. Specically, the emergence of fewer, bigger and
specialised providers that have easier access to data and information
collected by the vehicles sensors could be detrimental to the evolution
and growth of the small and medium-size enterprises active in the sector.
While sufcient evidence exists to dene effects that BEVs will bring into
the automotive M&R sector, the incipient stage of full vehicle automa-
tion deployment impedes a clear understanding the impact that such
technology will bring into the M&R sector. As piloting and testing ac-
tivities proceed towards full automation, further research should be
carried out to deepen the knowledge and produce estimates on the
overall impact that such technological disruption will cause in the M&R
sector.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Monica Grosso: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Ioan Cristinel Raileanu: Conceptualiza-
tion, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visu-
alization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jette
Krause: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
María Alonso Raposo: Writing – review & editing. Amandine Duboz:
Writing – review & editing. Ada Garus: Writing – review & editing.
Andromachi Mourtzouchou: Writing – review & editing. Biagio
Ciuffo: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Valida-
tion, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This research has been funded by the Joint Research Centre of the
European Commission. The views expressed are purely those of the
authors and may not, under any circumstances, be regarded as an ofcial
position of the European Commission.
Funding resources
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
References
ADAC, 2015. Available at: https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/.
Alonso Raposo, M., et al., 2019. The future of road transport – Implications of automated,
connected, low-carbon and shared mobility. Publications Ofce of the European
Union, Luxembourg.
Alonso, E., Arp´
on, C., Gonz´
alez, M., Fern´
andez, R.´
A., Nieto, M., 2020. Economic impact
of autonomous vehicles in Spain. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 12 (1), 1–17.
Alonso Raposo, M., Grosso, M., Mourtzouchou, A., Krause, J., Duboz, A., Ciuffo, B., 2021.
Economic implications of a connected and automated mobility in Europe. Res.
Transp. Econ. 101072.
Asselin-Miller, N., Biedka, M., Gibson, G., Kollamthodi, S., 2017. The Costs and Benets
of Deploying Cooperative Intelligent Transportation Systems in Europe out to 2030.
Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting Transportation Research
Board.
Baza, M., Nabil, M., Lasla, N., Fidan, K., Mahmoud, M., Abdallah, M., 2019. Blockchain-
based Firmware Update Scheme Tailored for Autonomous Vehicles. In: 2019 IEEE
Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Marrakesh,
Morocco, 2019, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/WCNC.2019.8885769.
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
10
Boesch, P.M., Ciari, F., Axhausen, K.W., 2016. Autonomous Vehicle Fleet Sizes Required
to Serve Different Levels of Demand. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2542
(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.3141/2542-13.
B¨
osch, P.M., Becker, F., Becker, H., Axhausen, K.W., 2018. Cost-based analysis of
autonomous mobility services. Transp. Policy 64, 76–91.
Bubeck, S., Tomaschek, J., Fahl, U., 2016. Perspectives of electric mobility: Total cost of
ownership of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp. Policy 50, 63–77.
Burghout, W., Rigole, P.J., Andreasson, I., 2015. Impacts of shared autonomous taxis in a
metropolitan area. In: Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting,
pp. 15–4000.
Chen, D., Kockelman, K., Hanna, J., 2016. Operations of a Shared, Autonomous, Electric
Vehicle Fleet: Implications of Vehicle & Charging Infrastructure Decisions. Transp.
Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 94, 243–254.
Clements, L., Kockelman, K., 2017. Economic Effects of Automated Vehicles. Transp. Res.
Rec. 2606 (1), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/2606-14.
Danielis, R., Giansoldati, M., Rotaris, L., 2018. A probabilistic total cost of ownership
model to evaluate the current and future prospects of electric cars uptake in Italy.
Energy Policy 119, 268–281.
Davis, B.A., Figliozzi, M.A., 2013. A methodology to evaluate the competitiveness of
electric delivery trucks. Transp. Res. Part E 49 (1), 8–23.
Delucchi, M.A., Lipman, T.E., 2001. An analysis of retail and lifecycle cost of battery –
powered electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D 6, 371–404.
Dombrowski, U., Engel, C., 2014. Impact of electric mobility on the after sales service in
the automotive industry. Procedia CIRP 16, 152–157.
Egbue, O., Long, S., 2012. Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: An
analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 48, 717–729.
Etikan, I., Abubakar Musa, S., Alkassim, R.S., 2016. Comparison of Convenience
Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 5 (1), 1–4. https://doi.
org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
Commission, E., 2018a. Eurostat Database-Structural Business Statistics. Available at: htt
ps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/structural-business-statistics/data/database.
European Commission, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/590
2521/KS-RA-07-015-EN.PDF.
Fagnant, D.J., Kockelman, K., 2015. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles:
opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part A 77,
167–181.
Feng, W., Figliozzi, M.A., 2012. Conventional vs electric commercial vehicle eets: A
case study of economic and technological factors affecting the competitiveness of
electric commercial vehicles in the USA. Procedia - Social Behav. Sci. 39, 702–711.
Ghosal, A., Halder, S., Conti, M., 2020. STRIDE: Scalable and Secure Over-The-Air
Software Update Scheme for Autonomous Vehicles. In: ICC 2020 - 2020 IEEE
International Conference on Communications (ICC), Dublin, Ireland, 2020, pp. 1-6,
doi: 10.1109/ICC40277.2020.9148649.
Gkartzonikas, C., Gkritza, K., 2019. What have we learned? A review of stated preference
and choice studies on autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C 98, 323–337.
Gnann, T., Pl¨
otz, P., Funke, S., Wietschel, M., 2014. What is the market potential of
electric vehicles as commercial passenger cars? A case study from Germany,
Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI, Working Paper
Sustainability and Innovation No. S 14/2014, Available at: https://www.isi.
fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/sustainability-innovation/2014/WP14-
2014_Gnann-Ploetz-Funke-Wietschel_commercial_EVs.pdf.
Ha, P., Chen, S., Du, R., Dong, J., Li, Y., Labi, S., 2020. Vehicle Connectivity and
Automation: A Sibling Relationship. Front. Built Environ. 6, 590036 https://doi.org/
10.3389/fbuil.2020.590036.
Hackner M., Lehle W., 2017. Predictive diagnostics solutions beyond big data. In: Liebl
J., Beidl C. (eds) Internationaler Motorenkongress 2017. Proceedings. Springer
Vieweg, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17109-4_12.
Harb, M., Stathopoulos, A., Shiftan, Y., Walker, J.L., 2021. What do we (Not) know about
our future with automated vehicles?, Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 123,
102948, ISSN 0968-090X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102948.
Harto, C., 2020. Electric Vehicle Ownership Costs: Today’s Electric Vehicles Offer Big
Savings for Consumers. Consumers Reports, Available at: https://advocacy.
consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EV-Ownership-Cost-Final-
Report-1.pdf.
Henao, A., Marshall, W.E., 2019. The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled.
Transportation 46 (6), 2173–2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9923-2.
Hyland, M., Mahmassani, H.S., 2018. Dynamic autonomous vehicle eet operations:
Optimization-based strategies to assign AVs to immediate traveler demand requests.
Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 92, 278-297, ISSN 0968-090X, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trc.2018.05.003.
Hoekstra, A., Vijayashankar, A., Sundrani, V.L., 2017. Modelling the Total Cost of
Ownership of Electric Vehicles in the Netherlands. EVS30 Symposium Stuttgart.
(IEA) International Energy Agency, 2019. Global EV Outlook 2019 Scaling-up the
transition to electric mobility, Available at: https://www.iea.org/publications/
reports/globalevoutlook2019/.
International Transport Forum. 2015. Urban mobility system upgrade: How shared self-
driving cars could change city trafc. https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/itfaac/6-en.
html.
Johnson, D.R., Scheitle, C.P., Ecklund, E.H., 2019. Beyond the In-Person Interview? How
Interview Quality Varies Across In-person, Telephone, and Skype Interviews. Social
Sci. Comput. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319893612.
Kleiner, F., Friedrich, H., 2017. Maintenance & Repair Cost Calculation and Assessment
of Resale Value for Different Alternative Commercial Vehicle Powertrain
Technologies, EVS30 Symposium Stuttgart, Germany, October 9 - 11, 2017.
Koopman, P., Wagner, M., 2017. Autonomous Vehicle Safety: An Interdisciplinary
Challenge. In: IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 9(1), 90-96, Spring
2017, doi:10.1109/MITS.2016.2583491.
Kondor, D., Zhang, H., Tachet, R., Santi, P., Ratti, C., 2019. Estimating Savings in Parking
Demand Using Shared Vehicles for Home-Work Commuting. IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 20 (8), 2903–2912. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.697910.1109/
TITS.2018.2869085.
K¨
onig, A., Nicoletti, L., Schr¨
oder, D., Wolff, S., Waclaw, A., Lienkamp, M., 2021. (2021)
An Overview of Parameter and Cost for Battery Electric Vehicles. World Electric
Vehicle J. 12 (1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010021.
Lebeau, K., Lebeau, P., Macharis, C., Van Mierlo, J., 2013. How expensive are electric
vehicles? A total cost of ownership analysis, EVS27 Barcelona, Spain, November
17–20.
Lee, D-Y., Thomas,V., Brown, M., 2013. Electric Urban Delivery Trucks: Energy Use,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Cost-Effectiveness, Environmental Science &
Technology, Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es400179w.
Letmathe, P., Suares, M., 2017. A consumer-oriented total cost of ownership model for
different vehicle types in Germany. Transp. Res. Part D 57, 314–335.
Litman, T., 2020. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for
Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Available at: https://www.
vtpi.org/avip.pdf.
Liu, Z., Song, J., Kubal, J., Susarla, N., Knehr, K.W., Islam, E., Nelson, P., Ahmed, S.,
2021. Comparing total cost of ownership of battery electric vehicles and internal
combustion engine vehicles. Energy Policy 158, 112564, ISSN 0301-4215, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112564.
Liu, J., Kockelman, K.M., Boesch, P.M., Ciari, F., 2017. Tracking a system of shared
autonomous vehicles across the Austin, Texas network using agent-based simulation.
Transportation 44 (6), 1261–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9811-1.
Loeb, B., Kockelman, K.M., 2019. Fleet performance and cost evaluation of a shared
autonomous electric vehicle (SAEV) eet: A case study for Austin, Texas. Transp.
Res. Part A 121, 374–385.
Logtenberg, R., Pawley, J., Saxifrage, B., 2018. Comparing Fuel and Maintenance Costs
of Electric and Gas Powered Vehicles in Canada, 2 Degrees Institute. Available at.
http://www.2degreesinstitute.org/reports/comparing_fuel_and_maintenancecosts_o
f_electric_and_gas_powered_vehicles_in_canada.pdf.
Lokhandwala, M., and Cai, H., (2018) Dynamic ride sharing using traditional taxis and
shared autonomous taxis: A case study of NYC, Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, Volume 97, Pages 45-60, ISSN 0968-090X, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trc.2018.10.007.
Lutsey, N., and Nicholas, M., (2019) Update on electric vehicle costs in the United States
through 2030, International Council on Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2019-
06, Available at: https://theicct.org/publications/update-US-2030-electric-vehicle-
cost.
Macharis, C., Lebeau, P., Van Mierlo, J., Lebeau, K. (2013) Electric versus conventional
vehicles for logistics: A total cost of ownership, World Electric Vehicle Journal, 6:
945 – 954, EVS27 Barcelona, Spain, November 17-20.
Madina, C., Zamora, I., Zabala, E., 2016. Methodology for assessing electric vehicle
charging infrastructure business models. Energy Policy 89, 284–293.
McKinsey & Company, (2021), Making every part count, A component view on
disruptions in the automotive aftermarket for light vehicles until 2030, Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/
making-every-part-count-a-component-view-on-disruption-in-the-automotive-
aftermarket-for-light-vehicles-until-2030.
Meyer, J., Becker, H., B¨
osch, P.M., Axhausen, K.W., 2017. Autonomous vehicles: The
next jump in accessibilities?, Research in Transportation Economics, Volume 62.
ISSN 80–91, 0739–8859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.03.005.
Mitropoulos, L.K., Prevedouros, P.D., Kopelias, P., 2017. Total cost of ownership and
externalities of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicle. Transp. Res. Procedia 24,
267–274.
Moon, S., Lee, D.-J., 2019. An optimal electric vehicle investment model for consumers
using total cost of ownership: A real option approach. Appl. Energy 253, 113494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113494.
Narayanan, S., Chaniotakis, E., and Antoniou, C., 2020 Shared autonomous vehicle
services: A comprehensive review. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol., 111, 255-
293, ISSN 0968-090X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.12.008.
Nilsson, D.K., Larson, U.E., 2008. Secure Firmware Updates over the Air in Intelligent
Vehicles, ICC Workshops - 2008 IEEE International Conference on Communications
Workshops, Beijing, China, 2008, pp. 380-384, doi: 10.1109/ICCW.2008.78.
Nunes, A., Hernandez, K.D., 2020. Autonomous taxis and public health: High cost of high
opportunity cost? Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 138, 28–36.
Palmer, K., Tate, J.E., Wadud, Z., Nellthorp, J., 2018. Total cost of ownership and market
share for hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK, US and Japan. Appl. Energy 209,
108–119.
Pendleton, S.D., Andersen, H., Du, X., Shen, X., Meghjani, M., Eng, Y.H., Rus, D., Ang, M.
H., 2017. (2017) Perception, Planning, Control, and Coordination for Autonomous
Vehicles. Machines 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines5010006.
Propfe, B., Redelbach, M., Santini, D. J., Friedrich, H. (2012) Cost analysis of Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicles including Maintenance & Repair Costs and Resale Values,
EVS26 Los Angeles, California, May 6-9.
Pütz, F., Murphy, F., Mullins, M., Maier, K., Friel, R., Rohlfs, T., 2018. Reasonable,
adequate and efcient allocation of liability costs for automated vehicles: a case
study of the German liability and insurance framework. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 9 (3),
548–563.
Rusich, A., Danielis, R., 2015. Total cost of ownership, social lifecycle cost and energy
consumption of various automotive technologies in Italy. Res. Transp. Econ. 50,
3–16.
M. Grosso et al.

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 12 (2021) 100495
11
Santos, G., Rembalski, S., 2021. Do electric vehicles need subsidies in the UK? Energy
Policy 149, 111890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111890.
Shannon, D., Jannusch, T., David-Spickermann, F., Mullins, M., Cunneen, M.,
Murphy, F., 2021. Connected and autonomous vehicle injury loss events: Potential
risk and actuarial considerations for primary insurers. Risk Manag. Insurance Rev.
24 (1), 5–35.
Tae, T., Kreutzfeldt, J., Held, T., Konings, R., Kotter, R., Lilley, S., Baster, H., Green, N.,
Laugesen, M., Jacobsson, S., Borgqvist, M., Nyquist, C. (2014) Comparative Analysis
of European examples of Freight Electric Vehicles Schemes. A systematic case study
approach with examples from Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the
UK, Dynamics in Logistics - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference LDIC,
2014 Bremen, Germany.
Taiebat, M., Stolper, S., Xu, M., 2019. Forecasting the Impact of Connected and
Automated Vehicles on Energy Use: A Microeconomic Study of Induced Travel and
Energy Rebound, Applied Energy, Volume 247. ISSN 297–308, 0306–2619. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.174.
van Velzen, A., Annema, J.A., van de Kaa, G., van Wee, B., 2019. Proposing a more
comprehensive future total cost of ownership estimation framework for electric
vehicles. Energy Policy 129, 1034–1046.
Wadud, Z., MacKenzie, D., Leiby, P., 2016. Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and
carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 86,
1–18.
Wadud, Z., 2017. Fully automated vehicles: A cost of ownership analysis to inform early
adoption. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 101, 163–176.
Weldon, P., Morrissey, P., O’Mahony, M., 2018. Long-term cost of ownership
comparative analysis between electric vehicles and internal combustion engine
vehicles. Sustainable Cities Soc. 39, 578–591.
Yang, D.-X., Qiu, L.-S., Yan, J.-J., Chen, Z.-Y., Jiang, M., 2019. The government
regulation and market behavior of the new energy automotive industry. J. Cleaner
Prod. 210, 1281–1288.
Zhang, J., Hayashi, Y., Frank, L., 2021. COVID-19 and transport: Findings from a world-
wide expert survey. Transp. Policy 103 (2021), 68–85.
M. Grosso et al.