Greater integration of advanced vehicle technologies is commonly discussed as a component of developing smart cities, potentially leading to a host of benefits. Final impacts of such benefits are uncertain, though, given research that illustrates induced travel by initial adopters of emerging vehicle technologies and services and mixed effects in transit use and active transportation. The locations within cities where interventions of advanced vehicle technologies are envisioned, geographic scope and extent of integration, and the characteristics of these areas are all likely to influence these effects, and these relationships have received limited investigative attention. To address this, we conducted a comprehensive review of proposals submitted by 78 midsized cities in the United States to create a typology that considers (1) the geographic scope of intervention and (2) the degree of integration of connected and automated vehicles, generating five distinct types of projects. Characteristics of the areas within cities identified for intervention are compared to those of their U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). We identified indicators of comprehensive planning efforts as they relate to sustainability and resilience outcomes in each city. Results show that areas identified by cities for advanced vehicle technology interventions differ in important ways from each city’s broader population that warrant attention relative to known demographic characteristics and behavior of early adopters of transportation technologies. There is also variation in project motivation and municipal planning indicators across typology classifications. These are essential considerations as smart city–aligned transportation interventions continue to develop. Key Words: automated vehicle, connected vehicle, smart city, typology.

A growing literature suggests that widespread travel conducted through driverless connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) accessed as a service, in contrast to those personally owned, could have significant impacts on the sustainability of urban transportation. However, it is unclear how the general public currently considers willingness to travel in driverless vehicles, and if they would be more comfortable doing so in one personally owned or one accessed as a service. To address this, we collected travel survey data by intercepting respondents on discretionary or social trips to four popular destinations in a medium-size U.S. city in the spring of 2017. After collecting data on how the respondent reached the survey site and the trip’s origin and destination, survey administrators then asked if respondents would have been willing to make their current trip in either a personally-owned driverless vehicle or through a driverless vehicle service. Over one-third expressed willingness to use both forms, while 31% were unwilling to use either. For those that considered only one, slightly more favored the personally-owned model. Consideration of an existing mobility service was consistently a positive and significant predictor of those that expressed willingness to travel in a driverless vehicle, while traveling downtown negatively and significantly influenced consideration of at least one form of driverless vehicle. These findings highlight the diverse public views about the prospect of integration of CAVs in transportation systems and raise questions about the assumption that travelers to central city locations would be early adopters of automated vehicle mobility services.