Upload
lingjin-teh
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
1/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations
of Cybernetic Transport SystemsCombined Deliverable for D1.1 - System Operating
Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment
Deliverable Type: ReportNumber: D1.1/ D1.3
Nature: Final Version
Contractual Date of Delivery: 15/01/2003Actual Date of Delivery: 01/02/2003
WP: WP1 - User NeedsTask: T1.1 - System Operating Scenarios
T1.3 - Barriers to Deployment
Name of Responsible: Mike McDonald,Tom Vge
Name of the Institute: TRG
Address: University of SouthamptonHighfield Southampton
SO17 1BJ United Kingdom
[email protected]@soton.ac.uk
Abstract:
This report investigates the potentials and limitations of cybernetic transport systems (CTS) inview of operating scenarios and barriers to deployment of CTS. An analysis framework wasdeveloped to establish the user groups involved and the possible application areas. A first stepof the analysis process was a background literature review on CTS-related existing innovative
transport systems and their implications for the implementation of CTS. The main analysisactivities were experience reports from project partners providing CTS technology or working onthe planning process for the CyberMove test-sites and feasibility-studies, focusing on theexperiences with securing funding for applications, obtaining the permission for the operationand the general interaction with decision-makers and results of theoretical studies,demonstration, system experimentations and real-size applications. In addition a number ofstructured interviews were carried out, in order to obtain responses from potential decision-makers and system operators of possible future CTS applications for who, in contrast to theexperience reports, the CTS concept is mainly a theoretical subject.
Keyword List:
UserNeeds,OperatingScenarios,BarrierstoDeployment,CyberneticTransportSystems(CTS)
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
2/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
INFORMATION ON THE COMBINED DELIVERABLE D1.1/ D1.3:
Report Co-ordinator:
TRG, UK
Contributions from:
CRF, ItalyDITS, ItalyFROG, the Netherlands
GEA, SwitzerlandINRIA, FranceIPN, PortugalRUF, DenmarkROBO, FranceSSA, SwitzerlandTNO, the NetherlandsUB, UK
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment I
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
3/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report investigates the potentials and limitations of cybernetic transport systems (CTS). An
analysis framework was developed to establish the potential CTS user groups and application
areas. Based on this framework various analysis activities were carried out, including a
background literature review, experience reports from partners providing CTS technology or
working on the planning process for the CyberMove test-sites and feasibility-studies and
structured interviews with operators and decision-makers.
The literature review was carried out to cover literature on CTS-related existing transportsystems in view of the potentials and limitations of innovative technologies, obtaining details on
system operating scenarios and barriers to deployment. The reviewed systems include car-
sharing, taxi-related systems, demand-responsive transport and automated highway systems.
The implications of the experiences with these systems for the implementation of CTS will then
consequently be analysed.
The experience reports build on the high level of experience partners within the CyberMove
project already have, either through studying their own CTS technology in theoretical studies,
demonstrations, on test-tracks or in operative applications or through working on the planning
process for the CyberMove test-sites and feasibility-studies. This activity will focus on the
experiences with securing funding for applications, obtaining permission for the operation and
the general interaction with decision-makers.
The structured interviews were carried out in addition to the main analysis activity, the
experience reports for systems and sites, in order to obtain responses from potential decision-
makers and system operators of future CTS applications. The recruitment of the interviewees
was based on the analysis framework for CTS user groups. In contrast to the experience
reports, the CTS technology concept was only a theoretical matter for the interviewees, as they
have not been involved in any CTS studies.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment II
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
4/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
The main results of the literature review included the need for clearly defining the objectives of a
planned system and successfully communicating them to the public; not to try to implement a
big number of innovations in a single trial and at an early stage of the development process; to
carefully assess the technological and economic feasibility in advance; the requirements for
large incentives and very clear benefits to overcome the barrier to deployment, which is posed
by the strong private car dependency in our society.
The main differences between the reviewed systems are in regard to the infrastructure, dual-
mode systems, concepts requiring a dedicated infrastructure and systems using the road
network. The vehicles differ in size from individual to group transport, but not providing mass
transport. Advantages include low infrastructure and implementation costs and increased
convenience. Possible application areas are feeder to public transport, transport in historic citycentres or on private sites. Various studies have been carried out to prove the potentials of
these systems.
In most proposed sites the use of fully automated shuttles is planned with the exception of a
semi-automated system and a platooning system. The anticipated advantages of the systems
include increased network and/ or link capacity, higher convenience for end-user and lower
implementation and operating costs. At this early stage of the planning process the funding still
remains a problem for all sites due to the (real and perceived by the decision-makers) risk of
implementing an innovative technology like CTS.
The interviewees envisaged various potentials for different application areas and having the
potential to alleviate some of the current transport-related problems. Disadvantages of CTS
included end-user familiarity with conventional systems, legal/ certification issues and
scepticism about operation in shared environments. Potential barriers to the deployment of CTS
were mainly different organisational difficulties. To ensure a successful implementation of CTS,
a staged introduction and education of the market is important.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment III
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
5/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1Introduction..............................................................................................................................11.1BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................................3
1.3 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................4
2 Analysis Framework...............................................................................................................52.1 USERGROUPS.........................................................................................................................................5
2.2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS.............................................................................................................................6
2.3 ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES...............................................................................................................................8
3 Literature Review....................................................................................................................93.1 INTRODUCTIONTO LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................9
3.2 EXPERIENCESWITH CTS-RELATED SYSTEMS..............................................................................................10
3.2.1 Car-Sharing/ Car-Pooling.........................................................................................................10
3.2.2 Taxi and Related Concepts........................................................................................................16
3.2.3 Demand-Responsive Transport..................................................................................................19
3.2.4Automated Highway Systems......................................................................................................25
3.3CONCLUSIONOF LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................30
4Experience Reports...............................................................................................................324.1INTRODUCTIONTO EXPERIENCE REPORTS....................................................................................................32
4.1.1Approach to Experience Report Activities...................................................................................32
4.1.2Planning of Experience Report Activities....................................................................................33
4.1.3 Analysis Procedure for Experience Reports...............................................................................34
4.2RESULTSOF EXPERIENCE REPORTSFOREXISTING SYSTEMS...........................................................................35
4.2.1General System Description.......................................................................................................35
4.2.2Description of Studies.................................................................................................................37
4.2.3Operating Systems......................................................................................................................39
4.3RESULTSOF EXPERIENCE REPORTSFORTEST SITES.....................................................................................41
4.3.1Site Description..........................................................................................................................41
4.3.2System Description.....................................................................................................................43
4.3.3Planning Process........................................................................................................................45
4.4CONCLUSIONTO EXPERIENCE REPORTS.......................................................................................................47
5Structured Interviews............................................................................................................485.1INTRODUCTIONTO STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS...............................................................................................48
5.1.1Approach to Structured Interview Activities................................................................................485.1.2Planning of Structured Interview Activities.................................................................................49
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment IV
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
6/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
5.1.3Analysis Procedure and Activities...............................................................................................51
5.2RESULTSOF STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS.......................................................................................................52
5.2.1System Potentials........................................................................................................................52
5.2.2System Limitations......................................................................................................................54
5.2.3Deployment Path........................................................................................................................55
5.3CONCLUSIONOF STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS..................................................................................................56
6Conclusion.............................................................................................................................57General.....................................................................................................................................57Information...............................................................................................................................57Annex A: Summary of Literature Review on Innovative Systems.......................................63Annex B: Summary of Experience Reports for Existing Systems.......................................71Annex C: Summary of Experience Reports for Test Sites....................................................77Annex D: Summary of Structured Interview Results by Partner..........................................84
List of Acronyms.....................................................................................................................89Bibliography and References.................................................................................................90
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment V
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
7/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1: CTS User Groups Relevant for Analysis......................................................................5Fig. 2: General Site Characteristics for CTS............................................................................6Fig. 3: General Operating Conditions for CTS.........................................................................7Fig. 4: Demand Characteristics of Carsharing......................................................................14Fig. 5: Carsharing User Characteristics.................................................................................14Fig. 6: User Satisfaction Criteria for Taxis.............................................................................18Fig. 7: Structure for Experience Reports for Systems..........................................................34Fig. 8: Structure for Experience Reports for Sites................................................................34Fig. 9: Topic Checklist for Structured Interviews..................................................................49Fig. 10: User Groups to be covered by Structured Interviews.............................................50Fig. 11: Analysis Framework for Structured Interview Results............................................51
Fig. 12: Structured Interviews by User Group and Country.................................................51Fig. 13: Summary of Results from the Literature Review.....................................................57Fig. 14: Summary of Results from the Experience Reports for Systems............................58Fig. 15: Summary of Results from the Experience Reports for Sites..................................59Fig. 16: Summary of Results from the Structured Interviews..............................................60
Fig. A1: Summary of Literature Review Examples (Car Sharing Elettra Park)............64
Fig. A2: Summary of Literature Review Examples (Car Sharing CarLink)..................65
Fig. A3: Summary of Literature Review Examples (Car Sharing Witkar).....................66
Fig. A4: Summary of Literature Review Examples (Car Sharing CityCar)...................67
Fig. A5: Summary of Literature Review Examples (Car Sharing Praxitele).................68
Fig. A6: Summary of Literature Review Examples (Car Sharing Liselec)....................69
Fig. A7: Summary of Literature Review Examples (Taxi Concepts Le Touc)..............70Fig. B1: Summary of Experience Reports Systems (FROG).............................................72Fig. B2: Summary of Experience Reports Systems (ROBO).............................................73Fig. B3: Summary of Experience Reports Systems (RUF)................................................74Fig. B4: Summary of Experience Reports Systems (SERPENTINE).................................75Fig. B5: Summary of Experience Reports Systems (ULTra).............................................76Fig. C1: Summary of Experience Reports - Sites (Coimbra Sites A and B).......................78Fig. C2: Summary of Experience Reports - Sites (Antibes).................................................79Fig. C3: Summary of Experience Reports - Sites (Lausanne-Crissier)...............................80Fig. C4: Summary of Experience Reports - Sites (Nancy)...................................................81Fig. C5: Summary of Experience Reports - Sites (Rome City-Centre)................................82Fig. C6: Summary of Experience Reports - Sites (Rome Exhibition)..................................83
Fig. D1: Summary of Structured Interviews (CRF, Italy Public Transport Operator).....85Fig. D2: Summary of Structured Interviews (CRF, Italy Car-Sharing Provider)....... .... ..86
Fig. D3: Summary of Structured Interviews (ROBO, France Local Authority)...............87
Fig. D4: Summary of Structured Interviews (TRG, UK Local Authority).........................88
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment VI
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
8/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the following an introduction to the CyberCars and CyberMove projects, a definition of the
cybercars transport system and remarks on the co-ordination process of projects aims/
objectives and activities will be given.
The CyberMove and CyberCars Projects:
Themain objective of both the CyberMove and CyberCars projects is to accelerate the
development and implementation of cybernetic transport systems (CTS) for movement of
people and goods. These systems aim at improving the mobility, while reducing negative
effects of the private car use in cities, by complementing mass transit systems and hence
offering a real alternative with better convenience and efficiency than the private car in
the cities. The CyberMove project is funded through the EESD-Programme and started
in December 2001. The CyberCars project is funded through the IST-Programme and
started in August 2001. Both projects are funded for three years.
The CyberMove project focuses on bringing together key European actors of this field, in
order to test and exchange best practices, share some of the development work andmake faster progress in the experiments. Several cities throughout Europe will
collaborate with the partners in the Project, studying the potentiality to run such systems,
providing their specific constraints and accepting to do some preliminary tests of
technologies and demonstrations. Co-operative work with selected cities will lead to
conceptual design of systems for specific sites, optimised with regard to mobility, energy,
environment, safety and will lead to the evaluation of these designs.
The CyberCars project focuses on the testing, analysis and improvement of existingtechniques, which are starting to appear on the market. In particular, technical
improvements are expected for the vehicles on guidance, collision avoidance, platooning
and vehicle control systems. For the infrastructure, technical improvements are also
expected on the system management, human-machine interfaces, remote operation and
energy management. Existing systems will then be tested on private grounds in order to
set technical goals for the improvements expected. The technical improvements will be
performed, tested and evaluated on the same premises.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 1
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
9/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
The Cybercars Transport System:
There is a distinction between the project CyberCars and the transport system called
cybercars, which forms a basis for both, the CyberMove and the CyberCars projects. All
partners involved developed the following cybercars system definition.
Cybercars are road vehicles with fully automated driving capabilities. A fleet of suchvehicles forms a transportation system, for passengers or goods, on a network ofroads with on-demand and door-to-door capability. The fleet of cars is under control ofa central management system in order to meet particular demands in a particularenvironment.
At the initial stages, cybercars are designed for short trips at low speed in an urbanenvironment or in private grounds. In the long term, cybercars could also run
autonomously at high speed on dedicated tracks. With the development of thecybercars infrastructures, private cars with fully autonomous driving capabilities couldalso be allowed on these infrastructures while maintaining their manual mode onstandard roads.
Cybercars are members of the general family of people movers and close to personalrapid transit but they offer the advantage of being able to run on any groundinfrastructure, which means they are cheaper and more flexible.
Distinction between the Projects and Co-ordination of Activities:
Both projects contain, amongst other activities, a user needs analysis, system
certification, system testing and project/ system evaluation. For each of these activities a
clear distinction between the work objectives has to be made, according to the different
funding bodies of the CyberMove and CyberCars projects. Therefore activities within the
CyberMove project focus on using CTS for specific applications in urban environments,
whereas activities within the CyberCars project focus on understanding and obtaining
general experience with CTS. The CyberMove work package WP1 User Needs consistsof three tasks, T1.1 System Operating Scenarios, T1.2 User Needs Analysis and T1.3
Barriers to Deployment. Task T1.2 was carried out based on the quantitative analysis of
an interactive Internet questionnaire (D1.2 User Needs Analysis). The tasks T1.1 and
T1.3 were carried out together due to the overlap between these tasks and to obtain a
wider picture for the next steps in the development and analysis process of CTS, which
is crucial at this stage of the two projects. The work for these two tasks has been
undertaken by using a number of different sub-activities, which are described later in the
methodology section.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 2
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
10/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
1.2 Objectives
As this report on the potentials and limitations of CTS is part of the activities for work package
WP1 User Needs, the objectives of all three tasks (T1.1 System Operating Scenarios, T1.2
User Needs Analysis and T1.3 Barriers to Deployment) of this work package and the use of
the results for further work will be described in the following.
Task System Operating Scenarios:
The work on system operating scenarios for CTS focuses on analysing potential spatial
settings for specific CTS applications in urban areas. The objectives are to establish
possible application areas for CTS. For each of these application areas the associated
problems and operating conditions will be analysed.
Task User Needs Analysis:
The objectives are to gather information on user requirements for the use of CTS
technology for specific concepts in spatial settings. It will allow a quantitative, statistically
significant, detailed analysis of user needs linked with the specific concepts and spatial
settings.
Task Barriers to Deployment:
The work on barriers to deployment of CTS focuses on identifying potential barriers to
the implementation of CTS. These may, amongst others, include organisational, legal,
spatial, technical, socio-cultural and financial barriers. The analysis also relates to
defining the deployment path for CTS.
The results from all three tasks of the user needs analysis will also feed in as input into further
work packages of the CyberMove project, including the conceptual system design for the demosite and the city centre test sites and for the system evaluation, with technical assessment and
the user acceptance as the main evaluation categories.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 3
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
11/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
1.3 Methodology
As mentioned above the methodology and the activities for the tasks System Operating
Scenarios and the Barriers to Deployment as described in the objectives section will be
combined for the analysis of potentials and limitations of CTS. Because this report is part of the
activities for work package WP1 User Needs, the general methodology for obtaining the
objectives will be described in the following for the two deliverables Potentials and Limitations
of CTS and User Needs Analysis for CTS Applications.
Deliverable Analysis ofPotentials and Limitations of CTS:
The methodology is based on three main activities, a literature review on CTS-related
technology and systems, experience reports for existing/ planned systems and for the
planning process for test-sites and for feasibility studies, and interviews with potential
CTS operators and decision-makers. The work is based on a common analysis
framework of user groups and site classifications as developed in context of the
CyberCars user needs analysis.
Deliverable User Needs Analysis for CTS Applications:
The methodology used for the user needs analysis for CTS applications is to relate
specific potential user groups to specific concepts in their spatial settings, to learn more
about the design of CTS, that people can imagine and to investigate the conditions under
which people would use them. This information can differ for short and long-term
scenario. The analysis will be carried out using an interactive internet questionnaire in
combination with a virtual site.
The methodology for each of the two analyses, which were only described briefly in this section,
will be explained in more detail in the respective two deliverables, which report on the results of
work package WP1 User Needs Analysis. The methodology and activities in context of the
analysis of potentials and limitations of CTS (literature review, experience reports and structured
interviews) will be further specified in the sections on the analysis framework and on the
respective activities in this report.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 4
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
12/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
2 ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
2.1 User Groups
The analysis framework for the CTS user groups is based on the work, which was carried out in
context of the CyberCars user needs analysis. This will ensure the comparability and wider
transferability of the analysis results. In the context of implementing, operating and using CTS
the following four general user groups were identified, which consecutively consist of further
sub-groups.
Industry: Provide the technology for CTS
Decision-maker: Decide over implementation of CTS
Operator: Operate/ provide services for CTS
End-user: Use/ affected by operation of CTS
The user group industry was not considered in the analysis framework, as the approach within
the CyberCars and CyberMove projects is that the industry will provide CTS according to the
established user needs. For this analysis the user group end-user will not be considered, as the
end-users are to be covered through task 1.2, which leaves two user groups for the analysis of
potentials and limitations of CTS, the decision-maker and the operator.
This is the case for all public applications, but in the special case of a private application (e.g.
airport, theme park, large business, university campus, etc.), though there is also a decision-
making body and a system operator, they are part of the same institution. According to this the
site classification will distinguish between public and private applications on the highest level,
leading to the following user groups and sub-groups.
User Group Characteristics
Decision-maker(Public Application)
Non-elected National LevelRegional LevelLocal Level
Elected National LevelRegional LevelLocal Level
Operator(Public Application)
Public Transport OperatorGeneral Service Provider
Decision-maker& Operator(Private Application)
AirportTheme ParkLarge Business
University Campus, etc.Fig. 1: CTS User Groups Relevant for Analysis
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 5
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
13/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
2.2 Site Characteristics
The analysis framework for the site classification is also based on the work carried out for the
CyberCars user needs analysis. As mentioned above, the site and application categories relate
to the user groups. Therefore, according to the user groups identified, there should be a
distinction between the following two applications.
Public Application: Decision-maker, Operator and End-user
Private Application: Decision-maker/ Operator combined and End-user
Based on this separation of public and private CTS applications, the following site categories
were defined for the CyberCars user needs analyses and for all related activities in the
CyberCars and CyberMove projects, including this analysis of the potentials and limitations of
CTS as part of the CyberMove user needs analysis.
Application Area Site Characteristics User Characteristics
Public Application Citywide General User Special User Tourists
BusinessEtc.
City Centre General User Special User Tourists
BusinessEtc.
Periphery General User Special User Business
ShoppingEtc.
Private Application AirportTheme ParkLarge Business
University Campus, etc.
Fig. 2: General Site Characteristics for CTS
A first step in the analysis activities for the potentials and limitations of CTS was to establish in
addition to this list of site classifications, a list of operating conditions. These two lists can then
consecutively be used to describe existing or planned CTS application in detail and as a basis
for determining a matrix of site characteristics and operating condition.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 6
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
14/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
The following figure shows a first list of possible general operating conditions for CTS in
relations to the identified site characteristics. This list will be used as a basis for the analysis
activities.
CTS Operating Conditions
Vehicle Characteristics Size PersonalGroupMass
Mode Car BusTrain
Track Road
Rail-GroundRail-Elevated
Operation AutomatedGuidedManual
System Operation Frequency High FrequencyLow FrequencyDemand-Responsive
Route LineLoopNetwork
Environment Dedicated TrackSharedCombination
Time Full-TimeSeasonalSpecial Events
Access Points Characteristics FormalInformal
Location On-lineOff-line
Operation Every Stop
On-DemandOperating Costs Pricing Ticket PurchaseHidden CostFree Service
Funding Economically viableGovernment SubsidyPrivate Funding
Fig. 3: General Operating Conditions for CTS
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 7
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
15/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
2.3 Analysis Activities
Based on this analysis framework, which was described above, the work on the analysis of
potentials and limitations of CTS was separated into the following three main activities, which
were carried out to review CTS-related systems, gather experiences with existing CTS
applications and the planning process for CTS studies and to obtain responses from the two
relevant user groups.
Activity Literature Review:
The literature review was carried out on existing transport systems, which are related to
CTS technology (for various innovative systems and technologies, including e.g. car
sharing/ car pooling, demand responsive transport, ITS applications etc.). The review will
focus on the system characteristics, spatial settings and system performances and
overall findings.
Activity Experience Reports:
The experience reports build on the level of experience project partners already have,
either through studies or operative CTS-related systems or through the planning
activities for test-sites/ feasibility studies within the CyberCars and CyberMove projects.
The review will focus on system descriptions, technical experiences and experience in
the planning process.
Activity Structured Interviews:
The structured interviews were carried out to obtain responses from representatives of
the user groups relevant for this analysis, the decision-maker (public application),
operator/ service provider (public application) and decision-maker/ operator combined
(private application) in view of potentials and limitations of CTS and the deployment path
for CTS introduction.
All three activities, the literature review, the experience reports and the structured interviews will
be described in more detail in the further sections of this report, including methodology,
activities, partner contributions and the results of each respective activity for the analysis of
potentials and limitations of CTS and the implications for further work in the CyberCars and
CyberMove projects.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 8
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
16/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
3 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Introduction to Literature Review
As no cybercars systems are implemented yet, no analyses of potential system operating
scenarios or the possible barriers to deployment are available for CTS. But there are various
operating innovative transport systems with at least some characteristics relating to CTS.
Literature on these systems will therefore be reviewed in this section in terms of their potentials
and limitations and the implications for CTS, in order to give a background to further analysis
activities in this report. The focus of this literature review will be on the following innovative
transport systems:
Car-Sharing/ Car-Pooling
Taxi and Related Concepts
Demand-Responsive Transport
Automated Highway Systems
Each of these systems cover some of the main characteristics of CTS, the automated operation
is contained in the section on automated highway systems (AHS), the individual transport
system aspect in included in the section on taxi and taxi-related concepts, the demand-
responsive issue is covered in the section on demand-responsive transport systems (DRTS)
and the shared use of vehicles is contained in the section on car sharing and car pooling. The
results of the review will be an important background to the experience reports and structured
interview activities.
For each of the four main headings an introduction to the topic will be given, followed by system
characteristics, spatial settings and system performance and finding for all individual systems
reviewed. Furthermore some systems found in the literature were omitted because of their
similarity to other systems already mentioned and because the respective analysis does not
relate to operating scenarios or barriers to deployment. The systems under the four main
headings will be described only generally in this section in addition to findings from specific
systems, which are summarised in annex A.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 9
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
17/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
3.2 Experiences with CTS-related Systems
3.2.1 Car-Sharing/ Car-Pooling
In the following an introduction to carsharing/ carpooling will be given, followed by sections on
system characteristics, spatial settings and system performance and overall findings. In annex A
short summaries of examples will be given.
Introduction
Carsharing is based on the principle of a collective and therefore more efficient use of
cars. In contrast to the concept of carpooling people do not use the vehicles at the same
time, but individually. Carsharing usually begins as a local cooperative with one or two
vehicles in a residential neighbourhood, which then spreads out over bigger parts of the
city. Subscribers of the car-sharing programme can then use these vehicles by renting
them for a short period of time. The rental period ends consequently, when the user
returns the vehicle.
The concept of carsharing has been known in Europe since the 1970s. Most of the first
initiatives however failed. More successful experiences began in the late 1980s, though
until the late 1990s, virtually all start-ups of carsharing were subsidized with public
funding. In 1999, ca. 200 car-sharing organisations were active in 450 cities throughout
Switzerland, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, UK,
France, and Italy, collectively claiming over 130,000 participants (Sperling and Shaheen,
1999).
A special type of carsharing is the station car concept, which consists of cars parked at
central locations, such as transit stations, business-parks, high-density residential areas,
etc. that can be hired and driven by subscribers for any type of short trip. After a trip, the
user can leave the vehicle at any station designed for the station car vehicles in the
network, where any other user can pick it up. Station cars are typically small electric
vehicles for environmental reasons, although other types of fuel can be used (Shaheen
et al., 2000).
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 10
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
18/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
System Characteristics
Most of the calculations show that carsharing becomes an economically attractive
alternative for people who do not necessarily need a car every day and who normally
drive their cars less than a certain number of kilometres in a year (according to most
surveys approximately 10.000 kilometres or less). Typically, members of a carsharing
cooperative pay a membership fee and a refundable deposit. Cars are reserved by
telephone or in some cases on the Internet. Users are charged per hour and per
kilometre. Insurance, gas, maintenance and often parking in designated places are
included in the fee. Some carsharing organisations are now entering a modernization
phase, moving from manual key based operations to a system of smart card
technologies for making automatic and advanced reservations, accessing vehicle keys,
securing vehicles from theft, and facilitating billing. The shift to smart cards simplifies
vehicle access for customers and eases the administration and management of large
systems. However, the large investment required for the new communication and
reservation technologies puts pressure on these organizations to continue expanding to
pay off these investments.
The spatial setting
Most surveys characterise carsharing as a predominantly inner urban phenomenon. This
can be explained by the fact that sharing instead of owning a car becomes economically
attractive for people who do not necessarily need a car every day. This is more likely to
be the case in the inner urban area. In the periphery people are more often dependent
on the car due to less nearby activities and less alternative transport modes. Trips from
the periphery will often also cover longer distances. Because costs for longer trips tend
to increase quickly, carsharing only seems suitable for short or middle range trips. For
trips longer than 40 kilometres car rental seems the more economical option (Orski,
2001). Another point in favour of carsharing in inner urban area is the poor availability of
parking for private cars. The projects that do arise in the periphery usually have a more
informal and cooperative character and are often used as substitution for the purchase of
a second vehicle. Most carsharing trips are short or middle range roundtrips from an
urban neighbourhood lot. Next to these public neighbourhood systems, carsharing can
also be available in closed systems. These offer services not at the residence of the
individuals, but at locations, where a specific group of people have specific mobility
needs, like working offices or public transport interchanges.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 11
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
19/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
System performance and findings
Several surveys of users have been conducted in Europe and North America by
carsharing organizations. A brief summary of the findings is reported by Sperling and
Shaheen (Sperling and Shaheen, 1999). A survey in Switzerland and Germany found
that users were between 25 to 40 years of age with above-average education, were
more likely to be male, earned a below-average income (in part due to the low average
age of participants), and were sensitive to environmental and traffic problems. In a
separate German study similar characteristics were reported: 65 percent male; average
age of 33; well educated; and modest incomes. A rather small carsharing initiative in
North America found that users were predominantly male, had an average age of 44,
had an above-average education and earned an above-average income (these
characteristics can in part be explained by the fact that the initiative was aimed at
employees of the Livermore National Laboratory). Meijkamp and Theunissen also find
similar user characteristics in the Netherlands. More males participating than females, an
average age of 39 and a high level of education and income. Carsharing members also
live in a relative small household and are more likely to work than average (Meijkamp
and Theunissen, 1997).
While several studies paid attention to person characteristics of carsharing users, muchless information is known about the activities for which carsharing is used. The concept
of carsharing seems however less attractive for regular work-related trips because the
vehicle is not used during the work day and costs mount up quickly when a car is used
for a longer period (e.g. an eight-hour workday). A Dutch study has shown that only 3%
of carsharing members uses a shared car for work purpose (Meijkamp and Theunissen,
1997). It is assumed shared cars are being used for all activities except commuting.
Meijkamp and Theunissen examined the effect of carsharing on the travelling behaviour
(Meijkamp and Theunissen, 1997). Their first rather logical conclusion is the reduction of
the amount of cars. In practice, the average ratio of shared cars per number of
participating households is 1:12. However the actual reduction in the amount of cars
depends on actual consumer behaviour, as the reduction in the amount of cars depends
on the extent to which people substitute their private car for a shared car. The study
showed that carsharing primarily (71%) functions as an addition to available transport
services, and that 9% uses it as a second car alternative. So only 21% of the people
substitute their private car for a shared car.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 12
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
20/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
The total number of cars does however reduce. The study among carsharing participants
also showed a strong decrease of car use. The average car mileage of former car-
owners went down from 15.899 to 10.080 kilometres a year (-37%). The car mileage of
former car-less (hiring or borrowing a car) reduced from 5.360 to 3.820 a year (-29%).
The respondents reported an overall reduction in the estimated frequency of car use,
down from 3,5 to 2,0 times a week. In contrast to this reduction, there was an increase in
the use of bicycles (+14%), trains (+36%) and busses (+34%). This can be explained
because travellers gain easier access to public transport and, because fixed costs of
vehicle ownership are converted into variable costs, drivers now respond to price signals
that more fully reflect the true cost of trip making.
According to the Dutch survey under carsharing users, the main motivations to join a
carsharing organisation are based on disadvantages of the private car: high costs and
poor availability of parking space and of public transportation (e.g. long travel time).
Important conditions for participation are reliable availability of vehicles and convenient
nearby neighbourhood locations. The average distance to a carsharing location in the
Netherlands is 1700 meters. A distance of more than 1900 meters is valued as less
attractive by carsharing members (Meijkamp and Theunissen, 1997).
Despite the benefits of carsharing, it still does not account for even 1% of travel in any
region. In another European study (Sperling & Shaheen, 1999) it was found that the
principal reasons for not participating were the unprofessional image of many carsharing
organisations, an insufficient variety of products and services, high costs compared to
transit, too complicated, impractical and time consuming and poor availability of vehicles
near home. Sperling and Shaheen also state that people use and view their cars in many
different ways that are poorly understood. They value them not only for utilitarian travel,
but also for storage, quiet time away from family and work, and office space.
Carsharing will not be successful everywhere at all times. It is more likely to thrive when
environmental consciousness is high; when driving disincentives such as high parking
costs and traffic congestion are pervasive; when car ownership costs are rather high and
when alternative modes of transportation are easily accessible. Another very important,
but less well documented, success factor to encourage and maintain customer base is
coordination with other mobility and non-mobility services (e.g., food providers) to offer
enhanced products and services. Linking with other services will however only besuccessful if the customer base is large.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 13
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
21/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
The following tables show the demand characteristics and the person and activity
characteristics of users of the analysed carsharing systems (for a summary description of
the reviewed carsharing systems see Annex A).
System DescriptionTraffic
VolumeSpatial
SpreadingTemporalSpreading
TripDistance
CarsharingAll purpose inner
urban areaHigh
Highlydispersed
Highlydispersed
Short
WitkarAll purpose inner
urban areaHigh
Highlydispersed
Highlydispersed
Very short
CityCarAll purpose inner
urban area
HighHighly
dispersed
Highly
dispersed
Very short
PraxiteleResidential areacollection and
distributionLow Dispersed
Peak timeswork
related tripsVery short
LiselecAll purpose inner
urban areaHigh
Highlydispersed
Highlydispersed
Very short
Elettra ParkAll purpose inner
urban areaHigh
Highlydispersed
Highlydispersed
Short
CarLinkPeripheral
linkage and Focal
traffic
High atpeak
times
BundledPeak times
for work
related trips
Short
Fig. 4: Demand Characteristics of Carsharing
System Income Main activity Activity
Carsharing Medium high Full-time or part-time All except work
Witkar Unknown Unknown Unknown
CityCar Unknown Unknown Unknown
Praxitele Low medium Full-time or part-time Work, shopping
Liselec Unknown Full-time or part-time Shopping, recreation
Elettra Park Unknown Full-time or part-time Shopping
CarLink High Full-time Work, shopping
Fig. 5: Carsharing User Characteristics
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 14
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
22/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
Users of all reviewed carsharing systems were more likely to be male and had an above
average education. People joining a carsharing project also appear to be more sensitive
to environmental problems. Carsharing systems that operate in the inner urban area
attract mainly young adults, especially students, while systems operating outside the
inner urban area (Praxitele and CarLink) were mainly used by people of 30 to 50 years of
age.
The acceptance of the Elettra Park system by younger people can be attributed to both
socio-cultural phenomena (greater attention to respect for the environment, curiosity,
etc.) and to more practical reasons such as not having a car of ones own. Because the
same user characteristics return for every reviewed carsharing system, there seems to
be a certain group of early adapters that is more likely to use a carsharing system as an
alternative for the private car.
Carsharing or stationcar users typically increase their use of all non-car transport modes.
An explanation is that fixed costs of car ownership are converted into variable costs,
drivers now respond to price signals that more fully reflect the true cost of trip making.
Except for CarLink, subscribers therefore do not use the stationcar or carsharing vehicles
on a regular basis, but occasionally when other transport modes are not available or do
not meet their demands (time, price, comfort) for a certain trip.
Shopping is by far the most common trip purpose of the stationcar users. Apparently the
quality demands related to this activity cannot be met by other transport modes than the
(shared) car. It is stated that shopping as an activity is connected to high demands on
travelling time, due to the relative short duration of the activity, high demands on comfort,
due to the need of taking along luggage and average demands on price. It seems that
the (shared) car is more able to meet this combination of demands than for example the
bicycle or bus.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 15
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
23/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
3.2.2 Taxi and Related Concepts
In the following an introduction to taxi and taxi-related concepts will be given, followed by
sections on system characteristics, spatial settings and system performance and overallfindings. In annex A a short summary of an example for a taxi related system will be given.
Introduction
Taxi services have been known for a long time in countries all over the world. This
convenient (on-demand, door-to-door, individual transport, etc.) but costly type of
transportation is being used by about half of the people in the Netherlands on a usual or
occasional basis. In 1999 the Dutch research institute NIPO has started a 5-year survey
monitoring the Dutch taxi use (NIPO Consult, 2000). In this section the most interesting
findings of the study for the year 2000 are going to be summarised.
System Characteristics
Two basic taxi concepts can be distinguished. Most taxis (75%) provide a demand
responsive individual door-to-door transportation service. About one quarter of the taxis
are shared taxis, which provide a collective transportation service. Shared taxis generally
have lower prices but longer trip times compared to normal taxis, and they are oftentargeted towards a specific group of passengers. These groups can be based on the
origin or destination of the passengers, for example the traintaxi, which drives people
toward and from a train station, or based on characteristics of the passengers, for
example the WVG-taxi, which is specialized in transportation of handicapped people.
Compared to other transport modes, the price of a taxi service is rather high. Usually the
price of a taxi ride consists of a fixed starting fee and a variable fee based on the
covered distance or the trip time. The average price of a taxi trip is 18 Euro, but almost
half of the trips are under 9 Euro (NIPO, 2001).
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 16
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
24/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
The spatial setting
Because of the high taxi prices, taxi rides tend to be rather short. Approximately 27% of
all trips cover a distance of less than 5 kilometres. Most trips (32%) are between 5 and
10 kilometres. 17% of the taxi rides are between 10 and 20 kilometres, and 20% is
longer than 20 kilometres. Almost half of all taxi rides (45%) are made on Friday night or
Saturday. 8% is made on Sunday and the rest (44%) of the trips is made on Monday to
Friday. The time on which a taxi is used is very dispersed. A peak (38%) can be seen
during the night period. The rest of the trips are spread evenly across the morning (22%),
daytime (19%) and evening (20%). The peak period during the night and in weekends
can be explained by the lack of alternative public transportation during these periods,
and because the main motive is visit a bar or movie theatre etc, activities that usually
occur at night.
System performance and findings
Recreation can be considered the main purpose of trips that are made by taxi. In most
cases this concerns visiting a restaurant, caf, cinema or theatre (25%). When trips for
vacation or a day off (7%) are added, recreation accounts for almost one third of all taxi
trips. Other purposes are transportation to or from a railway station (18%), Visiting family
or friends (12%) and visiting a dentist, doctor or hospital (12%). Less often taxi trips are
made for work (7%), business (6%), shopping (3%) and study (2%). Some differences
can be distinguished between the taxi use in the inner urban area and the periphery. Taxi
rides with visiting a restaurant, caf, cinema or theatre as a purpose occur more often in
the periphery than in the inner urban area, while the opposite counts for rides towards or
from a railway station. Travellers in the inner urban area use a taxi service more often in
combination with other public transport (39%) than travellers in the periphery (27%). Not
much information is known about person characteristics of typical taxi users, but the
main motives for using a taxi are ease/comfort (27%), lack of alternative public
transportation (25%), party/had a drink (16%), health (13%) and safety (13%). During the
year 2000 almost half (49%) of the Dutch population of 16 years and older used the taxi
at least once. Most of the users (70%) occasionally use a taxi (less than once a month)
30% uses the taxi service on a regular basis (more than once a month).
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 17
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
25/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
To investigate how taxis are valued, NIPO questioned both users and non-users about
their satisfaction of different aspects of a taxi service, next the importance of these
aspects for the perception of a taxi service is determined by means of a regression
analysis of the regular users rating. The results are shown in the following table.
Satisfaction Low importance High importance
High Comfort
Travelling Time
Accessibility call centre
Kindness chauffeur
Service chauffeur
Kindness at call centre
Low Sharing a taxi
Simple costs structure
Waiting time (response time)
Price
Handling complaints
Fig. 6: User Satisfaction Criteria for Taxis
It can be seen that the kindness at the reservation call centre and the kindness and
service provided by the taxi chauffeur are relative important and highly valued aspects.
These aspects can be considered big advantages of a taxi service. The high comfort and
short travelling time of a taxi and the high telephonic accessibility of the reservation call
centre are also valued highly, but these aspects are considered less important. The long
waiting time, high price and bad handling of complaints are valued low. Because these
aspects are considered relative important, they form the main disadvantage of a taxi
service. Sharing a taxi and the unclear costs structure are also valued low, but
considered less important.
Owning a car is the main reason for not using a taxi service, according to most non-users
(60%). This reason is mentioned more often in the periphery (67%) than in the inner
urban area (55%). More than half (52%) of the non-users however declare they probably
will try a taxi when the prices are lowered. About 30% of these potential taxi users almost
certain will try a taxi, especially those living in the inner urban area. The non-users
declare when the taxi prices are lowered, they will use the taxi instead of their car or
bicycle for visiting e.g. a restaurant, cinema or theatre (70%) or instead of their car or
public transportation for trips to the railway station (60%). Other potential taxi trips that
are mentioned are transportation to the airport (45%) or to visit family or friends (29%).
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 18
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
26/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
3.2.3 Demand-Responsive Transport
In the following an introduction to demand-responsive transport systems (DRTS) will be given,
followed by sections on system characteristics, spatial settings and system performance andoverall findings.
Introduction
DRTS is a flexible public transport service, combining the service characteristics of
buses and taxis. It can be used in areas of low demand (e.g. rural areas), where
conventional public transport service cannot be operated economically viable and to
accommodate the needs of special users (e.g. disabled or elderly). DRTS can be
characterised as a system, which is operated in response to calls from passengers or
their agents to the operator, who then dispatches a vehicle to collect the passengers and
transports them to their requested destination. Unlike a conventional bus service DRTS
does not operate on a fixed route or to a fixed schedule and unlike a conventional taxi
service the vehicle might serve more than one request at a time, as it can be dispatched
to pick up and deliver several passenger at different points.
System Characteristics
DRTS is a public transport system in which the planning and use of the service depends
on requests made by customers. For, unlike traditional transit, booking or reservation of
the trip is always compulsory. In its most general form, when reserving a seat the user
has to specify the leaving point and the destination, and either the time at which he
wishes to be picked up or when he desires to arrive. The provider can accept or refuse
the request or propose some changes, so that there can be a degree of negotiation
between the two parties. Of course, the system will also fix the time at which thecustomer will be picked up, if the latter had previously specified when he desires to reach
the destination, or will tell him when he arrives if the pickup time had been specified.
According to an analysis framework developed in context of the SAMPO (System for
Advanced Management of Public Transport Operations) different DRTS concepts can be
specified by the following main characteristics: the route type, the schedule, the method
of collection and the quality of service (SAMPO, 1996).
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 19
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
27/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
The operation of DRTS can be described by considering the process in the following
steps. Registration of the customers: In most of the systems, people willing to use the
service must be registered. This is done for various reasons: e.g., it simplifies many
tasks, from the reservation to billing, especially if a smart card is provided. The customer
has to give a personal code whenever he wishes to use the service; Reservation of the
trips: The customer needs to contact the DRTS operation centre to request a
transportation service. This can be traditionally done by phone, or also by email, SMS,
WAP, Internet, etc. if the system can support this. In the latter cases, the operator will
tend to discourage the use of the phone, as it is obviously more labour-intensive and less
efficient. On the other hand, it would be unwise to use a system in which no reservations
can be made by phone, as most of the potential customers of a DRTS (e.g. elderly) often
cannot use other communication tools; Scheduling of the service: When all the requests
have been collated, the centre schedules the service. Most of the actual systems have a
daily planning horizon, e.g. until 17:00 or 18:00 hrs they accept reservations for the
following day, and then they schedule the service trying to fulfil all the requests with the
available vehicle fleet. This was done manually in the past, but now there are several
commercial packages that allow the management of the whole process (from reservation
to billing) with a computer. The scheduling phase can be viewed as a process whose
input is the pool of requests, the characteristics of the road network (length and/ or travel
times) and of the fleet (number of vehicles, number of seats), and which will result in the
service plan for the following day. At best this is a balancing process, which takes time
and in practice the optimum is never completely achieved; Confirmation of the trip
reservations: When the service plan is ready, the Travel Dispatch Centre calls the
customers back to confirm (or reject) the reservation and to communicate either the
pickup or the delivery time; Use of the service: The following day the service is put into
action. Each customer has to be at the pickup point before the arrival of the vehicle, as
the service cannot wait unduly. When the customer gets in, he will be recognised by the
driver or through his personal code and will be charged appropriately. If the scheduling
phase has been done well, many requests will have been matched and the same vehicle
will be able to serve more than one customer at once, even if these have different origins
and/ or destinations.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 20
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
28/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
Spatial Settings
Depending on the criterion being used, it is possible to classify the existing DRTS
systems in the following ways. The target market: DRTS can be divided into systems for
the general public or for specific groups, as mentioned earlier. While the former were
most common until the 1980s and were denoted by specific characteristics (fleets of
relevant size, high number of requests served daily, service covering a whole
metropolitan area with millions of potential users), most current services are oriented to
specific market segments. Among these, services for impaired citizens (handicapped and
elderly) are numerically prevalent in all the countries and almost always subsidised.
There are also examples of DRTS for particular attraction centres such as airports,
serving customers with a high willingness to pay for a bespoke service; Flexibility of the
route: There can be a varying degree of flexibility in the planning of the routes. Most of
the systems do not have predefined itineraries and can be defined as free services,
because the routes are designed only on the basis of requests or demands. More
recently, corridor services have been proposed, in which the vehicles follow a predefined
route but are allowed to make deviations within a certain range. In this way, attempts
have been made to make the system more attractive for the majority and some
passengers may feel more at ease in conventional public transport services. These
systems are not really on-demand, as the vehicles are largely independent of thenumber of calls, and a reservation of the trip may not be requested if the pickup point is
on the predefined route; Travel pattern: Another useful distinction can be made on the
basis of the type of travel patterns. This allows dial-a-ride transport to be divided in the
following categories. Many-to-many (several origins and destinations): every node
coincides with a collection area; the node can be both origin and destination. Many-to-
one (several origins and only one destination): the destination is one single node of the
network; all others can be only origin nodes. Many-to-few (several origins and selected
destinations): all nodes can be origins. Of them, only a few can be destination as well.
One-to-many and few-to-many can of course be associated with the last two cases,
featuring the return trip to previous origin stops. Many-to-many systems have historically
been implemented initially in large metropolitan areas; they are the most versatile, but
even harder to manage in an efficient way. On the other hand, in many situations in
which DRTS are actually used, many-to-one or many-to-few services can be well suite,
e.g. in rural areas served by an urban centre, disabled people that must be accompanied
from their residences to health centres, etc.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 21
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
29/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
Depending on the level at which the service provided starts, most of the systems
formerly conceived for the general public can be defined as stop-to-stop, as they
transport passengers between any two predefined stops of a network. These stops may
be the same as the service that has been converted (partly or wholly) to DRTS; in other
cases, the two systems coexist but are used at different times of the day. Just like using
the ordinary public transport service, with a stop-to-stop service the customer has to walk
from his origin to the pickup stop and from the delivery stop to his destination. There is a
benefit as he can plan his journey considering all the stops of the network, without having
to take into account vehicle changes. Nevertheless, to make the system more appealing,
especially in rural areas, door-to-door (or curb-to-curb) services have been proposed,
which like a taxi can pickup and deliver passengers to their real origins and destinations,
avoiding or minimising movements on foot. This can also be appropriate for night
services in urban areas with crime problems, especially for women. The drawback is that
the operation of such a system, if made by a computerised tool, is hugely complicated as
it becomes quite hard to preview the travel times during the planning phase. Of course,
all services provided for disabled people are door-to-door. Finally, concerning the
planning of the service, there can be offline, static, or advance request systems, in which
the three phases of the service (collecting the requests, planning and operation) are
performed strictly consecutively, or online (dynamic or real-time) systems, in which
almost two of these are overlapping. When a travel request is made to an online system,
the service operation may already be running and the request is immediately scheduled,
thus modifying the plan, confirming the reservation to the customer (who will not be
called back later) and notifying this rearrangement to the vehicle that will serve the call.
In an online system the planning horizon is open, as requests concerning any moment in
the future can be accepted, but of course the scheduling process is more focused on
events in the near future. Dynamic systems are not only more difficult to manage, but
require the use of advanced ITS technologies, on the other hand, they are far more
appealing for customers, as they can often accept travel bookings just a little in advance
of the required service.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 22
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
30/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
System Performance and Findings
DRTS have quite a long history, and early systems date back to the 1970s. After an
initial period of enthusiasm, most of these were closed or radically changed, due to
financial problems. The main reason often being that planners ignored the fundamental
fact that DRTS only works in very specific cases. There is no doubt that the market niche
for these systems is quite limited, as on one hand they can be used only in particular
situations, on the other hand the economic balance is always critical. Thus a policy
underpinning these systems, just as for traditional public transport, is essential if they are
to thrive. Nevertheless, the extensive adoption of ITS technologies that are becoming
quite common and cheap could greatly benefit DRTS, even more that conventional
transit. Devices such as Automatic Vehicle Locating (AVL) or new telecommunication
tools permit a continuous monitoring of the fleet, facilitating the implementation of online
systems. Allowing customers to reserve trips shortly in advance, like in taxi services, is
the real challenge and can increase the potential attraction of DRTS, making them a true
alternative of conventional public transport. Real-time systems could hugely increase the
situations in which a DRTS becomes competitive, well beyond the cases described. The
first field trials of these new systems have been set up and there are some encouraging
results. In the following some of the most recent research topics will be described.
Conceiving more flexible systems: One of the weaknesses of current systems is theirrigidity, i.e. the difficulty they have in operating in contexts different from those planned,
breakdowns either of the vehicles and of the informatics equipment, anomalies on the
network due to special events (streets closed, traffic jams), user behaviours or requests
that had not been forecasted. These situations can generate losses both on an
economical and on a qualitative point of view, making the operation of the system more
difficult. The only way to face this is to take account of all the possible cases and to set
up an extensive simulation to study the behaviour of the system under a wide range of
circumstances. Nevertheless, it is obvious that it is almost impossible to exhaustively
foresee all the real events, but a DRTS with some degree of flexibility would be an
improvement; Imitating human behaviour and assimilating its experience: Another active
research field is the development of efficient algorithms for scheduling the requests and
routing the vehicles. In the last decade some theoretical advances and the increasing
performances of computers allowed the implementation of artificial intelligence
techniques to improve the quality of the solutions (i.e. satisfying all the requests with the
minimum number of vehicles or with minimum ride time).
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 23
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
31/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
In some advanced applications researchers are trying to design algorithms whose logic
imitates in various situations the behaviour of expert human schedulers observed in
different contexts, in order to increase the capability of the computerised system to react
to an event that was not foreseen in the planning phase; Integrating DRTS and other
transit systems: From the point of view of policy makers, establishing a public transport
service that suits travel demand in all cases (different social groups, different periods of
the day, etc.) is ideal but also very challenging, as there can be no standard solution. In
some metropolitan areas, attempts have been made to define common command and
control architecture for the operation of both transit and DRTS, in order to maximize the
synergies and the benefits and to offer an integrated service. The ideal is for the travel
dispatch centre to monitor buses and also schedule DRTS, optimising the connections
between the two and driving the users towards the best choice. The modelling of such a
system is extremely complicated and this complexity increases as the number and the
type of variables to be taken account of expands.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 24
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
32/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
3.2.4 Automated Highway Systems
In the following an introduction to automated highway systems (AHS) will be given, followed by
sections on system characteristics, spatial settings and system performance and the overallfindings.
Introduction
Research in the area of automated highway systems has been lead by the PATH
consortium in California, which has undertaken some of the most high profile work in
vehicle to vehicle communications. Work at PATH fulfilled a major role in the National
Automated Highway System Consortium program (NAHSC), a cooperative agreement
between industry and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) funded in the USA in the
late 1990s. The program, dedicated to the construction and test of a range of Cooperative
prototypes effectively culminated in a major demo of differing vehicle platforms and
communication technologies (DEMO97). Despite overwhelming technical and public
relations success of the demonstration, the NAHSC project was discontinued, with research
now focussing on particular niche applications such as snow plough control and automated
busses in dedicated lanes. Since that time several high profile demonstrations have been
undertaken, including events showcasing developments in Japanese research programs,
however advances in the EU have been mostly restricted to investigating the potential fortruck platooning as part of the Daimler-Chrysler led CHAUFFEUR projects.
System Characteristics
AHS, at its most extreme limit assumes a system where vehicles are electronically
linked, allowing the formation of closely packed groups of vehicles or platoons. The
speed, acceleration, and inter-vehicle separation of each vehicle is measured on-board,
and then transmitted to neighbouring vehicles and/or a roadside processor. With the
increased accuracy and reliability of data obtained, it is possible to automate vehicle
throttle and brakes to achieve much closer following distances hence forming so-called
road trains where vehicles in theory may have spacing down to the meter level (Chang
et. Al., 1994). While a number of vehicles may form a platoon, individual platoons are
separated from each other by a larger spacing of the order of 50-100m. In order for such
a system to function at full efficiency however, control must be performed flawlessly, with
the driver therefore entirely removed from the vehicle control loop. Similarly, in order to
allow for full predictability of vehicle movements, vehicles must operate in a dedicated
right of way, ideally in their own lanes, barrier separated from non-equipped vehicles.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 25
7/31/2019 CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1
33/100
CYBERMOVECYBERMOVE EESD EVK4 2001 00051
Cybernetic Transportation Systems for the Cities of Tomorrow
Spatial Setting
As mentioned above, a full AHS requires the vehicles to operate in dedicated lanes, with
dedicated entry and exit facilities in order to ensure that equipped and non-equipped
vehicles may be separated and subsequently re-mixed with minimum risk and disruption
to flow. Although the AHS technology is applicable to both trucks and cars current
implementation strategy assumes platoons of a single vehicle type. An additional safety
restriction imposed is that ideally all vehicles would pass some manner of
certification/health check before entering the system to ensure the vehicle is able to
respond accurately and quickly to external vehicle dynamics commands.
System Performance and Findings
The assessment of the promise and problems associated with each of these systems has
been the subject of much work with a great deal of study undertaken. Results of these
studies include for example:
Cooperative/AHS systems have always been associated with the provision of significantly
higher capacity increases (typically estimated as being >300%). Most investigation for these
systems have been undertaken by PATH using the SmartAHS simulation tool, designed to
be able to incorporate a wide range of sensor, communication, control policy and human
driver models into an integrated simulation environment. Recent work however (Michael et
al, 1998), has shown how this 300% figure may vary according to operational constraints.
Some conditions, such as the use of an AHS system allowing HGVs, can reduce maximum
throughput from 7000vph/lane to 1500vph/lane or less, while the characteristics of each
platoon can be managed to increase capacity further (more vehicles per platoon and
smaller intra platoon gaps). Still further increase may in-turn be possible by the barring of
vehicles with low maximum braking capacities, with the elimination of the worst 4% of the
vehicle population potentially increasing throughput by 14%. Additionally, through
microscopic modelling, it is possible to consider the effect that such convoy systems may
have on emissions, and with the elimination of stop-go driving, it is clear that savings and
decreases in fuel consumption will become apparent. For equipped vehicles it is estimated
that this may be of the order of 10%, with reductions in Hydrocarbon and NOX emissions of
48% and 37% respectively, having been calculated.
Analysis of Potentials and Limitations of Cybernetic Transport Systems
D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Bar