CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1

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]


2/100



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


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment I


3/100



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.


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment II


4/100



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.


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment III


5/100



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


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment IV


6/100



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


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment V


7/100



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


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment VI


8/100



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.


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Barriers to Deployment Page 1


9/100



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.




10/100



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.




11/100



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.




12/100



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




13/100



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.




14/100



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




15/100



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.




16/100



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.




17/100



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).




18/100



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.




19/100



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.




20/100



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.




21/100



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




22/100



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.




23/100



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.


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).




24/100



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).




25/100



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%).




26/100



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.


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).




27/100



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.




28/100



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.




29/100



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.




30/100



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).




31/100



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.




32/100



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.


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.




33/100



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.


D1.1 - System Operating Scenarios and D1.3 - Bar

CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1

Documents

Transcript of CM WP1 Combined Deliver Able D1.1 and D1.3 (Final)1