See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282400737

Public Perception of Driverless Trains

Article · September 2015

DOI: 10.1007/s40864-015-0019-4

CITATIONS READS

10 508

3 authors, including:

Anna Fraszczyk
Freelance
27 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Barriers to digital learning in rail View project

RailNewcastle - Intensive Programme in Rail and Logistics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anna Fraszczyk on 26 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86
DOI 10.1007/s40864-015-0019-4 http://www.urt.cn/

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS

Public Perception of Driverless Trains

Anna Fraszczyk1 • Philip Brown1 • Suyi Duan1

Received: 9 March 2015 / Revised: 17 May 2015 / Accepted: 26 May 2015 / Published online: 1 September 2015
Ó The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract The global trend for rail automation is increasing with eight new systems being introduced into full operation
but there are very few publications on public perception of the between 2011 and 2013 [14]. Although the driverless
ongoing changes in the railways. In order to fill this gap and to technology is progressing quickly, public perception of
better understand people’s perception of driverless trains, the unattended train operation (UTO) has not been researched
paper focuses on automation of metro systems with a partic- much. With more UTO systems planned for operation by
ular interest in unattended train operation (UTO). A survey 2025, mainly in Australia, Asia and South America, this
seeking a public opinion on UTO was conducted, and the paper aims to highlight public perception of driverless
results show that 93 % of female and 72 % of male respon- trains, which, if taken into account, might help with better
dents think that a ‘‘fake’’ driver room should be present on a understanding of passengers’ perspective on UTO and
driverless train. In terms of human error, a great majority of contribute to seamless implementations of the new systems
respondents expressed no worries about a train design or around the globe.
maintenance issues. However, staff communication, selected A metro system, or a rapid transit system, is an urban
by 36 % males and 43 % females, and a technical failure, transport system, which uses exclusive rails to run trains of
highlighted by 50 % of males and 43 % of females, were two high capacity without interruptions or contact with other
issues that raised most safety concerns amongst the respon- transport systems or modes of transport [5]. Metro systems
dents. Other results related to passenger’s safety, employ- often involve some level of automation, from the most
ment, advantages and limitations of the UTO, amongst other basic automatic train protection (e.g. automatic brakes
issues, are presented and discussed in the paper. application) to fully automated and driverless trains (e.g.
Dubai Metro). There are four grades of train automation
Keywords Metro
Automation
Driverless train
and the highest, with no staff on board, is referred to as
Attitudes UTO [14].
According to Karvonen et al. [7], there are three main
reasons for automated train operation (ATO): cost effec-
1 Introduction tiveness, high traffic frequency and flexibility. Moreover,
these reasons are accompanied by a number of other
There are 148 cities with metro systems around the world
advantages, such as punctuality and efficiency, which are
[15], and so far 32 of them adapted automated metro sys-
widely highlighted by UTO enthusiasts (e.g. Observatory
tems [14]. The global trend for automation is increasing
of Automated Metros). However, the UTO has a strong
opposition in worker’s unions and automation sceptics,
& Anna Fraszczyk who stress the safety issues of driverless trains and the
[email protected] drivers’ loss of jobs [1].
1
Malla [8] argues that from a technical perspective, the
NewRail, Newcastle University, King’s Gate,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
debate on UTO having an advantage over conventional rail
system is ‘‘almost over’’. However, from a passengers’
Editor: Baoming Han perspective, the debate on advantages and disadvantages of

123
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 79

UTO continues and is often based on people’s perception eight new systems being introduced into full operation
of driverless trains, in terms of safety, rather than a reality between 2011 and 2013 [13].
[9]. This paper contributes to the debate by presenting
results of a survey on public attitudes to and perceptions of
driverless trains. A better understanding of this human– 3 Levels of Automation
system interaction is important in order to facilitate a
smooth shift from conventional to automated metro sys- There are four grades of train automation (GoA), and
tems, if this shift is going to happen on a greater scale in Table 1, based on [12], explains the GoAs in more details.
the future. In general, the number of the grade depends on staff
involvement in basic functions of train operation. The four
main automated functions are setting train in motion,
2 History stopping train, door closure and operation in event of dis-
ruption. In the first grade, GoA1, a driver is involved in all
The debate on automated trains started over four decades four functions listed in Table 1, but his/her involvement is
ago when a number of publications on benefits of auto- gradually reduced to zero in GoA4 where a train is fully
mated metro systems appeared. In 1973, Vuchic reviewed automatic. The difference between GoA3 and GoA4 is that
benefits of a driverless train, which included a high-fre- the first employs a train attendant, whereas the latter grade
quency service and the flexible adjustment of train sched- offers an unattended and fully ATO. UTO means that a rail
ules [15]. Also in 1973, Berwell stated that ‘‘it is to be vehicle runs fully automatically without a train driver or
expected that the railway should be the first transport other operating staff onboard. It is a driverless train;
system to be automated’’ and listed a number of reasons for however, some operators prefer to put a driver or a member
consideration [2]. The reasons, amongst others, included of staff on board (e.g. Beijing Subway’s Airport Express
the same ownership and management of infrastructure and operates with a driver in a cab).
vehicles and the fact that automation was already in place
with signalling or power control elements of the railway
system, which would make a full train automation on a 4 Advantages of UTO
driverless train a natural step forward.
The first fully automated metro system was the SkyTrain UITP [12] argues that UTO (GOA4) brings many benefits
introduced in Vancouver, Canada in 1985, which was to all key players in the system: passengers, train operators,
originally built in time for Expo 1986. It is the oldest and funding bodies and staff. The key benefits of the driverless
one of the longest ATO systems in the world [10], with trains are [9, 12, 15] train running time optimisation,
three lines and 47 stations in total. Since SkyTrain era, average speed of the system increase, headways shortening
many other cities introduced automated metro systems with and dwell time in stations reduction, which all together
driverless technology with Everline in South Korea and translate into the first great benefit of UTO which is
Line 5 in Milan being amongst the most recent driverless increased network capacity. Secondly, the UTO enthusiasts
systems implemented [14]. [2, 14, 15] argue that by removing a driver from the train,
In 2013, there were 148 cities with metro systems the human-risk factor is reduced and overall safety and
around the world [14] and 32 of them used UTO [13]. The reliability of the system increases. Thirdly, in terms of
global trend for a full metro automation is increasing with operational costs of a driverless railway system, the

Table 1 The grades of train automation

Grade of automation Type of train Setting train in Stopping Door Operation in event of Example
(GoA) operation motion train closure disruption

GoA 1 ATP with driver Driver Driver Driver Driver London underground
Victoria line
GoA 2 ATP and ATO with Automatic Automatic Driver Driver Paris Métro line 3
driver
GoA 3 DTO Automatic Automatic Train Train attendant Airport express Beijing
attendant subway
GoA 4 UTO Automatic Automatic Automatic Automatic Dubai metro
ATP automatic train protection, ATO automatic train operation, DTO driverless train operation, UTO unattended train operation
Source Based on [12]

123
80 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86

argument is that less train drivers equal cost savings [14], the project in terms of the shortest time scale needed for
although more staff are recruited for other tasks. Fourthly, data collection and analysis and the lowest budget required.
automated acceleration and deceleration patters help with
energy recovery and savings contributing to environmen- 6.1 Questionnaire Design
tally friendly driving and cost savings [9]. Finally, from
staff’s perspective, drivers are no longer involved in The questionnaire used in the study was designed by a
monotonous tasks of driving a train, as their job profile Master student as part of her rail major project focused on
changes, and they can be re-qualified and deployed along passengers’ perception of automatic trains. The question-
the line providing passengers with more customer service naire was divided into three parts, with the first and largest
and staff–passenger interaction options [4, 14]. part being about attitudes to and perceptions of automated
trains, the second requesting information about the
respondent and the third part offering space for additional
5 Disadvantages of UTO comments.
The questions included in the first part of the question-
Nevertheless the great number of advantages of UTO, the naire could be divided into technical questions and ques-
system has a number of disadvantages too when compared tions of opinions and preferences, and examples of the
with a conventional system. Firstly, UTO requires a higher questions are presented in Table 2.
cost of implementation as it involves automation at the The great majority of questions were of closed type and
levels of rolling stock, signalling and platform [12]. Sec- offered specific answers, and respondents were asked to
ondly, maintenance costs of the UTO system are higher as mark one answer per question only. However, two open-
additional platform and track protection systems must be ended questions were included as follow-up on reasons
installed and maintained. Overall, the initial investment why people might be afraid of using driverless trains and
into UTO infrastructure and driverless vehicles is high opinions about driverless train technology in general.
[11]. Overall, the survey included 21 questions on attitudes to
Thirdly, from a human–system interaction perspective, and perceptions of driverless train technology and three
as Karvonen et al. [7] argue, as the driver disappears from personal questions asking for respondent’s age, gender and
the train, the significant link between the passengers and country of origin.
the metro system becomes weaker or is lost. Karvonen
et al. [7] studied Helsinki metro drivers’ behaviour and 6.2 Data Collection
identified 16 metro train drivers’ sub-tasks (hidden roles),
such as making announcements to the passengers, guiding The questionnaire was distributed in July 2014 and was
passengers out, interpreting events in the environment or answered by participants of a rail summer school, both
fixing small faults in exceptions. In the light of ‘‘hidden students and professors. The student respondents included
roles’’ of a driver, UTO might be a great disadvantage, in the sample had some background knowledge on the
especially in the case of emergencies happening in the complexity of the railway system before completing the
field, as unattended train will no longer provide a driver
in situ capable of fixing simple failures or informing the
Table 2 Examples of questions and answers included in the survey
control centre about problems and current situation in the
field [3]. Finally, UTO requires a highly qualified mainte- Question of opinion and preference Answer options given
nance personnel in the field [15], but also in the control
What do you think about driverless train a. Very good
room, which leads to changes in driver’s job profile and the technology? b. Good
need for new qualifications and training for staff. Rail trade
c. Neutral
unions around the globe are generally against UTO arguing
d. Bad
that train automation raises safety concerns and causes job
e. Very bad
loses [1, 6, 11].
How would you rate the importance of a a. Very important
driver on a train? b. Important
c. Neutral
6 Methodology
d. Not important
e. Not at all important,
This study used a paper-based survey as a data collection
not necessary
method. Although other methods of data collection, such as
Do you think the driver room should be a. Yes
focus group, interviews or observations, were also con- built on driverless trains? b. No
sidered, the questionnaire method was selected as best for

123
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 81

questionnaire; however, driverless trains and metro 7.2 Preferred Type of a Train
automation topics were not included in the summer
school’s curriculum. As the purpose of the survey was to investigate public
perception of driverless trains, the respondents were asked
for their preferred train when travelling and were given a
7 Analysis of Results choice of three answer options: ‘‘Driver train’’, ‘‘Driverless
train’’ and ‘‘Any train’’, where the latter answer indicated
7.1 Sample Size and Age no specific preference and could be interpreted in favour of
driverless trains option.
The questionnaire was answered by 50 people from 10 The respondents were also asked whether they are
countries (see Fig. 1 for details). The age range within the worried about using a driverless train and were given three
sample was from 17 to 62 with 75 % under 30 years old, answer options: ‘‘Yes’’, ‘‘No’’ and ‘‘Not Sure’’. Responses
and a gender split was 36 men and 14 women. It is shown to this question were combined with responses to the
in Fig. 1 that majority of respondents represented six question on preferred type of train and both are presented
countries: Romania (8 respondents), Italy and the UK (7 in Fig. 2. The results displayed in Fig. 2 show that a great
respondents each), Portugal (6 respondents), Poland and majority of the sample, up to 64 % of all respondents
Bulgaria (5 respondents each). Interestingly, Bulgaria was (middle of the graph with ‘‘No’’ answer option), is not
the only country with all respondents being females (no worried about using driverless trains. Moreover, the
male Bulgarian students attended the summer school in answers are at a similar level for both genders, and over
2014). The remaining four countries, namely Czech half of males (58 %) and females (57 %) do not worry
Republic, Turkey, China and Germany, had between two about using a driverless train and could use a driverless
and four representatives within the sample. train or whatever train. Only 11 % of males and 14 % of

Fig. 1 Sample size and Respondents' countries of origins [count]

countries represented (count)
7
6 6 6 Male Female
6
5 5
5
4
4
3 3 3
3
2 2
2
1 1 1 1 1
1
0
Romania Italy UK Poland Bulgaria Czech Portugal Turkey China Germany
Republic
Country of origin

Fig. 2 Choice of a type of a Choice vs. worry [%]

train versus worry of using a
driverless train (%) 50 47
45 43
40
35
30
25
20 17
14 14 14
15 11 11
10 7 7
6 6
5 3
0
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Yes No I'm not sure

Driver train Driverless train Any train

123
82 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86

females are worried about using a driverless train and, if Overall, 78 % of the sample rated UTO as ‘‘Very Good’’
given a choice, would prefer to use a traditional train with a or ‘‘Good’’. Despite the fact that 34 % of the sample would
driver. This result shows that in general the respondents are prefer a train with a driver, majority of the respondents
not worried about being on a train without a driver and in within this group still rated driverless trains as ‘‘Very Good’’
fact nearly half of them is not event bothered about the (4 %) or ‘‘Good’’ (16 %). The driverless train enthusiasts
train type (‘‘Any train’’ option in Fig. 2). were in minority and formed 12 % of the sample only.
Although none of the driverless train enthusiast rated this
7.3 Driverless Train Technology option negatively (‘‘Bad’’ or ‘‘Very Bad’’), the split between
‘‘Very Good’’ and ‘‘Good’’ was from 6 % to 4 %. The largest
Although more driverless trains are in operation worldwide group of respondents, 60 % of the sample, selected ‘‘Any
and passengers are using them on a daily basis, peoples’ train’’ train as their preferred option showing that they could
opinions on the technology used on driverless trains are not ride either a driver or a driverless train (Fig. 4).
publicised much. Therefore, the respondents have been
asked to rate driverless train technology on a 5-point scale 7.4 Factors Influencing Preferences
with ‘‘Very Good’’ being the highest rate and ‘‘Very Bad’’
being the lowest rate. According to UTO advocators, the driverless system brings
Figure 3 shows that 72 % of males and 93 % of females a number of benefits to their users (see Sect. 4), mainly in
rated the driverless train technology as at least ‘‘Good’’. terms of time and frequency of services. The respondents
Although the majority of the sample is of a positive were asked to select reasons which would influence their
opinion, there are still 25 % of males and 7 % of females preference for driverless train over a driver train. The list of
who are neutral and only 3 % of males with a negative options included reduced ticket price, extended running
view on a driverless train technology. periods, increased train frequency and other.

Fig. 3 Respondents’ opinions What the respondents think about driverless train
on driverless train technology
(%) technology? [%]
90
79
80
70
60
50
39
40 33
30 25
20 14
7
10 3 0 0 0
0
Very good Good Neutral Bad Very bad

Male Female

Fig. 4 Opinions on driverless Opinions on driverless trains vs. preferred type of train
trains versus choice of a type of
a train (%) [%]
35
30
30

25

20 18
16
15 12
10
6 6
4 4
5 2 2
0 0 0 0 0
0
Very good Good Neutral Bad Very bad

Driver train Driverless train Any train

123
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 83

Results displayed in Fig. 5 show that none of the options staff on board (e.g. Budapest Metro Line M4, Airport
given would convince the majority of respondents to choose a Express Beijing Subway), especially at the early stages of
driverless train as a preferred option. However, based on the system’s implementation. In this light, the respondents
answers given, it can be seen that it would be more difficult to were asked about the importance of a driver on a train, but
convince females to use driverless trains as over half of the also about a need for a driver room on a driverless train.
female sample stated that none of the three factors presented in The latter is obviously a ‘‘fake’’ room, but in principle its
Fig. 5 would influence their choices. Although male respon- purpose is to help with a shift from a driver to a driverless
ses were similar, the split between ‘‘Yes’’ and ‘‘No’’ answers system and accommodate a smooth change in users’
for ‘‘extended running periods’’ and ‘‘increased train fre- acceptance of the new system.
quency’’ was more equal (47 % for ‘‘Yes’’ vs. 53 % for ‘‘No’’ Both male and female respondents agree that a driver
and 50 % for ‘‘Yes’’ vs. 50 % for ‘‘No’’, respectively). The room should be present on a driverless train; however, the
results suggest that perhaps new or other measures, to these issue seems to be much more important to females (93 %
presented in the survey, should be used when campaigning for of females) than males (72 % of males). Moreover,
change in public’s perception of driverless trains and the majority of females who would like to see a driver room on
benefits the UTO systems offers as the benefits listed in Fig. 5 a driverless train rated the presence of a driver on a train as
did not get a great respondent’s support. ‘‘Very Important’’ or ‘‘Important’’ (14 and 50 %, respec-
tively). This result shows that females within the sample
7.5 Importance of a Driver are much more than males attached to the idea of a driver
on a train as well as more comfortable with a train with a
Although UTO is designed to be fully operational without a driver room installed. The gender differences in the
member of staff on board, some operators choose to put responses presented in Fig. 6 highlight the fact that how

Fig. 5 Factors that would Factors that would incluence a driverless train as
influence a driverless train as a
preferred option (%) preferred opon [%]
90
75 79
80
70 64
57
60 53 50 50
47
50 43
40 36
30 25 21
20
10
0
Yes No Yes No Yes No
reduced cket price extended running periods increased train frequency

Male Female

Fig. 6 Importance of a train Importance of a driver vs. driver room [%]

driver versus a need for a driver
room on a driverless train (%) 60
50
50

40
31
29
30
22
20 17
14 14

10 6 7
3 3 3 3
0
Male Female Male Female
Yes for driver room No for driver room

Very Important Important Neutral Not important Unnecessary

123
84 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86

both genders see the role of a driver on a train, and this about their opinions on unemployment increase connected
issue requires further investigation as it can potentially lead to driverless trains’ implementations. Figure 8 displays
to other issues and identification of other explanatory clearly that 62 % of the respondents are not worried about
variables. drivers losing their jobs as they believe that the drivers
could requalify and do other jobs. However, 36 % of the
7.6 Human Error respondents agree that the unemployment rates will
increase with implementations of driverless trains.
Although UTO enthusiasts highlight the advantage of the
automated systems where a human error is reduced or
eliminated, the fact is that people, from train designers to 8 Conclusions
control room staff, are still involved in the UTO system.
The respondents therefore have been asked to select areas Although automated and driverless trains have been in
where, according to their opinion, a human error is likely to operation for over three decades, there has not been many
occur. scientific research work published on public attitudes to
Results displayed in Fig. 7 show that a great majority of and perceptions of UTO.
respondents expressed no worries about a train design or In order to contribute to a better understanding of peo-
maintenance issues (only 11 % of males and 28 % of males ple’s perception of driverless trains, this paper presented
versus 14 % of females, respectively). However, a com- results of a survey where 50 individuals were asked about
munication between staff boosted the level of worried their opinions on UTO. Although it might be argued that
respondents to 36 % amongst males and 43 % amongst the sample was biased because all respondents were
females. The results suggest that respondents see a staff somehow interested in the railways, it must be highlighted
communication as an area where human error is more
likely to occur than in a design or a maintenance domain. "Unemployment" [%]
Moreover, 50 % of males and 43 % of females were
2%
worried about a technical failure of UTO and, although this
is only half of the sample or less, this issue strikes as an
area of greatest concern amongst the respondents out of the
four areas listed on Fig. 7. 36%
Yes
7.7 Unemployment Issue
62% No
The position of train drivers’ trade unions campaigning Not sure
against driverless trains is well known as well as their
argument of drivers losing jobs and contributing to higher
unemployment rates. However, opinions of the public on Fig. 8 Will implementations of driverless trains contribute to
this issue are unknown. Thus the respondents were asked increase of drivers’ unemployment? (%)

Fig. 7 Areas of human error in Areas of a human error [%]

an UTO system (%) 100
100
89
90 86
80 72
70 64
57 57
60
50 50
50 43 43
40 36 Male
28
30 Female
20 11 14
10
0
0
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
train design systems communicaon technical failure
maintenance between staff

123
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 85

that they are also passengers with personal opinions about respondents trust the technology they do not specifically go
the railway system and the survey sought their individual for it if given a choice between a driver train and a
opinions on UTO. driverless train.
The results presented in the paper can be grouped into Next, the public perception of the role of a driver on a
three thematic areas: train type preferences and opinions on driverless train requires further investigation where links
driverless trains, importance of a driver on a train and the with issues such as safety and security and anti-social
unemployment issues and a human error issue. behaviour on a train could be explored.
Firstly, only 11 % of males and 14 % of females stated To follow-up the employment issue, a further investi-
that they would prefer to use a traditional train with a gation into the reasons why the public perceives chances of
driver rather than a driverless train or whatever train. This the drivers to requalify and stay on the job quite high would
result shows that the majority of the respondents is not be needed to better understand their motivations which
bothered about the train type they are using. Moreover, could be used in the future promotion of the driverless
opinions about the driverless technology are very positive trains to drivers’ trade unions and the public.
and rated as a ‘‘Very Good’’ or ‘‘Good’’ technology by the Finally, in order to further investigate public opinions of
overwhelming majority of 93 % females and 72 % of areas where they fear a human error might occur, a more
males within the sample. This shows that in general the detailed study of perceptions and preferences on UTO
respondents are keen on UTO and they do not have a would be needed. This could help to design public cam-
problem to trust the technology. paigns explaining how UTO system works and enforce
Secondly, the importance of a driver on a train was rated technical strategies for overcoming the possibility of a
as ‘‘Important’’ or ‘‘Very Important’’ by the majority of the human error to occur on UTO system.
respondents who highlight the perception of a driver as an
important component of the system. Moreover, over 50 % Acknowledgments This paper is based on results collected by an
MSc student Suyi Duan who investigated passengers’ perception of
of the sample agreed that there should be a driver’s room driverless trains as part of her major project at the School of
on the train, which in the case of a driverless technology is Mechanical and Systems Engineering at Newcastle University. Philip
obviously not necessary. Brown, a college student on Nuffield Research Placements at New-
Thirdly, despite many drivers’ trade unions campaigning castle University, contributed to the analysis of results of the project.
against driverless trains, the results presented in the paper Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
show that the majority of respondents (62 %) do not see the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea
implementation of UTO as a thread to a driver’s job tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
security. However, as there was no follow-up of the distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
unemployment question, it is difficult to understand link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
respondents’ reasons for being ‘‘for’’ or ‘‘against’’ the idea made.
that driverless trains will affect train drivers’ employment.
Fourthly, the results revealed that the respondents
overall are not worried about human error occurring on a References
driverless train. However, when looked into more detail, it
appears that a technical failure and a staff communication 1. BBC (2014) Driverless tube trains: Unions vow ‘war’ over plan.
issues are the two main areas of concern in relation to a http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26381175. Acces-
sed 9 Dec 2014
human error on UTO. 2. Berwell FT (1973) Automatic railways: automation and control in
transport. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 177–191
3. Brown P (2014) Are driverless trains the future? Rail Technology
9 Further Research Magazine, February/March 2014, p 19
4. Fisher E (2011) Justifying automation. In: Railway technology.
http://www.railway-technology.com. Accessed 5 Dec 2014
Overall, this paper contributes to the discussion on 5. Fraszczyk A, Magalhães da Silva J, Gwóźdź A, Vasileva G
driverless trains but much more research needs to be done (2014) Metro as an example of an urban rail system. Four case
to fully understand and monitor public perceptions of and studies from Europe. Transp Probl 9:101–107
6. Hasham N (2013) Driverless trains plan must overcome public
attitudes to UTO. This knowledge could be a powerful tool scepticism. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/driverless-trains-plan-
used in the future campaigns promoting driverless trains must-overcome-public-scepticism-20130607-2nvjq.html. Acces-
and could have a role to play in seamless implementations sed 9 Dec 2014
of the new systems around the globe. 7. Karvonen H, Aaltonen I, Wahlström M, Salo L, Savioja P, Norros
L (2011) Hidden roles of the train driver: a challenge for metro
More specifically, a more detailed investigation of automation. Interact Comput 23:289–298
public level of understanding of technology behind UTO 8. Malla R (2014) Automation sets a new benchmark. Metro report,
might help to examine the reasons why although May 2014

123
86 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86

9. Rumsey A (2009) Communications based train control. IRSE 12. UITP (2011) Media backgrounder. Metro automation facts, fig-
seminar ures and trends. UITP, Brussels
10. TransLink (2014) SkyTrain. http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules- 13. UITP (2013) Metro automation in 2013. Observatory of Auto-
and-Maps/SkyTrain.aspx. Accessed 9 Dec 2014 mated Metros World Atlas Report. UITP, Brussels
11. UIC (2014) Automatic train control. Energy efficiency tech- 14. UITP (2014) Statistics brief. World metro figure. UITP, Brussels
nologies for railways. http://www.railway-energy.org/static/Auto 15. Vuchic V (2014) Maintaining performance with full automation.
matic_train_control_79.php. Accessed 9 Dec 2014 Metro report international, March 2014, pp 36–39

123

View publication stats