Content uploaded by Anna Fraszczyk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anna Fraszczyk on Sep 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Anna Fraszczyk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anna Fraszczyk on Sep 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPERS
Public Perception of Driverless Trains
Anna Fraszczyk
1
•Philip Brown
1
•Suyi Duan
1
Received: 9 March 2015 / Revised: 17 May 2015 / Accepted: 26 May 2015 / Published online: 1 September 2015
ÓThe Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract The global trend for rail automation is increasing
but there are very few publications on public perception of the
ongoing changes in the railways. In order to fill this gap and to
better understand people’s perception of driverless trains, the
paper focuses on automation of metro systems with a partic-
ular interest in unattended train operation (UTO). A survey
seeking a public opinion on UTO was conducted, and the
results show that 93 % of female and 72 % of male respon-
dents think that a ‘‘fake’’ driver room should be present on a
driverless train. In terms of human error, a great majority of
respondents expressed no worries about a train design or
maintenance issues. However, staff communication, selected
by 36 % males and 43 % females, and a technical failure,
highlighted by 50 % of males and 43 % of females, were two
issues that raised most safety concerns amongst the respon-
dents. Other results related to passenger’s safety, employ-
ment, advantages and limitations of the UTO, amongst other
issues, are presented and discussed in the paper.
Keywords Metro Automation Driverless train
Attitudes
1 Introduction
There are 148 cities with metro systems around the world
[15], and so far 32 of them adapted automated metro sys-
tems [14]. The global trend for automation is increasing
with eight new systems being introduced into full operation
between 2011 and 2013 [14]. Although the driverless
technology is progressing quickly, public perception of
unattended train operation (UTO) has not been researched
much. With more UTO systems planned for operation by
2025, mainly in Australia, Asia and South America, this
paper aims to highlight public perception of driverless
trains, which, if taken into account, might help with better
understanding of passengers’ perspective on UTO and
contribute to seamless implementations of the new systems
around the globe.
A metro system, or a rapid transit system, is an urban
transport system, which uses exclusive rails to run trains of
high capacity without interruptions or contact with other
transport systems or modes of transport [5]. Metro systems
often involve some level of automation, from the most
basic automatic train protection (e.g. automatic brakes
application) to fully automated and driverless trains (e.g.
Dubai Metro). There are four grades of train automation
and the highest, with no staff on board, is referred to as
UTO [14].
According to Karvonen et al. [7], there are three main
reasons for automated train operation (ATO): cost effec-
tiveness, high traffic frequency and flexibility. Moreover,
these reasons are accompanied by a number of other
advantages, such as punctuality and efficiency, which are
widely highlighted by UTO enthusiasts (e.g. Observatory
of Automated Metros). However, the UTO has a strong
opposition in worker’s unions and automation sceptics,
who stress the safety issues of driverless trains and the
drivers’ loss of jobs [1].
Malla [8] argues that from a technical perspective, the
debate on UTO having an advantage over conventional rail
system is ‘‘almost over’’. However, from a passengers’
perspective, the debate on advantages and disadvantages of
&Anna Fraszczyk
anna.fraszczyk@newcastle.ac.uk
1
NewRail, Newcastle University, King’s Gate,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
Editor: Baoming Han
123
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86
DOI 10.1007/s40864-015-0019-4 http://www.urt.cn/
UTO continues and is often based on people’s perception
of driverless trains, in terms of safety, rather than a reality
[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–
system interaction is important in order to facilitate a
smooth shift from conventional to automated metro sys-
tems, if this shift is going to happen on a greater scale in
the future.
2 History
The debate on automated trains started over four decades
ago when a number of publications on benefits of auto-
mated metro systems appeared. In 1973, Vuchic reviewed
benefits of a driverless train, which included a high-fre-
quency service and the flexible adjustment of train sched-
ules [15]. Also in 1973, Berwell stated that ‘‘it is to be
expected that the railway should be the first transport
system to be automated’’ and listed a number of reasons for
consideration [2]. The reasons, amongst others, included
the same ownership and management of infrastructure and
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
driverless train a natural step forward.
The first fully automated metro system was the SkyTrain
introduced in Vancouver, Canada in 1985, which was
originally built in time for Expo 1986. It is the oldest and
one of the longest ATO systems in the world [10], with
three lines and 47 stations in total. Since SkyTrain era,
many other cities introduced automated metro systems with
driverless technology with Everline in South Korea and
Line 5 in Milan being amongst the most recent driverless
systems implemented [14].
In 2013, there were 148 cities with metro systems
around the world [14] and 32 of them used UTO [13]. The
global trend for a full metro automation is increasing with
eight new systems being introduced into full operation
between 2011 and 2013 [13].
3 Levels of Automation
There are four grades of train automation (GoA), and
Table 1, based on [12], explains the GoAs in more details.
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,
stopping train, door closure and operation in event of dis-
ruption. In the first grade, GoA1, a driver is involved in all
four functions listed in Table 1, but his/her involvement is
gradually reduced to zero in GoA4 where a train is fully
automatic. The difference between GoA3 and GoA4 is that
the first employs a train attendant, whereas the latter grade
offers an unattended and fully ATO. UTO means that a rail
vehicle runs fully automatically without a train driver or
other operating staff onboard. It is a driverless train;
however, some operators prefer to put a driver or a member
of staff on board (e.g. Beijing Subway’s Airport Express
operates with a driver in a cab).
4 Advantages of UTO
UITP [12] argues that UTO (GOA4) brings many benefits
to all key players in the system: passengers, train operators,
funding bodies and staff. The key benefits of the driverless
trains are [9,12,15] train running time optimisation,
average speed of the system increase, headways shortening
and dwell time in stations reduction, which all together
translate into the first great benefit of UTO which is
increased network capacity. Secondly, the UTO enthusiasts
[2,14,15] argue that by removing a driver from the train,
the human-risk factor is reduced and overall safety and
reliability of the system increases. Thirdly, in terms of
operational costs of a driverless railway system, the
Table 1 The grades of train automation
Grade of automation
(GoA)
Type of train
operation
Setting train in
motion
Stopping
train
Door
closure
Operation in event of
disruption
Example
GoA 1 ATP with driver Driver Driver Driver Driver London underground
Victoria line
GoA 2 ATP and ATO with
driver
Automatic Automatic Driver Driver Paris Me
´tro line 3
GoA 3 DTO Automatic Automatic Train
attendant
Train attendant Airport express Beijing
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]
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 79
123
argument is that less train drivers equal cost savings [14],
although more staff are recruited for other tasks. Fourthly,
automated acceleration and deceleration patters help with
energy recovery and savings contributing to environmen-
tally friendly driving and cost savings [9]. Finally, from
staff’s perspective, drivers are no longer involved in
monotonous tasks of driving a train, as their job profile
changes, and they can be re-qualified and deployed along
the line providing passengers with more customer service
and staff–passenger interaction options [4,14].
5 Disadvantages of UTO
Nevertheless the great number of advantages of UTO, the
system has a number of disadvantages too when compared
with a conventional system. Firstly, UTO requires a higher
cost of implementation as it involves automation at the
levels of rolling stock, signalling and platform [12]. Sec-
ondly, maintenance costs of the UTO system are higher as
additional platform and track protection systems must be
installed and maintained. Overall, the initial investment
into UTO infrastructure and driverless vehicles is high
[11].
Thirdly, from a human–system interaction perspective,
as Karvonen et al. [7] argue, as the driver disappears from
the train, the significant link between the passengers and
the metro system becomes weaker or is lost. Karvonen
et al. [7] studied Helsinki metro drivers’ behaviour and
identified 16 metro train drivers’ sub-tasks (hidden roles),
such as making announcements to the passengers, guiding
passengers out, interpreting events in the environment or
fixing small faults in exceptions. In the light of ‘‘hidden
roles’’ of a driver, UTO might be a great disadvantage,
especially in the case of emergencies happening in the
field, as unattended train will no longer provide a driver
in situ capable of fixing simple failures or informing the
control centre about problems and current situation in the
field [3]. Finally, UTO requires a highly qualified mainte-
nance personnel in the field [15], but also in the control
room, which leads to changes in driver’s job profile and the
need for new qualifications and training for staff. Rail trade
unions around the globe are generally against UTO arguing
that train automation raises safety concerns and causes job
loses [1,6,11].
6 Methodology
This study used a paper-based survey as a data collection
method. Although other methods of data collection, such as
focus group, interviews or observations, were also con-
sidered, the questionnaire method was selected as best for
the project in terms of the shortest time scale needed for
data collection and analysis and the lowest budget required.
6.1 Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire used in the study was designed by a
Master student as part of her rail major project focused on
passengers’ perception of automatic trains. The question-
naire was divided into three parts, with the first and largest
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
comments.
The questions included in the first part of the question-
naire could be divided into technical questions and ques-
tions of opinions and preferences, and examples of the
questions are presented in Table 2.
The great majority of questions were of closed type and
offered specific answers, and respondents were asked to
mark one answer per question only. However, two open-
ended questions were included as follow-up on reasons
why people might be afraid of using driverless trains and
opinions about driverless train technology in general.
Overall, the survey included 21 questions on attitudes to
and perceptions of driverless train technology and three
personal questions asking for respondent’s age, gender and
country of origin.
6.2 Data Collection
The questionnaire was distributed in July 2014 and was
answered by participants of a rail summer school, both
students and professors. The student respondents included
in the sample had some background knowledge on the
complexity of the railway system before completing the
Table 2 Examples of questions and answers included in the survey
Question of opinion and preference Answer options given
What do you think about driverless train
technology?
a. Very good
b. Good
c. Neutral
d. Bad
e. Very bad
How would you rate the importance of a
driver on a train?
a. Very important
b. Important
c. Neutral
d. Not important
e. Not at all important,
not necessary
Do you think the driver room should be
built on driverless trains?
a. Yes
b. No
80 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86
123
questionnaire; however, driverless trains and metro
automation topics were not included in the summer
school’s curriculum.
7 Analysis of Results
7.1 Sample Size and Age
The questionnaire was answered by 50 people from 10
countries (see Fig. 1for details). The age range within the
sample was from 17 to 62 with 75 % under 30 years old,
and a gender split was 36 men and 14 women. It is shown
in Fig. 1that majority of respondents represented six
countries: Romania (8 respondents), Italy and the UK (7
respondents each), Portugal (6 respondents), Poland and
Bulgaria (5 respondents each). Interestingly, Bulgaria was
the only country with all respondents being females (no
male Bulgarian students attended the summer school in
2014). The remaining four countries, namely Czech
Republic, Turkey, China and Germany, had between two
and four representatives within the sample.
7.2 Preferred Type of a Train
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
choice of three answer options: ‘‘Driver train’’, ‘‘Driverless
train’’ and ‘‘Any train’’, where the latter answer indicated
no specific preference and could be interpreted in favour of
driverless trains option.
The respondents were also asked whether they are
worried about using a driverless train and were given three
answer options: ‘‘Yes’’, ‘‘No’’ and ‘‘Not Sure’’. Responses
to this question were combined with responses to the
question on preferred type of train and both are presented
in Fig. 2. The results displayed in Fig. 2show that a great
majority of the sample, up to 64 % of all respondents
(middle of the graph with ‘‘No’’ answer option), is not
worried about using driverless trains. Moreover, the
answers are at a similar level for both genders, and over
half of males (58 %) and females (57 %) do not worry
about using a driverless train and could use a driverless
train or whatever train. Only 11 % of males and 14 % of
6 6 6
5
4
3 3
2
1
2
1 1
5
3
1 1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Romania Italy UK Poland Bulgaria Czech
Republic
Portugal Turkey China Germany
Country of origin
Respondents' countries of origins [count]
Male Female
Fig. 1 Sample size and
countries represented (count)
11
14
6 7
17 14
11
14
3
47
43
6 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Male Female Male Female Male Female
erustonm'IoNseY
Choice vs. worry [%]
Driver train Driverless train Any train
Fig. 2 Choice of a type of a
train versus worry of using a
driverless train (%)
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 81
123
females are worried about using a driverless train and, if
given a choice, would prefer to use a traditional train with a
driver. This result shows that in general the respondents are
not worried about being on a train without a driver and in
fact nearly half of them is not event bothered about the
train type (‘‘Any train’’ option in Fig. 2).
7.3 Driverless Train Technology
Although more driverless trains are in operation worldwide
and passengers are using them on a daily basis, peoples’
opinions on the technology used on driverless trains are not
publicised much. Therefore, the respondents have been
asked to rate driverless train technology on a 5-point scale
with ‘‘Very Good’’ being the highest rate and ‘‘Very Bad’’
being the lowest rate.
Figure 3shows that 72 % of males and 93 % of females
rated the driverless train technology as at least ‘‘Good’’.
Although the majority of the sample is of a positive
opinion, there are still 25 % of males and 7 % of females
who are neutral and only 3 % of males with a negative
view on a driverless train technology.
Overall, 78 % of the sample rated UTO as ‘‘Very Good’’
or ‘‘Good’’. Despite the fact that 34 % of the sample would
prefer a train with a driver, majority of the respondents
within this group still rated driverless trains as ‘‘Very Good’’
(4 %) or ‘‘Good’’ (16 %). The driverless train enthusiasts
were in minority and formed 12 % of the sample only.
Although none of the driverless train enthusiast rated this
option negatively (‘‘Bad’’ or ‘‘Very Bad’’), the split between
‘‘Very Good’’ and ‘‘Good’’ was from 6 % to 4 %. The largest
group of respondents, 60 % of the sample, selected ‘‘Any
train’’ train as their preferred option showing that they could
ride either a driver or a driverless train (Fig. 4).
7.4 Factors Influencing Preferences
According to UTO advocators, the driverless system brings
a number of benefits to their users (see Sect. 4), mainly in
terms of time and frequency of services. The respondents
were asked to select reasons which would influence their
preference for driverless train over a driver train. The list of
options included reduced ticket price, extended running
periods, increased train frequency and other.
33
39
25
3 0
14
79
7
0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Very good Good Neutral Bad Very bad
What the respondents think about driverless train
technology? [%]
Male Female
Fig. 3 Respondents’ opinions
on driverless train technology
(%)
4
16
12
2
0
6
4
2
0 0
18
30
6
0 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Very good Good Neutral Bad Very bad
Opinions on driverless trains vs. preferred type of train
[%]
Driver train Driverless train Any train
Fig. 4 Opinions on driverless
trains versus choice of a type of
a train (%)
82 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86
123
Results displayed in Fig. 5show that none of the options
given would convince the majority of respondents to choose a
driverless train as a preferred option. However, based on the
answers given, it can be seen that it would be more difficult to
convince females to use driverless trains as over half of the
female samplestated that none of the three factors presented in
Fig. 5would influence their choices. Although male respon-
ses were similar, the split between ‘‘Yes’’ and ‘‘No’’ answers
for ‘‘extended running periods’’ and ‘‘increased train fre-
quency’’ was more equal (47 % for ‘‘Yes’’ vs. 53 % for ‘‘No’’
and 50 % for ‘‘Yes’’ vs. 50 % for ‘‘No’’, respectively). The
results suggest that perhaps new or other measures, to these
presented in the survey, should be usedwhen campaigning for
change in public’s perception of driverless trains and the
benefits the UTO systems offers as the benefits listed in Fig. 5
did not get a great respondent’s support.
7.5 Importance of a Driver
Although UTO is designed to be fully operational without a
member of staff on board, some operators choose to put
staff on board (e.g. Budapest Metro Line M4, Airport
Express Beijing Subway), especially at the early stages of
system’s implementation. In this light, the respondents
were asked about the importance of a driver on a train, but
also about a need for a driver room on a driverless train.
The latter is obviously a ‘‘fake’’ room, but in principle its
purpose is to help with a shift from a driver to a driverless
system and accommodate a smooth change in users’
acceptance of the new system.
Both male and female respondents agree that a driver
room should be present on a driverless train; however, the
issue seems to be much more important to females (93 %
of females) than males (72 % of males). Moreover,
majority of females who would like to see a driver room on
a driverless train rated the presence of a driver on a train as
‘‘Very Important’’ or ‘‘Important’’ (14 and 50 %, respec-
tively). This result shows that females within the sample
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
driver room installed. The gender differences in the
responses presented in Fig. 6highlight the fact that how
25
75
47 53 50 50
43
57
36
64
21
79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Yes No Yes No Yes No
reduced cket price extended running periods increased train frequency
Factors that would incluence a driverless train as
preferred opon [%]
Male Female
Fig. 5 Factors that would
influence a driverless train as a
preferred option (%)
22
14
6
31
50
17
7
14
29
3 333
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Male Female Male Female
moorrevirdrofoNmoorrevirdrofseY
Importance of a driver vs. driver room [%]
Very Important Important Neutral Not important Unnecessary
Fig. 6 Importance of a train
driver versus a need for a driver
room on a driverless train (%)
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 83
123
both genders see the role of a driver on a train, and this
issue requires further investigation as it can potentially lead
to other issues and identification of other explanatory
variables.
7.6 Human Error
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
control room staff, are still involved in the UTO system.
The respondents therefore have been asked to select areas
where, according to their opinion, a human error is likely to
occur.
Results displayed in Fig. 7show that a great majority of
respondents expressed no worries about a train design or
maintenance issues (only 11 % of males and 28 % of males
versus 14 % of females, respectively). However, a com-
munication between staff boosted the level of worried
respondents to 36 % amongst males and 43 % amongst
females. The results suggest that respondents see a staff
communication as an area where human error is more
likely to occur than in a design or a maintenance domain.
Moreover, 50 % of males and 43 % of females were
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.
7.7 Unemployment Issue
The position of train drivers’ trade unions campaigning
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
this issue are unknown. Thus the respondents were asked
about their opinions on unemployment increase connected
to driverless trains’ implementations. Figure 8displays
clearly that 62 % of the respondents are not worried about
drivers losing their jobs as they believe that the drivers
could requalify and do other jobs. However, 36 % of the
respondents agree that the unemployment rates will
increase with implementations of driverless trains.
8 Conclusions
Although automated and driverless trains have been in
operation for over three decades, there has not been many
scientific research work published on public attitudes to
and perceptions of UTO.
In order to contribute to a better understanding of peo-
ple’s perception of driverless trains, this paper presented
results of a survey where 50 individuals were asked about
their opinions on UTO. Although it might be argued that
the sample was biased because all respondents were
somehow interested in the railways, it must be highlighted
11
89
28
72
36
64
50 50
0
100
14
86
43
57
43
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
train design systems
maintenance
communicaon
between staff
technical failure
Areas of a human error [%]
Male
Female
Fig. 7 Areas of human error in
an UTO system (%)
36%
62%
2%
"Unemployment" [%]
Yes
No
Not sure
Fig. 8 Will implementations of driverless trains contribute to
increase of drivers’ unemployment? (%)
84 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86
123
that they are also passengers with personal opinions about
the railway system and the survey sought their individual
opinions on UTO.
The results presented in the paper can be grouped into
three thematic areas: train type preferences and opinions on
driverless trains, importance of a driver on a train and the
unemployment issues and a human error issue.
Firstly, only 11 % of males and 14 % of females stated
that they would prefer to use a traditional train with a
driver rather than a driverless train or whatever train. This
result shows that the majority of the respondents is not
bothered about the train type they are using. Moreover,
opinions about the driverless technology are very positive
and rated as a ‘‘Very Good’’ or ‘‘Good’’ technology by the
overwhelming majority of 93 % females and 72 % of
males within the sample. This shows that in general the
respondents are keen on UTO and they do not have a
problem to trust the technology.
Secondly, the importance of a driver on a train was rated
as ‘‘Important’’ or ‘‘Very Important’’ by the majority of the
respondents who highlight the perception of a driver as an
important component of the system. Moreover, over 50 %
of the sample agreed that there should be a driver’s room
on the train, which in the case of a driverless technology is
obviously not necessary.
Thirdly, despite many drivers’ trade unions campaigning
against driverless trains, the results presented in the paper
show that the majority of respondents (62 %) do not see the
implementation of UTO as a thread to a driver’s job
security. However, as there was no follow-up of the
unemployment question, it is difficult to understand
respondents’ reasons for being ‘‘for’’ or ‘‘against’’ the idea
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
driverless train. However, when looked into more detail, it
appears that a technical failure and a staff communication
issues are the two main areas of concern in relation to a
human error on UTO.
9 Further Research
Overall, this paper contributes to the discussion on
driverless trains but much more research needs to be done
to fully understand and monitor public perceptions of and
attitudes to UTO. This knowledge could be a powerful tool
used in the future campaigns promoting driverless trains
and could have a role to play in seamless implementations
of the new systems around the globe.
More specifically, a more detailed investigation of
public level of understanding of technology behind UTO
might help to examine the reasons why although
respondents trust the technology they do not specifically go
for it if given a choice between a driver train and a
driverless train.
Next, the public perception of the role of a driver on a
driverless train requires further investigation where links
with issues such as safety and security and anti-social
behaviour on a train could be explored.
To follow-up the employment issue, a further investi-
gation into the reasons why the public perceives chances of
the drivers to requalify and stay on the job quite high would
be needed to better understand their motivations which
could be used in the future promotion of the driverless
trains to drivers’ trade unions and the public.
Finally, in order to further investigate public opinions of
areas where they fear a human error might occur, a more
detailed study of perceptions and preferences on UTO
would be needed. This could help to design public cam-
paigns explaining how UTO system works and enforce
technical strategies for overcoming the possibility of a
human error to occur on UTO system.
Acknowledgments This paper is based on results collected by an
MSc student Suyi Duan who investigated passengers’ perception of
driverless trains as part of her major project at the School of
Mechanical and Systems Engineering at Newcastle University. Philip
Brown, a college student on Nuffield Research Placements at New-
castle University, contributed to the analysis of results of the project.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
made.
References
1. BBC (2014) Driverless tube trains: Unions vow ‘war’ over plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26381175. Acces-
sed 9 Dec 2014
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
Magazine, February/March 2014, p 19
4. Fisher E (2011) Justifying automation. In: Railway technology.
http://www.railway-technology.com. Accessed 5 Dec 2014
5. Fraszczyk A, Magalha
˜es da Silva J, Gwo
´z
´dz
´A, Vasileva G
(2014) Metro as an example of an urban rail system. Four case
studies from Europe. Transp Probl 9:101–107
6. Hasham N (2013) Driverless trains plan must overcome public
scepticism. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/driverless-trains-plan-
must-overcome-public-scepticism-20130607-2nvjq.html. Acces-
sed 9 Dec 2014
7. Karvonen H, Aaltonen I, Wahlstro
¨m M, Salo L, Savioja P, Norros
L (2011) Hidden roles of the train driver: a challenge for metro
automation. Interact Comput 23:289–298
8. Malla R (2014) Automation sets a new benchmark. Metro report,
May 2014
Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86 85
123
9. Rumsey A (2009) Communications based train control. IRSE
seminar
10. TransLink (2014) SkyTrain. http://www.translink.ca/en/Schedules-
and-Maps/SkyTrain.aspx. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
11. UIC (2014) Automatic train control. Energy efficiency tech-
nologies for railways. http://www.railway-energy.org/static/Auto
matic_train_control_79.php. Accessed 9 Dec 2014
12. UITP (2011) Media backgrounder. Metro automation facts, fig-
ures and trends. UITP, Brussels
13. UITP (2013) Metro automation in 2013. Observatory of Auto-
mated Metros World Atlas Report. UITP, Brussels
14. UITP (2014) Statistics brief. World metro figure. UITP, Brussels
15. Vuchic V (2014) Maintaining performance with full automation.
Metro report international, March 2014, pp 36–39
86 Urban Rail Transit (2015) 1(2):78–86
123
