Technical Note 33 Automated Guideway Systems and Driverless Trams

Introduction This Technical Note considers the practicality of driverless (automated) systems to provide the functionality of the tramway system proposed within the Abu Dhabi Surface Transport Master Plan (STMP). Background A key component of the Plan that has emerged from the STMP is the provision of a comprehensive, fine-grained and integrated public transport system that provides regular and reliable services accessible to all and offers an attractive, high quality alternative to the private car. In urban areas, the Plan aims to ensure that no-one will need to walk more than 300 metres to their nearest public transport stop. The complete public transport network will be designed and operated as a single integrated system so that a high level of accessibility is maintained irrespective of location or service. The Plan consists of a series of infrastructure schemes and other initiatives including 340km tramway in the Abu Dhabi Metropolitan area although the exact configuration of the tramway will be subject to alteration as the Plan implementation studies refine and finalise the system designs over the next two years. Subject to subsequent analyses in the forthcoming tram study, it is also possible that some of the proposed alignments become bus rapid transit (BRT) or even simple bus services depending on emerging more detailed travel demand forecasts. STMP Tramway Proposals The STMP Tramway proposals are currently based on a manually operated, drive on sight, street running tramway providing a high degree of integration with the street environment. The system would operate at grade and use existing and new highway intersections (mostly signal controlled) within the Abu Dhabi Metropolitan area. The system has been planned on the basis of 40m long vehicles (or coupled as 80m units in peak demand periods) operating a maximum service headway of 2 minutes providing a possible peak frequency of up to 30 trams per hour per direction (depending on detailed operational design, for example at the interface with traffic signal controlled junctions). Some tramway corridors are effectively fixed e.g. Capital City District, Suwa, Reem, Saadiyat, Raha, Yas, Masdar etc and some are at advanced stages of design/implementation

Types of Transit System Figure 1 below shows the overlap between the systems discussed in this Technical Note and provides a pictorial definition of some of the key terms used in describing transit systems.

LIGHT RAIL

QUALITY BUS

ALTERNATIVE FUEL

KERB GUIDED ELECTRONIC GUIDED

GLT

GUIDEWAY MONORAIL PEOPLEMOVER MAGLEV SOULE

BUS BASED

AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY (AGT) GUIDED BUS LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT (LRT)

Figure 1: Transit System Types Light Rapid Transit (LRT) is a generic term for all fixed-track modes which have vehicle weight and operating characteristics lighter than conventional railways and is, therefore, the umbrella name which includes light rail (tram), monorails, guideways and people-movers. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) is a subset of LRT that covers driverless and segregated systems including monorails, guideways and people-movers. Automated Guideway Systems Guideways are a form of Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) which typically use rubber wheels on a segregated track with fully automatic operation. Steering is achieved with horizontal grade wheels bearing against vertical glides on each side of the track. Power supply and return is normally made with an electrical supply from the underside of the vehicle. Typically Automated Guideways use medium sized cars (capacity less than 100 passengers) either singly or in short trains and are usually designed for specific local movements, such as intra-airport travel. The connection between the two terminals at Gatwick Airport is with a guideway system. Tram systems themselves can operate as a form of automated guideway.

VAL is a type of automatic rubber-tired people mover technology designed in the early 1980s by French Matra, for the then new metro system in Lille. The acronym stands for Vhicule Automatique Lger (automatic light vehicle). VAL is advertised as the first fully automated light metro The Lille metro was inaugurated on April 25, 1983. VAL systems were subsequently built in several other French cities, including: Paris Orlyval, 1991 Toulouse Metro, 1993 Rennes Metro, 2002 Paris CDGVAL, April 2007

Outside of France, VAL systems are also used in: Chicago O'Hare's Airport Transit System (opened in 1993) Taipei's Muzha Line (opened in 1996, larger variant using the MAGGALY technology from Lyon Metro line D) Turin's Metrotorino (opened in 2006, just before the 2006 Winter Olympics)

Other AGT systems include: Lausanne M2 Automatic Metro Docklands Light Rail, London Dubai Metro Palm Jumeriah Monorail Pusan Kimhae LRT (South Korea) Uijeongbu LRT (South Korea) Taipei Neihu Line Singapore NE line New York Canarsie Line Paris Meteor

In all instances these systems are elevated or subsurface to provide total physical segregation of the system from the surrounding urban area. Typical systems are shown in the figures overleaf.

Figure 2 Neihu Line, Taipei

Figure Figure 3 M2 Automated Metro, Lausanne

Figure 4 Docklands Light Rail, London

Figure 5 Dubai Metro, UAE

Advantages of Automatic Operation Automatic operation of transport systems is claimed to have two major advantages; It can reduce the size of the labour force required to operate and maintain the system It results in closer adherence to operating timetables, resulting in greater line capacity and reduced fleet size

Operating Costs The assumption that automated systems inherently have significantly lower costs than manual light rail due to reduction of labour costs does not seem to be supported by evidence. Modern, heavy-duty, urban transit systems in daily, real-world, revenue service are complex operations, not just "horizontal lifts" within a controlled environment.

Whilst automated operation does not require a driver in each vehicle or train, this advantage is typically offset by the need for additional security personnel, central control personnel, administrative personnel and technicians. It should also be noted that technical staff frequently command a higher wage than operations staff. There are serious security issues with unmanned train operation and operational implications for the recovery of unmanned trains in the event of a breakdown. This minimum requirement is reflected in the use of Train Captains on the DLR, these members of staff have minimal operating duties during full automatic operation, concentrating instead on passenger security, passenger relations and revenue protection; however they are vital for safe and efficient operation in the event of a failure of any part of the automatic operation of the railway. The French VAL systems do not have on board transport staff , but they do have a high presence of Police and Security staff on the system, but these staff are often more expensive per hour than drivers, are not under the direct control of the transport management and are not available for revenue protection or non-automatic train operation. Vuchic (1981) acknowledged that automation could produce peak labour cost savings for fully grade-separated rail transit systems; nevertheless, he noted that automatic train operation (ATO) introduced considerably higher investment costs and system complexity. Thus, "In many

medium-size cities it would be more beneficial to use the additional investment spent on ATO for network extensions."
Fox (1988) compared the cost performance of new automated transit and manually operated LRT systems. Fox assessed AGT systems in Lille (VAL), London (Docklands), and Vancouver (SkyTrain) vs. manually operated LRT systems in Nantes, Manila, Calgary, San Diego, and Portland. Fox's conclusion: "When new AGT systems are compared with new LRT systems, or when AGT

and LRT are compared on identical alignments, it appears that the cost of additional maintenance and supervising staff and additional 'non-staff' budget may exceed the savings that AGT systems achieve by eliminating operators." Indeed, Fox's comparison of the two French
systems in his study Lille (AGT) and Nantes (LRT) indicated that the operating cost per passenger-km was 114% higher for AGT in Lille. Fox also compared a hypothetical LRT system, based on Portland's MAX, to Vancouver's SkyTrain, using grade-separated operation in the same corridor. His analysis concluded that LRT would cost about 31% less per passenger-km than the SkyTrain AGT. The following tables show the operating and maintenance (O&M) cost per passenger-mile of selected relatively new LRT and all the currently operating AGT systems in urban revenue service in US cities from the Federal Transit Administration.

San Diego Salt Lake City Dallas Portland Sacramento Denver Los Angeles St. Louis Source: NTDB, 2000

$0.17 $0.15 $0.55 $0.29 $0.42 $0.40 $0.29 $0.21

PassengerTable 7.1 Selected Light Rail Systems: O&M Cost per Passenger-Mile Jacksonville Skyway monorail Detroit Peoplemover Miami MetroMover $10.71 $5.80 $3.42

UrbanPassengerTable 7.2 US Urban-Revenue AGT Systems: O&M Cost per Passenger-Mile It is also useful to contrast the O&M cost of the totally automated Jacksonville monorail (and these other AGT systems) with the O&M cost of the manually operated Seattle monorail of $1.02 per passenger-mile. Clearly, with the automated system reporting a unit O&M cost more than 10 times higher than that of the manually operated system, a convincing case for the dramatic costslashing potential of automated operation is not made. Service reliability and system capacity Automated operation may improve operational efficiency at very close headways and this can be beneficial on crowded sections of the network. The London Underground Victoria Line consistently runs a service of over 30 trains per hour thanks to automated operation. It should also be noted that one of the benefits of LRT, as a guided transit mode, is that it can be partially automated i.e., automated in totally grade-separated sections (e.g., where several lines might come together at tight headways) and operated manually in lower-traffic sections. This option is exploited in San Francisco, where the Muni Metro tramway/light rail system uses manual operation on the street sections of the route, but automatic operation in the main CastroMarket Street-Embarcadero subway. This efficiency was further enhanced by the practice of holding cars at the West Portal of the subway to make one-car surface services into 3 car trains to run in the subway. It is worthwhile noting that an alternative lower cost option of train making can be adopted on manually driven systems to ease pathing problems on congested sections of route is train making. It is a practice regularly used on parts of the Southern Electric routes in the UK and on Danish Railways, it was also considered as an option for maximising throughput on the transit mall section of Croydon Tramlink. Coupling and decoupling time can be nominal. The initial justification for automatic operation on the DLR was that automatic operation would ensure closer timetable adherence and that this would result in a lower overall fleet requirement to provide the same level of passenger service. It was even claimed by the system supplier that the cost savings on rolling stock and on conventional signalling would fund the cost of the automated system. In practice it is doubtful if the savings paid for the additional commissioning costs of the automated system, far less the equipment costs.

Performance Aspects Early automated systems such as the LU Victoria Line were fully enclosed in tunnels, where the rail heads were continuously protected, resulting in trains having a uniformly high braking performance. This has not been the experience with the DLR, which mixes exposed open-air sections of the alignment with tunnel running. It proved extremely difficult to establish a consistent braking performance with varying rail head conditions and for many years the railway had to operate at a lower overall performance in wet conditions. Although many of these difficulties have now been reduced this has been at the expense of significant additional technical complexity and cost. Abu Dhabi Context In terms of infrastructure requirements one of the key features of automated operation is the requirement for total physical segregation of the automated sections of the system. Conventionally this is achieved by grade separation either above or below grade. Grade segregation would require totally secure fencing/barriers to prevent accidental or deliberate intrusion of pedestrians or vehicles onto the guideway. This would include situations where the system passes through road junctions where the only practical and safe option would be to provide grade separation (viaduct or tunnel). Severance in urban areas could be severe and grade separated pedestrian facilities would be required. This segregation is also in complete conflict with the aim of convenient access to frequent stops, and the common European experience where trams and pedestrians can freely mix in otherwise pedestrianised streets. The provision of full segregation is not considered to be practical or acceptable in many locations in the Abu Dhabi Metropolitan area. In addition some tramway corridors are effectively fixed e.g. Capital City District, Suwa, Reem, Saadiyat, Raha, Yas, Masdar etc and some are at advanced stages of design/implementation these are generally all on the basis of manual operation and conversion to automated operation would require complete review of the design basis for these corridors. Initial demand forecasts undertaken for the STMP indicate that manual street running operation of the tramway is able to deliver the required system capacity in the majority of corridors. The forthcoming tram feasibility study, in preparation by DOT, will examine the patronage and system capacity requirements in all of the prospective tramway corridors. In corridors where greater system capacity is required over and above that achievable by manual tram operation it might be necessary to provide for automated tram operation or metro services. This will require detailed investigation including wider aspects of public transport integration and the like. In locations where trams are difficult to accommodate into the highway network, especially at major junctions, the possibility of grade separation is still available within a generally street running network; this does not necessitate a fully segregated tram system. Summary Tramways can be developed to operate partly in manual and partly in automated mode. Automated tram operation is feasible, although it will require total physical segregation of automated sections, conventionally either by elevated or subsurface alignment. At grade segregation is possible although grade seperation of road junctions and pedestrian facilities would be required. The primary basis for introducing automated tram operation would be because of reliability or system capacity issues. The STMP has identified that in the majority of corridors a manually operated street running tramway will deliver the required system reliability. Specific corridors will be subject to further examination as part of the detailed tramway feasibility study which could identify the need for greater reliability and system capacity. In this context automated tram or

metro operation could be appropriate in discrete and isolated locations although issues of wider system integration also need to be taken into account. A totally driverless tram system would require the whole system to be fully physically separated. This is not considered to be acceptable nor necessary.