Sie können Operatoren mit Ihrer Suchanfrage kombinieren, um diese noch präziser einzugrenzen. Klicken Sie auf den Suchoperator, um eine Erklärung seiner Funktionsweise anzuzeigen.
Findet Dokumente, in denen beide Begriffe in beliebiger Reihenfolge innerhalb von maximal n Worten zueinander stehen. Empfehlung: Wählen Sie zwischen 15 und 30 als maximale Wortanzahl (z.B. NEAR(hybrid, antrieb, 20)).
Findet Dokumente, in denen der Begriff in Wortvarianten vorkommt, wobei diese VOR, HINTER oder VOR und HINTER dem Suchbegriff anschließen können (z.B., leichtbau*, *leichtbau, *leichtbau*).
Der Artikel beschreibt den Pilotversuch eines autonomen Busses (AB), der auf einem Stadtbahngleis in Hiroshima, Japan, betrieben wird. Dieses innovative Projekt zielt darauf ab, den öffentlichen Verkehr durch eine nahtlose Verbindung von Bussen und Stadtbahnen zu verbessern und so die Herausforderungen älterer und behinderter Reisender zu bewältigen. Die Studie konzentriert sich auf die Durchführbarkeit und öffentliche Akzeptanz dieses integrierten Systems und hebt die potenziellen Vorteile hervor, die sich aus der Verringerung von Verkehrsunfällen und der Verbesserung des Umsteigekomforts zwischen verschiedenen öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln ergeben. Der Pilotversuch umfasste einen selbstfahrenden Bus der Stufe 4, der die Stadtbahnstrecke erfolgreich befuhr und die fortgeschrittenen Fähigkeiten selbstfahrender Technologien demonstrierte. Die Ergebnisse von Fragebogenbefragungen, die sowohl mit Monitoren als auch mit Einwohnern durchgeführt wurden, zeigen ein vielversprechendes Maß an öffentlicher Akzeptanz und Bereitschaft, dieses neue Transportsystem zu nutzen. Diese Studie stellt einen bedeutenden Schritt in Richtung Integration autonomer Fahrzeuge in den herkömmlichen öffentlichen Verkehr dar und bietet eine vielversprechende Zukunft für urbane Mobilität und Verkehrsgerechtigkeit.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
The rapidly aging society of Japan requires a quality transportation system that provides new mobility services combining innovative technologies to include all residents. The present study carries out a pilot test of the world’s first connected public transport system between autonomous buses (AB) and the light rail transit (LRT). In this system, telecommunication between two modes enabled the bus to fully self-drive and pull in precisely at an LRT stop. Reporting a result of the pilot test in Hiroshima, this paper analyzes (a) the feasibility of the system based on a monitor survey and (b) public acceptance based on a resident survey of local residents.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Quality transport is required in Japan’s rapidly aging society, which means new mobility services realized by innovative technologies, for example, CASE (connected, automated, shared, and electric) transport services [1]. Self-driving shared vehicles, including autonomous buses (AB), are expected to provide physically or mentally disabled elder travelers occasions to go out by preventing human errors and improving accessibility to transport mode [2]. Presently, the social acceptance of such services is a topic of hot debate and dependent on a variety of economic, demographic, psychographic, service-related, and safety and risk factors [3‐9]. Furthermore, the social and cultural setting in which these studies were conducted may make it difficult to generalize to a Japanese context [10].
Historically, many efforts of seamless public transport services have been devoted mainly in Europe. For example, development plan of vehicles such as Schienen-Straßen-Omnibus enabling through-operation between road and railway has already existed in 1920s [11] and the first curb guided bus system has been operated in Essen, Germany, 1980 [12]. Similarly in Japan, a railway operator began to develop an amphibian bus driving both on road and railway in 1960s [13], a guided busway service started in Nagoya 2001 [14], the dual mode bus was newly introduced in Shikoku 2021 [15]. With recent development and implementation of self-driving technologies, a pilot test of autonomous BRT (bus rapid transit) has been conducted in Kesennuma city [16] that experienced the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011.
Anzeige
Although many studies have focused on social acceptance toward autonomous vehicles with a sharp development of autonomous vehicles, few have discussed integrating AVs and public transportation and how it might be perceived [10]. Research in this area mostly frames public transportation as an alternative or competitor to AVs, rather than as a supportive component within a city’s technologically advancing transportation network [17, 18]. In cities like Hiroshima, where public transportation is a major part of the transportation system, we should not ignore the mutually supportive relationship between public transport systems and AVs in delivering smart urban mobility and transportation equity [19]. Here, we seek to address these research gaps.
Hiroshima which has 12 bus routes and the longest tram network in Japan is well-known as a transit-oriented development city reconstructed after the bomb in 1945 and a regional center of business and industry in the present day. However, the city is undergoing a wave of aging and depopulation. To ensure social and transportation equity [19], the city is exploring a reform of the public transportation network to seamlessly connect the existing light rail transit (LRT), tram, and bus lines.
As part of this initiative, the authors developed a Virtual Reality (VR) choice experiment of connected public transport between AB and LRT in 2017 [20]. This preliminary study proposed a new scenario of connected public transport network between AB and LRT as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. It was supposed here that ABs run along the LRT track in the congested city center while runs on ordinal roads in uncongested suburbs. However, we were concerned that the choice results from VR experiment may include various biases from actual choice behavior [21‐23].
Fig. 1
Current scenarios: Ordinal bus and LRT operates independently. a) Birds-eye view, b) Horizontal eye view at LRT stop
To address this limitation, the present study reports a pilot test of the aforementioned virtual scenario in the real world. By conducting a monitor survey for the participants in the pilot test and questionnaire SP survey for non-participants (residents), we could examine users’ preference toward self-driving technology and their willingness-to-use the connected AB and LRT. The findings from this study of the world’s first integrated AB-LRT transportation system shows the feasibility to be accepted by the public.
Anzeige
1.2 Outline of Connected Public Transport
As mentioned previously, many bus and LRT routes concentrate in the city center in Hiroshima. Whenever connecting the bus lines to the LRT, passengers must walk from a bus stop to an LRT stop. The inconvenience of the connection between these forms of public transport is a mental and physical barrier for elderly and disabled travelers. At many stops lack a bus-bay, stopping buses often block traffic flow and increase the incidence of congestions and accidents, as shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3
Present condition of traffic congestion at non-bus bay
A newly proposed connected public transport sharing a stop between the LRT and bus lines resolves the inconvenience, as shown in Fig. 4. Given that the bus must drive in and out of the narrow LRT track and follow up and stop before the previous LRT and bus, employing a bus with advanced self-driving technologies and telecommunications equipment integrated with the LRT could ensure safety.
2 A Pilot Test of Autonomous Bus Proceeding Down in LRT Track
2.1 Outline of Pilot Test
The first pilot test of AB proceeding down in the LRT track was carried out after operating hours of all the buses and LRTs. The details are as follows:
Date: November 16 (Sat) to 17 (Sun)
Time: 6.5 h from 11:00 pm to 5:30, including preparation and cleanup.
A couple of days before the pilot test, we checked radio wave conditions surrounding the test route, AB control systems, AB braking distance in the track, and also collected the AB trajectory data at the same time slots from November 12 (Tue) to 14 (Thu).
2.2 Test Vehicles
The level 4 self-driving AB used at the pilot test is a bus called “Poncho” by Hino Motors Co., Ltd., shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The specifications of this AB are presented in Table 1.
28 people with 8 seats (For safety reasons, all passengers must seat during the pilot test)
Size
Length, Width, Height: 6,990mm long × 2,080mm wide × 3,100mmhigh
Speed
Maximum speed is limited to 40 km/h
Self-driving systems (details presented in Table 3)
- Lane-keeping systems (GNSS(GPS), QZSS)
- Cruise control systems (maximum 40 km/h): ACC, PCS
- Lane-change control system
- Precise docking control system
During the test, an LRT (Fig. 7) forerunning AB is waiting for the coming AB at Funairi-Kawaguchi Stop Intersection. The AB autonomously stops before the previous LRT and then proceeds precisely down the track by following up on the departed LRT.
The pilot test was conducted at a deregulated section of LRT line #6 (L \(\fallingdotseq\) 225 m), including Funairi-Kawaguchi Stop Intersection (L \(\fallingdotseq\) 25 m), as shown in Fig. 8. At this time in Japan, levels 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles cannot run on public roads. However, the section was specially permitted to operate AB for the pilot test. The cross-section of the target road consists of 5 lanes, i.e., 3 lanes for cars and 2 lanes for LRT track in an A-A cross-section, as shown in Fig. 9. A car lane and 2 LRT lanes were used as a deregulated section.
Fig. 8
Deregulated section of LRT track for the pilot test (Digital map by GSI)
Monitors got in/off the AB at the control center of Eba Terminal. The AB was driven manually for the circuitous route from the control center to the pilot test area (outward L \(\fallingdotseq\) 1.9 km, homeward L \(\fallingdotseq\) 1.0 km) due to legal restraints of autonomous vehicle operation in Japan. Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 indicate photos of the test sites.
Image of AB proceeding down track (Enter track, dock precisely at stop and exit track). (AB was operated in deregulated section (L \(\fallingdotseq\) 225 m) with maximum speed 15 km/hr in track)
By taking advice from local police and referring to the “Guideline for Pilot Test of Self-driving System on Public Roads (The National Police Agency, 2015)” [7], a safety check presented in Table 2 was conducted to confirm the feasibility of an AB proceeding down the track.
Table 2
Safety check for AB driving
In the final preliminary safety check on the day of the pilot test, we confirmed safe self-driving of ABs based on the conditions presented in the test items in Table 3.
Table 3
Check items of AB self-driving
Items
Check contents
Precise docking control system
Whether AB can keep at least 20 cm from the curb stone at the opening-closing time, even if RTK-GPS position causes a significant error?
Whether AB hits stop shed due to bumpy surface of LRT track or not?
Lane-keeping systems (GNSS (GPS), QZSS)
Lane-change control system
Whether AB is steered away from exact position due to bumpy surface of LRT track or not?
Whether AB can exit from tram track and enter vehicular road or not?
ACC (Adaptive Cruise Control) system
Whether AB runs and stops at two stages (firstly 6 m and secondly stops 3 m before the previous LRT) or not?
Two cases of AB driving positions relative to the LRT stop shed depicted in Fig. 14 were compared. Consequently, although the AB runs on the bumpy surface of the LRT tracks in Case 1, it did not affect the precise docking control, lane-keeping, and lane changing systems, as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. We rejected an alternative option of a driving position closer to the stop, which would assure more precise docking. The reason being that there should be at least a 483 mm gap from the inner side of the left-hand front wheel of AB to the edge of stop. However, the actual gap with level surface from the bump was only around 400 mm, making this option unsuitable (Fig. 17).
Fig. 14
AB driving position. Case1: Body positioned in the center of track. Case2: Left wheels positioned in the center of track
Observed gap from bump to stop edge. [Gap from the inner side of left-hand front wheel to the vehicle side of AB is 283 mm; Degree of GPS accuracy is \(\pm\) 150mm; Margin for door opening/closing is around 50 mm]
To maintain security during the pilot test, visible plates “Pilot Program of Autonomous Bus in Tram Track @ Hiroshima” are displayed on the front, side, and rear faces of AB to enable general road users to identify the self-driving vehicle (see Figs. 18 and 19). To case of emergencies such as obstacle avoidance, one driver and one operator were ready to force to stop the AB.
During the test, general traffic was restricted not to enter the road section of the pilot test to ensure safety (Figs. 20 and 21). Using safety cones and allocating traffic control staff, the LRT track was enclosed with 2 lanes and a car lane. This ensured that no general cars entered the test section, as shown in Fig. 22.
Fig. 20
Traffic restriction at Funairi-Kawaguchi Intersection
The time, date, contents and traffic restriction of pilot test was announced to the residents via their neighborhood associations. And those were also publicly announced to journalistic organizations before the test on November 5 (Table 4).
Table 4
Public Announcement of Pilot Test
Date
Contents
Targets/methods
October 24, 2019
Traffic restriction for the pilot test
Residents in Funairi-Kawaguchi, Nishi-Kawaguchi and Funairi-Minami 1 to 4/Circulating flier, Posting a public announcement,
October 29, 2019
Public announcement
Journalistic organizations/Home page of Hiroshima University
November 15, 2019
Interviews at the pilot test
Journalistic organizations/Home page of Hiroshima University
2.5 Implementation of Pilot Test
The pilot test of connected public transport was conducted for 4 h 10 min from 0:10 to 4:20, excluding preparation and removal time. During that period, a 25-min test drive was repeated 9 times. Each test drive with 8 monitors was conducted following the procedure described in Table 5. In total, 72 monitors took demonstration drives to evaluate the proposed system connecting the AB to the LRT following the schedule presented in Table 6.
Table 5
Procedure of 25-mminute test-drive
i) Monitors board to AB at the control center. (Fig. 23)
ii) AB drives manually from the control center to the starting point of the deregulated section of the test
iii) B starts self-driving to enter the track until stopping at the stop before a previous LRT. (Figs. 24 and 25)
iv) Monitors get off AB at the rear of the stop platform
v) Soon after LRT departures, AB drives autonomously by following up the LRT with cruise control systems and then stops at the front of the stop again based on the designed program (Fig. 26)
vi) Monitors get on AB at the front of the stop again (Fig. 27)
vii) AB starts self-driving with lane-keeping and cruise control systems until exiting the track. (Figs. 26 and 28)
viii) AB drives manually from the endpoint of the deregulated section of the test to the control center
Schedule of monitor survey in pilot test. (2019.11.16–11.17)
2.6 Results of AB Pilot Test
2.6.1 Measurement of Test Driving
Data including lateral position, distance (velocity by differentiating with respect to time), lateral error, acceleration (traveling direction), and acceleration (lateral) were observed from 9 repetitive test-drives, as shown in Fig. 29. Table 7 shows the used sensors of self-driving controls.
Fig. 29
Relationship between distance and observed data of test-drives
Distance (velocity by differentiating with respect to time)
GPSS antenna (RTK-GPS/GNSS), velocity pulse, millimeter-wave radar, LIDAR, front camera
Acceleration, lateral acceleration
Acceleration meter, gyroscope sensor
The traveling direction velocities varied during the docking by ACC at the rear of stop and during exiting the LRT track (Fig. 29). We determined that this was due to recognition errors of censors relative to buildings near the LRT stop, traffic security agents, safety cones for traffic restriction, and other factors. The lateral errors tended to have a positive sign, indicating that is the AB most often moved to the left side at stop and were uneven among repetitive drives (Lateral error in Fig. 29).
The traveling direction accelerations varied up to \(\pm\) 0.1G at the departure from a stop during self-driving. On the other hand, lateral accelerations were observed to vary up to \(\pm\) 0.05G at entering/exiting track (see acceleration (traveling direction) and acceleration (lateral) in Fig. 29).
2.6.2 Two-Step Stop
Two-step stop of the AB was autonomously performed by the ACC system before the previous LRT stopping, as shown in Fig. 30. The target distance of the 1st-step stop was set as 6.0 m, and then the AB ran with a slow speed of 20 km/h up to the 2nd stop, which was set to 3.0 m. The errors observed in each of the 9 test drives were considerably different: the 1st-step stop varied from -0.75 m to 2.55 m, and the 2nd-step stop varied from -0.60 m to 2.95 m, as shown in Fig. 30 and Table 8. It appears that these variations were mainly due to identification sensors reacting to surrounding buildings and variation in deceleration by the braking control.
Fig. 30
Distance from the previous LRT. (Note: The targets of stop control system were set as 6 m before the previous LRT for 1st-step and 3 m for 2nd-step.)
3 Questionnaire Surveys for Connected Public Transport
3.1 Monitor Survey and Resident Survey
During the pilot test of connected public transport, we carried out questionnaire surveys (i.e., a “monitor survey”) before and after the test-driving as in Fig. 31. Because of the limited number of 72 samples, a resident survey with a larger sample size was also conducted to test the generalizability of the monitor survey.
The monitor survey comprises a set of prior and posterior surveys (i.e., a panel survey) to the test-driving mentioned in the previous chapter. By comparing them, the changes in perception risks and willingness-to-use (WTU) on the connected public transport can be examined. On the other hand, the comparison of pre-survey for monitors and the resident survey enabled us to analyze and correct the sampling biases inherent in the assessment of risk perception and WTU.
3.2 Outline of Monitor Survey Results
A panel survey for 72 monitors participated in the pilot test was conducted prior and posterior to the AB test-drive experience to examine the change of public acceptance for the newly introduced self-driving bus proceeding down the track and connected public transport between AB and LRT sharing a track and stop.
3.2.1 Sample Profile of Monitor Survey
The age distribution of monitors was almost equal proportions among groups except for monitors in their 30 s, as shown in Fig. 32. However, the gender distribution was unbalanced—the sample was 83.3% male, as shown in Fig. 33.
In terms of their current travel behaviors, 93% of monitors usually use the existing bus service. But infrequent users of “once a month” (31%) and “every 2 weeks” (16%) were the majority, while only 6.9% of respondents do not use the bus at all (see Fig. 34). In contrast, the number of LRT users was less than bus users. Around 27% of monitors did not have experience using the LRT (see Fig. 35).
3.2.2 Attitudes to Self-Driving Technology Before and After AB Test-Drive
Most monitors are aware that the advantage of AB service is “Reduction of traffic accidents” both before and after the test-drive. Interestingly, 19% of monitors’ attitudes improved after the test drive regarding the advantage of “Reduction of traffic congestion,” as shown in Fig. 36.
In terms of the disadvantage of self-driving technology, the risk of “Unable to flexibly respond to unexpected circumstances” accounted for over 60%. Particularly, it is an intriguing result that risk there was a 12.5% increase on this measure after the test drive, as shown in Fig. 37.
3.2.3 Positive and Negative Reactions for AB Introduction
93% of monitors reported their acceptance for the introduction of ABs into society, and this figure increased by 4.2% after the test drive (see Fig. 38), indicating feasibility of AB service.
68% of monitors stated they were willing to use the AB service before the test drive, and which increased by 4.2% following the test drive (see Fig. 39) again, indicating feasibility for the AB service and a benefit from exposure via demonstration.
3.2.5 Evaluation of AB Proceeding down the LRT Track
After the test drive, many monitors stated their positive evaluations of AB driving down LRT track for the items of “Make certain passengers travel with peace of mind”, “Reduce accident risks” and “Make convenient transfers between buses and the LRT” (see Fig. 40). The experienced users tended to have more positive response to the AB policy, suggesting again exposure benefits and the high potential for public acceptance of AB in the future.
A web-based resident survey was carried out for 4 days from March 6 to 9, 2020, in Hiroshima Prefecture to confirm the monitor survey results without explaining the AB. The number of valid samples was 1,035 residents.
3.3.1 Sample Profile of Resident Survey
Like monitor survey, the resident survey aimed to sample an even distribution of age groups, excluding younger generations people in their 20 s (see Fig. 41). The resident survey sample achieved a more equal gender balance, with almost half the sample being female, as shown in Fig. 42. Thus, the following analysis of this survey will help determine an unbiased estimate of the public acceptance of AB.
The frequency of bus users is presented in order of descending prevalence: 41% reporting “Non-users,” 35% reporting “Once a month,” and 9% reporting “Every 2 weeks,” (see Fig. 43). With regard to the main reasons not to use bus services, the percentage of “Private mode available” was highest at 38%, followed by reasons related to inadequate levels-of-services (LOSs) such as “Longer travel time to destination” at 33%, “Unsuitable schedules” at 30%, and “unsuitable routes” at 26% (see Fig. 44). The ratio of non-bus users in this resident survey was 6.9% higher than that in the monitor survey.
On the other hand, the percentage of non-LRT users was 51%, followed by “Once a month” at 36% (see Fig. 45). And the main reason not to use the LRT was “Unsuitable routes” (see Fig. 46). The ratio of non-LRT users was much higher than that of non-bus users.
Together, these findings suggest that there are a variety of issues facing traditional public transportation modes that could will be solved by the future introduction of fully autonomous vehicles.
3.3.2 Risk Perception and Willingness-to-use of AB
Some drive support systems of Level 2 and 3 AVs are already available—namely, the automated braking system, adaptive cruise control system (ACC), and lane-keeping assist system. The history of these advanced systems may affect risk perception of and willingness-to-use ABs. Figure 47 presents the result as of March 2020, in which 16 to 20% of respondents had experience of these systems.
Over 80% of residents were aware of self-driving or autonomous technologies (see Fig. 48). They acknowledged some advantages of self-driving technology such as “Reduce traffic accidents” and “Saving the troubles of manual driving,” (see Fig. 49), while they recognized the disadvantage of “Unable to flexibly respond to unexpected circumstances” because 47% respondents chose this item (see Fig. 50). These figures closely align with those observed in the monitor survey.
70% of monitors agreed with the introduction of AB driving in the LRT track, while 30% disagreed (see Fig. 51). The main reasons for positive responses were “Looks like to reduce traffic accidents,” and those of negative responses were “A fear of accidents by system errors” and “A sense of uncertainty” (see Figs. 52 and 53). Finally, the current public transport users stated their choice intentions between the existing public transport and newly introduced connected AB-to-LRT. The results revealed a virtually equal divide in public opinion toward these transportation technologies (see in Fig. 54). In future research, we will investigate more into public opinions and how they are shaped over time. Based on the other indicators and previous research, it seems that more exposure to and experience with ABs/AVs would improve public opinion toward these technologies.
This study reports the world’s first physical operation of an AB proceeding down an LRT track. A pilot test of this connected public transport system confirmed the feasibility of implementation advanced self-driving technologies in the real world and demonstrated their likely acceptance. The self-driving technologies enabled the AB to automatically change lanes from the general road to the LRT track, precisely dock at the stop before the parked LRT, follow the previous LRT by keeping within its lane and later exiting from the track to the road again without any assistance of human drivers. Importantly, over 70% of residents reported having intentions to use the AB and public acceptance indicators suggest that it is feasible to implement this integrated AB-LRT system. Social acceptance indicators also looked promising—for example, expectations of accident reductions were raised following exposure to the test drive.
However, there still remain open questions such as the unknown risks involved when operating an AB without human backup in the case of unexpected circumstances. It will be important to keep developing more advanced technologies and infrastructure to reduce these risks and the mental barriers they create.
Altogether, this study marks a significant step forward in introducing ABs into a social system that heavily relies on public transportation. It highlights the possibility of a mutually supportive relationship between autonomous vehicles and traditional public transportation and holds promise for the future of urban mobility and transportation equity. Hence, it could be said that this study holds unprecedented value for “quality transport in the era of auto-sapiens.”
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted as a research project entitled “Development of measuring value of mobility in the era of quality transport” funded by CART of MLIT, Japan. The design and planning of pilot test was collaborated with ”ITS Forum in Hiroshima”, and LRT vehicles and track used in the test were supported by Hiroshima Electric Railway Co., Ltd. The authors would like to express our sincere gratitude to all those concerned who have worked so hard for this project.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Akimasa Fujiwara,
D.Eng., Professor, Hiroshima University, His research interests cover a range of traffic and transport related areas including innovative public transport systems. He authored more than 350 reviewed papers.
Makoto Chikaraishi,
D.Eng., Associate Professor, Hiroshima University, His research interests include travel behavior modeling, sustainable transport planning, risk analysis of urban a nd transportation systems, and so forth.
Diana Khan,
M.Pub.Aff., PhD. Candidate in Transportation Eng. at Hiroshima University, Her research are is understanding risk perception and public acceptance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in two nations: Japan and Israel.
Atsufumi Ogawa,
B.Eng., Master Student, Hiroshima University, His research interests include the applicablity of virtual reality for the evaluation of risk perception of autonomous vehicle, and the impacts of social experiments on the perception on authonomous vehicle.
Yoshihiro Suda
D.Eng., Professor, the University of Tokyo, He obtained his doctoral degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Tokyo in 1987. He has been involved in various govenment projects related to the automation of transportation systems.
Toshikazu Yamasaki,
B.Eng., PEJ, Manager of Road Traffic Design Dept., Chuden Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd., He has been working on various transportation projects including survey, planning and analysis related to traffic engineering and transport planning.
Takaharu Nishino,
B.Eng., PEJ, Manager of Road Traffic Design Dept., Chuden Engineering Consultants Co.,Ltd., He has been working on various transportation projects including road transport planning in both urban and rural areas.
Shutaro Namba,
M.Eng., Road Traffic Design Dept., Chuden Engineering Consultants Co.,Ltd., He obtained M.Eng. at Okayama University in 2016, and working as a consultant specialized in the field of transport and urban planning.
Litman T.: “Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions”, Vitoria Transport Policy Institute (2020)
2.
Sparrow R., Howard M.: When human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport. 80, 206–215 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.04.014
3.
Anderson, J.M., Nidhi, K., Stanley, K.D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., Oluwatola, O.A.: Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica (2016)CrossRef
4.
Adlerab M., Peer S., Sinozicd T.: Autonomous, connected, electric shared vehicles (ACES) and public finance: An explorative analysis. Transpor. Res. Interdisc. Perspect. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2019.100038
5.
Chikaraishi M., Khan D., Yasuda B., Fujiwara A.: Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan. Transport Policy. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.014)
6.
Payre, W., Cestac, J., Delhomme, P.: Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 27, 252–263 (2014)CrossRef
7.
Krueger, R., Rashidi, T.H., Rose, J.M.: Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 69, 343–355 (2016)CrossRef
8.
Kovacs, F.S., McLeod, S., Curtis, C.: Aged mobility in the era of transportation disruption: Will autonomous vehicles address impediments to the mobility of ageing populations? Travel Behav Soc 20, 122–132 (2020)CrossRef
9.
Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M.: Are we ready to embrace connected and self-driving vehicles? A case study of Texans. Transportation 45(2), 641–675 (2018)CrossRef
10.
Shen, Y., Zhang, H., Zhao, J.: Integrating shared autonomous vehicle in public transportation system: A supply-side simulation of the first-mile service in Singapore. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 113, 125–136 (2018)CrossRef
Phillips, D.: An update on curb guided bus technology and development trends. J Public Transp 9(3), 163–180 (2006)CrossRef
13.
Ishii Y., et al.: Phantasmal National Railway Vehicle, JTB Can Book, 148–149, ISBN 978–4–533–06906–2 (in Japanese). (2007)
14.
Takeshita H., Kato H., Hayashi Y., Shimizu K.: Evaluating bus rapid transit system in Nagoya City, Proceedings of 89th TRB annual meeting, DVD-R.(2009)
Chen, T.D., Kockelman, K.M.: Management of a shared autonomous electric vehicle fleet: Implications of pricing schemes. Transp Res Record 2572(1), 37–46 (2016)CrossRef
18.
Mendes, L.M., Bennàssar, M.R., Chow, J.Y.: Comparison of light rail streetcar against shared autonomous vehicle fleet for Brooklyn–queens connector in New York City. Transp Res Record 2650(1), 142–151 (2017)CrossRef
19.
Golbabaei F., Yigitcanlar T., Bunker J.: The role of shared autonomous vehicle systems in delivering smart urban mobility: A systematic review of the literature. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 1–18 (2020)
20.
Fujiwara A.: Measuring value of mobility in the age of quality transport, CART Project Report FY2018. (in Japanese) (2019)
21.
The National Police Agency: Guideline for Pilot Test of Self-driving System on Public Roads 2015 (2016)
22.
Bateman, I., Brett, H., Jones, A., Simon, J.: Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58(1), 106–118 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2008.05.003CrossRef
23.
Jiang, L., Masullo, M., Maffei, L., Meng, F., Vorländer, M.: How do shared-street design and traffic restriction improve urban soundscape and human experience? —An online survey with virtual reality. Build Environ 143, 318–328 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.005CrossRef
Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.
