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*).
Dieses Kapitel untersucht das transformative Potenzial automatisierter Busse in der Stadtplanung und konzentriert sich dabei auf das MultiCAV-Projekt in Didcot Garden Town. Der Text untersucht die Prinzipien einer transitorientierten Entwicklung und die Rolle hochtechnologischer öffentlicher Verkehrsprogramme bei der Stadterneuerung. Darin wird die Erprobung eines automatisierten elektrischen Kleinbusses durch das MultiCAV-Projekt hervorgehoben, der auf einer 5 km langen Strecke zwischen dem Milton Park Business Park und dem Bahnhof Didcot verkehrte. Das Kapitel bietet eine eingehende Analyse der Wahrnehmungen und Erfahrungen der Benutzer und zeigt, dass sich 90% der Benutzer im automatisierten Bus sicher fühlten, insbesondere wenn ein menschlicher Bediener anwesend war. Die Studie untersucht auch die Erfahrungen von Sicherheitspersonal und die technologischen Herausforderungen, vor denen die Studie steht. Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass automatisierte Busse als gleichwertig mit menschgetriebenen Diensten erlebt werden können, aber es bestehen nach wie vor erhebliche Hindernisse, wie die Notwendigkeit von Eingriffen durch die Betreiber und die Reife der Technologie. Der Text schließt mit der Diskussion der Relevanz dieser Erfahrungen für zukünftige Anwendungen und betont das Potenzial getrennter Buslinien und die Bedeutung von Hochtechnologie und Priorität, wenn es darum geht, neue Fahrgäste für den öffentlichen Verkehr zu gewinnen.
KI-Generiert
Diese Zusammenfassung des Fachinhalts wurde mit Hilfe von KI generiert.
Abstract
Most sustainable urban transport strategies include an expanded role for public transport amongst their measures. New technologies have often been presented as a means of making public transport more attractive when compared to other travel options. Integrating attractive transit with new development is also presented as a technique which can encourage public transport use. The present paper considers these three principles in the context of the MultiCAV project, which tested automated buses (AB) in Didcot (UK), a town scheduled for significant expansion. MultiCAV is one of the few automation projects to test urban buses capable of providing mass transit in a range of urban and peri-urban road environments. Findings are presented from evaluative research including surveys and interviews with potential users, actual users, safety operatives, and the project delivery team. It is found in the case of MultiCAV that automation technology has a high degree of capability, but is not yet sufficiently mature to operate a schedule service in complex road environments shared with general traffic without human assistance for specific tasks. Additionally, a solution for the tasks currently performed by drivers beyond the driving task also needs to be identified. Passenger acceptance of automation was found to be strongly influenced by the condition that an operative is onboard. If early applications of ABs were to be on segregated busways this would reduce or remove some of these barriers. Segregation would also give the services priority, capitalising on the cultural value of high-technology public transport, and increasing appeal relative to the private car. Such an approach would be particularly relevant for new development areas where segregation would be relatively easy to achieve.
1 The Case for Automated Urban Buses
1.1 Public Transport Technologies for Sustainable Development
That development should be ‘transit oriented’, relatively dense, diverse in its mix to create different kinds of travel opportunity, and designed to be attractive for active travel and public transport use, is one of the established principles of urban planning [1]. Similarly, investment in high-technology public transport schemes such as Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Guided Busways has been widely considered as a driver of urban regeneration processes [2, 3]. As well as providing a form of public transport which is seen to be more effective in attracting users from cars [4], ‘centrepiece’ public transport schemes can offer an aesthetical and cultural significance for the public that is not always sufficiently valued by ‘rationalist’ planners [5]. Indeed, there are circumstances in which aesthetic, marketing and imagery bear great importance; failure to factor them into transport planning decisions can lead to poor outcomes [6].
LRT has been particularly valued by urban practitioners as a means to modernise and rejuvenate decayed spaces [2], within a wider strategy aimed at building competitive world-class cities [7]. LRT has been presented as a clean, sustainable and modern means of transport, and sometimes contrasted with buses against these attributes [2, 8]. Busways and guided bus technology also have strong proponents, though. It is argued they offer the potential to deliver similar benefits to LRT for a much lower capital cost. They are also identified as being quicker to deliver and more flexible over time. However, it has also been argued that they may be less attractive to passengers than rail systems and lack their strong contribution to a city’s image [4].
Anzeige
Into this context emerges the potential for automated vehicles (AVs), operating either on segregated busways or on roads shared with general traffic. The AV entails a complex technology that might also shape urban imageries. However, interest is also driven by the potential for a significant reduction in operating costs if drivers are not required, potentially facilitating a higher level of service and/or lower fares.
Fig. 1.
Concept for Autonomous Public Transport Services in Didcot Garden Town. (Basemap source: Google Maps™)
An example of a stakeholder community attracted by the potential of AV buses was that for ‘Didcot Garden Town’ [9], a spatial-economic planning strategy to increase the population of Didcot, UK from 30,000 to 45,000 and add 20,000 jobs. The vision was to create a sustainable science and technology city incorporating the existing internationally-renowned research facilities at Harwell and Culham and the technology business cluster at Milton Park (Fig. 1). A sustainable transport system to underpin transit-oriented development was seen as essential. The Garden Line (shown in blue) was proposed as a segregated route for active travel and AVs. Another to Milton Park (shown in orange) would involve AVs using existing roads.
During MultiCAV the orange route became the basis of a trial of an automated bus (AB) service. The remainder of the paper considers the experiences of the project which delivered that trial, in terms of lessons learned for the operating team and user reactions.
2 Experiences from the MultiCAV Project
2.1 Automated Public Transport at Didcot, UK
There have been many trials globally of automated small-capacity ‘shuttle’ or ‘pod’ vehicles, with novel forms of passenger compartment, and speeds limited to 20–25 km/h. Such vehicles do not meet the crash test performance, operating capabilities, or capacity of the typical urban bus. Few automation projects have sought to adapt existing road-going buses. A demonstration in Malaga (Spain) deployed a 60-seat electric AB on a 5 km route, operating at 11 km/h [10]. The CAVForth project operated a diesel-powered AB service using 43-seat buses on a 15 km route mainly on extra-urban highways near Edinburgh (UK) [11].
Anzeige
MultiCAV [12] in Didcot deployed an automated electric Mellor minibus. The service carried members of the public over a period of seven weeks on a 5 km route between Milton Park Business Park and Didcot railway station (Fig. 2). The AB operated at up to 65 km/h in mixed traffic, sharing roadspace with pedestrians, cyclists, cars, vans, other buses and heavy goods vehicles. The general-purpose roads included features such as traffic light control and roundabouts. Fares could not be charged. Passengers were requested to wear safety belts (not a normal feature of urban buses in the UK) and no standing was allowed. In other respects (timetables, stops, integration with digital travel information) the project delivered an AB within a typical urban bus service.
Fig. 2.
Route of Autonomous Bus Trial Service in Didcot. (Basemap source: Google Maps™)
In line with UK Government AV trial guidelines, and to provide a human interface with the passengers, a human operator was present in the driving seat, ready to take control. The operators were briefed to give primary consideration to safety, but also the passenger experience, so interventions were also made to ensure the journey was not delayed, or to avoid AV behaviours that, whilst still safe, might lead to discomfort. A sign reading ‘AUTO’ was illuminated in the passenger cabin to indicate when the bus was operating under automation.
The authors undertook evaluative research with the following objectives:
To evaluate user (and non-user) perceptions and experiences of the electric AB,
To examine the experiences of safety operatives,
To understand limits to AV technology readiness,
To consider potential future applications.
2.2 Study Methods
Table 1 provides a summary of how the research engaged with different participants. The research was conducted following UWE Bristol ethical approval (references FET.19.10.014 and FET-2122–96).
Table 1.
MultiCAV social research activities.
Target study population
Data collection approach
Potential users
Surveys of Milton Park employees at different times 2020–2023
Actual users
On-board self-completed survey of experiences during travel
Actual users
Post-journey interviews to deepen understanding
Safety operatives (drivers)
Interviews following weeks of in-cab experience
AB service delivery team
‘Learning journey’ interviews near beginning and end of project
AB service delivery team
Workshop enabling the comparison of professional experiences
2.3 Principal Findings
Prior to the AB service, a survey of Milton Park employees (n = 863) found 74% agreed that “I would be happy using an AV if there was an operator onboard”. However, this dropped to 45% if the same question was posed but in the absence of an operator.
During operation, a survey of AB users (n = 119) identified 90% to be daily or frequent bus users, mainly commuters. A similar number indicated their alternative travel option would have been a bus. Just 13% reported using the service “just to try” the AB.
Apart from the finding that 72% found the electric bus quieter than their normal diesel bus experience, the performance of the bus in terms of smoothness when driving was not seen as different overall: about half of users rated it about the same, the other half were split as to whether it was smoother or “jerkier”. Regarding safety, over 90% agreed that they felt safe on the AB “because there was a human operator on board”. More users reported feeling safe when the bus was travelling at low speed (88%) compared with high speed (72%).
Users were asked to rate the AB’s driving performance compared with a human driver for five different journey events. Figure 3 shows that for all events most respondents thought the performance was similar. For those that recorded a difference, in all cases except “approaching and leaving junctions” the AB was rated more highly.
Fig. 3.
Ratings of autonomous driving compared to human driving for five journey events.
The findings from the qualitative interviews with users showed strong positive attributions towards the new technology, but also a sense that “it was just another bus”. There was also some disappointment that the safety operative had to intervene to manage unexpected events, such as temporary roadworks, or particularly challenging situations, such as joining a roundabout in busy but high-speed traffic. In addition, an explanation for the lower ratings of AB performance at junctions was revealed: the bus could be seen to be over-cautious compared with the typical human driver; the latter being more willing to take calculated risks.
The safety operatives were a team of six bus drivers seconded from their normal duties in a busy urban environment on the western fringe of London. They reported a high level of satisfaction with the training they had received to convert to operating the electric AB. After some initial apprehension due to the novelty of the task, they had found the experience to be positive and enjoyable. They also reported their confidence in the autonomous system grew, due to three factors: their longer exposure, a perception that the technology had improved during the trial (driving more like a human and requiring fewer interventions), and that their interactions with the technicians had increased their own understanding and lead to adjustments in system operation.
3 Relevance of MultiCAV Experiences to Future Applications
Within a user community relatively engaged with new technologies, MultiCAV demonstrated that an AB can be experienced as overall equivalent to a human-driven service. Indeed, the familiar nature of the vehicle meant that the generation of positive ‘futurist’ associations was limited. Nonetheless, there was an expectation for a human operative to be onboard, although the overall positive evaluations also provide some support for potential future unstaffed operation. The ‘caveat’ is that significant barriers remain to be overcome. The technology at the time of study was not fully mature. Operator interventions were necessary to overcome issues with the ‘machine-readability’ of the environment [13], such as wind-blown vegetation impinging on the carriageway. Whilst the AB was capable of all necessary manoeuvres, being able to perform them on roads where some humans do not drive to the highway code remains a constraint.
A further constraint for ABs is that the bus driver performs functions other than driving. In the UK these include a legal responsibility to ensure the safe travel of mobility-impaired passengers. A solution such as bookable human assistance or a ‘carebot’ could be necessary to ensure all passengers can board, travel, and alight AB services.
Interviews with the experts who delivered the AB service confirmed the view that it would be easier in the short term to overcome the issues relating to on-road interactions through the use of segregated busways. Segregation will also ensure that ABs are not delayed by traffic congestion, which will otherwise remain as a deterrent to bus use. With the right image and branding, the combination of high technology and priority also offers the potential for the high cultural attributions discussed in the introduction; conditions important for attracting new passengers to public transport from private cars.
ABs on segregated carriageways present an intermediate investment option with the potential for high levels of service and low operating costs without the high cost of providing mechanical guidance. Given the difficulty of delivering segregated alignments in the existing built environment, they offer a particularly relevant solution for new-build developments. A hybrid solution would be for ABs to be unstaffed on busways where they can be provided, but as they enter urban areas where road conditions are more complex and segregated alignments unavailable, for a safety operator to join.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.
Cervero, R., Kockelman, K.: Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 2(3), 199–219 (1997)CrossRef
2.
Ferbrache, F., Knowles, R.D.: City boosterism and place-making with light rail transit: a critical review of light rail impacts on city image and quality. Geoforum 80, 103–113 (2017)CrossRef
3.
Knowles, R.D., Ferbrache, F., Nikitas, A.: Transport’s historical, contemporary and future role in shaping urban development. Cities 99, 102607 (2020)CrossRef
4.
Commission for Integrated Transport: Affordable mass transit. CfIT, London (2005)
5.
Harvey, D.: The Condition of Postmodernity, 1st edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (1991)
6.
Graham, S.: Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Routledge, London (2002)CrossRef
7.
Olesen, K.: Infrastructure imaginaries: the politics of light rail projects in the age of neoliberalism. Urban Stud. 57(9), 1811–1826 (2020)CrossRef
8.
Beier, R.: The world-class city comes by tramway: reframing Casablanca’s urban peripheries through public transport. Urban Stud. 57(9), 1827–1844 (2020)CrossRef
9.
South Oxfordshire District Council: Didcot garden town delivery plan. Abingdon (2017)
10.
Ariza-Álvarez, A., López-Lambas, M.E., Soria-Lara, J.A.: Analysing the acceptance of autonomous buses in real-life traffic environments: pilot project with tourists in Malaga Spain. Transp. Plann. Technol. 46(1), 71–92 (2023)CrossRef
