The Evolution of APM systems to ATN systems Using Driverless Car Technology

1. The Evolution of APM systems to ATN systems Using Driverless Car Technology

2. The Evolution of APM systems to Automated Transit Network systems Using Driverless Car Technology J. Sam Lott, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Session – October 24, 2013 Emerging Transportation Technologies – R&D Podcar City 7 Conference Innovations in Public Transportation

3. Premise Automated / Connected Roadway Vehicle (AV/CV) Automated Transit Networks (ATN) Automated People Mover (APM) The complexity of our densest urban environments will produce a need to blend automated technologies. The best solutions may come from the following equation:

4. Topics • Evolution of Fully Automated Guideway Transit Systems • APM/ATS Standards and Safety Requirements • Evolution of Automated / Connected Roadway Vehicles • Next Phase of Evolution – Automated Transit Networks

5. Evolution of Fully Automated Guideway Transit Systems

6. Evolution of Fully Automated Guideway Transit Automated People Mover Systems – 50 Years of History Miami Metromover

7. Evolution of Fully Automated Guideway Transit Automated Metro Systems – 25 Years of History Singapore Metro

8. Evolution of Automated Transit Network Technologies Uppsala, Sweden Masdar City, Abu Dhabi London Heathrow Airport Automated Transit Networks – 15 Years of History

9. APM/ATS Standards and Safety Requirements

10. ASCE–21 APM Stds. Technology Spectrum Miami Metromover – Downtown District Circulator Masdar City – Urban District Circulator Toronto Pearson Intl. Airport – District Circulator New York JFK AirTrain – Rail Station to Airport Connector

11. ASCE 21 Provisions for ATN Technology “I feel that the Ultra design has been better because of our utilization of the APM standards.  I have also found that the committee is prepared to be respond effectively to issues bought to their attention.  An example is off-line stations, which are a feature of PRT systems, butare nota feature in conventional APMs.” Seated and Standing Distinctions in Acceleration and Deceleration Rates Off-Line Station Train Control Functional Requirements Martin Lowson Presentation at 2013 APM Conference:

12. IEC Automated Urban Guided Transport Safety Requirements – IEC 62267 • International committee worked for 8 years to create 62267 • Defined by Metro Systems with: • Driverless Train Operations (DTO) • Unmanned Train Operations (UTO) • Automated Metro systems are now the norm in Europe and Asia for regional scale transit applications • Other IEC standards describe the functional requirements of the Command and Control System

13. Paris Metro – First Application of IEC Safety Standard • Process started to convert old lines to unmanned fully automated operation • Line 1 conversion has occurred while in service • 750,000 riders a day • Retrofit of full ATC • Platform edge doors Grand Paris Express is a planned network of new lines that will ring Paris – all 200 kilometers will be fully automated. Source: RATP, Bruno Marguerite

14. IEC Technical Report 62267-2 Hazard Analysis at Top System Level International Task Force worked for 5 years to create this Technical Report Companion Document to AUGT Safety Requirements IEC 62267 Representation on Task Force: Large Metros, Equipment Suppliers, and Consultants Purpose: Understanding of Safety Issues Under Full Automation (Unmanned Train Operations)

15. Evolution of Automated/Connected Roadway Vehicles

16. Evolution of Automated / Connected Roadway VehiclesRobotic Vehicle Systems • Système de guidage optique : Le système CIVIS : Rouen, Clermont-Ferrand, Las Végas

17. Evolution of Automated / Connected Roadway Vehicles Robotic Vehicle Systems 2 Get There Personal Rapid Transit ULTra Personal Rapid Transit

18. Evolution of Automated / Connected Roadway Vehicles Robotic Vehicle Systems Toyota demonstrated an automated vehicle system during a 6 month period at the 2005 Aichi World Expo. Toyota IMTS – Intelligent Multimodal Transit System

19. Toyota Engineers Reported on the Success of the 2005 Demonstration at the 2007 APM Conference • Line-Haul Operations with Off-Line Stations • Platoons of 2 and 3 Automated Buses with Automated “Coupling” and “Decoupling” While in Motion • Operating Fleet: 13 vehicles • 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Daily Operation for 185 Days • Headways: Fixed Schedule • 7 min. Peak • 10 min. Off-Peak • Manual Operation Over Portion of a Branching Route • Transported Over 2 Million Passengers.

21. Evolution of Automated / Connected Roadway Vehicles Robotic Vehicle Systems Google Automated Vehicle Demonstration July 2013 TRB Automated Roadway Vehicle Workshop at Stanford University

22. Fully Automated Roadway Vehicles Will Be On the Market By 2020

23. Commercial Vehicle Platooning With a Single Driver is in Active Prototype Demonstration

24. Next Phase of Evolution – Automated Transit Network

25. Proposal Made at the TRB 2013 Stanford Workshop on Road Vehicle Automation • IEC Technical Report 62267-2 Hazard Analysis at Top System Level Provides a Starting Point • ATS/APM Consensus Standards Provide a Model for AV Safety Requirements • Proposed Approach Follows a Phased Process for Applying the Hazard Analysis • Perform APM/ATS Standards Review • Create Industry HA Framework for AV/CV Technology to Transit & Controlled Environments • Evolve HA Framework for Application to Autonomous Vehicles in Mixed Flow

26. Evolution of Automated Transit Networks to Automated Transit Vehicle Applications • Toyota IMTS Provides a Glimpse of the Future World of Transit Service • Supervisory Control/ Automated Dispatch System Provides: • Continuous Optimization of Fixed Route Service Routes within the Highest Activity Parts of the Network • Demand Response Service to Meet Dynamic Ridership In Lowest Activity Parts of the Network

27. Evolution of Automated Transit Networks to Automated Transit Vehicle Applications • Automated Roadway Vehicles (i.e., Robotic Vehicles) Allow a Transitway System Without Track/Switches • Portions of Transitway Can Be Grade Separated and Portions At-Grade With Limited Automotive Traffic Interactions • Off-Line Stations Allow: • Direct Origin to Destination Service • Highest Demand Patterns Efficiently Served by a Corresponding Portion of the Operating Fleet • Maximum Passenger Carrying Efficiency for each Seat-Mile of Vehicle Service

28. Evolving APM systems to ATN systems Using Driverless Car Technology J. Sam Lott, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Session – October 24, 2013 Emerging Transportation Technologies – R&D

29. Technical Paper at 2005 APM Conference:Optimizing AGT Applications Through Demand-Responsive Control Systems J. Sam Lott Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Eugene Nishinaga Bay Area Rapid Transit District

30. What’s the Point? Premise: Supervisory Control Systems with demand-responsive capability, when combined with a hybrid operation of direct station to station dispatch and conventional service, allow more cost effective systems to be built and operated, while providing passengers with a higher level of service. Benefits of the Hybrid Approach • Off-line stations allow more frequent passage of smaller, independent vehicles on the main line • Smaller vehicles lower the civil construction cost through reduced size of guideway/stations

31. Benefits of the Hybrid Approach (cont.) • Hybrid operations provide service levels competitive with conventional mass transit • Direct-to-destination service reduces passenger travel time and reduces empty vehicle (non-revenue) seat-miles • Flexibility of hybrid operations allows efficiency to be optimized between demand responsive and conventional modes

32. Conclusions • Hybrid Operations have the potential to reduce vehicle size and associated costs, increase revenue per seat-mile, and improve passenger service by the combination of: • Demand Responsive/Direct to Destination Operations • Conventional Fixed Route Operations • Hybrid Operations could radically change our concept of what constitutes high-capacity transit

33. A Generic Framework for Hazard ANALYSIS of Automated Vehicles in Transit Service –Proposed TRB, Federal Agency and ITS / Automotive Industry Collaboration J. Sam Lott, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Shared Mobility and Transit Breakout Session TRB Second Annual Workshop on Road Vehicle Automation

34. Generic Hazard Assessment Performed as an Element of IEC Standard Process • Task Force Formed Under WG 39 and 45 to Develop an International Consensus on: • Hazards of Fully Automated DTO and UTO Operations • Appropriate Functional Safeguards to Mitigate Hazards • Series of Meetings Built Progressive Consensus: • Format and Terminology • Hazard Identification and Categorization • Generic Safeguards to Mitigate Hazards • IEC Technical Report Established a Framework for Generic Hazard Analysis of AUGT/APM Design • Full Risk Analysis Still Required for Each Project

35. Structure of IEC Hazard Analysis Table • Ensuring safe movement of trains • Safe route • Safe separation of trains • Safe speed • Safe accelerations/braking • Supervising guideway / preventing collisions with obstacles • Supervising guideway / preventing collisions with persons • Supervising passenger transfer (at stations) • Door operations • Person between cars or between car and platform • Safe starting conditions • Operating a Train • Putting into service or taking out of service • Supervising the status of a train under UTO • Detection and Management of Emergency Situations

36. Published Report – Hazard Analysis Table Safeguard / Remark / IEC 62267 Ref. Section Number NOTE: Hazards common with those of manually driven/ attended trains were not addressed in the generic HA – i.e., considered “Out of Scope” Hazard / Cause / Trigger / Accident (Effect)

37. Alain’s Instructions Alain’s Initial Invitation August 22ndand September 5th Any chance that you could come over to Washington in October and speak in my session at the Podcar Conference .   A followup to your presentation and comments at Stanford would be ideal for this conference.    Also, you  might be able to comment on ASCE's  APM Standards and how they may help/hinder the evolution of driverless cars as a shared-ride "transit" option. I'm trying to put together a session that bridge the advances in vehicle automation (those advances that lead to the ability to remove the driver from the vehicle and have it operate in mixed (with conventional cars & trucks) traffic on existing streets and highways ) with the provision of shared-ride "transit"(a fleet of vehicles owned and operated by some entity(ies) that offer mobility to the general public.)  Here was a thought I had: "Evolving APMs to ATNs using Driverless car technology" with some emphasis on the "Standards" especially given ASCE's  APM Standards My final response on September Okay, I can run with this topic.  It actually ties into a technical paper I did with Gene Nishinaga for the 2005 APM Conference.  It was called “Optimizing AGT Applications Through Demand-Responsive Control Systems”.  I will use this specific topic that you have recommended, with a minor change to the title if possible – “The Evolution of APM Systems to ATN Systems Using Driverless Car Technology”.   

38. 11.00 Emerging Transportation Technologies – R&D Moderated by Alain Kornhauser, Princeton University A series of projects using self driving cars for new mobility solutions is emerging. How can this technology promote public transportation, and what is the state of art? Dr. Jerome Lutin, Former VP of Research at New Jersey Transit "Opportunities to Leverage Advances in Driverless Car Technology to Evolve Conventional Bus Transit Systems" Dr. Ingmar Andreasson, Logistikcentrum "Synergies Between PRT and Driverless Cars" Dr. Samuel Lott, Kimley Horn "Evolving APMs to ATNs Using Driverless Car Technology" Dr. Adriano Alessandrini, University of Rome, "Evolving Today's Low-speed Driverless Shuttles to Area-wide Transit Service" To Be Named, Mercedes Benz North America "Today's Intelligent Drive Platform and Nearterm Opportunities"