Impacts of Unattended Train Operations on Productivity and Efficiency in Metropolitan Railways

Urban metro subway systems (metros) around the world are choosing increasing levels of automation for new and existing lines: the global length of metro lines capable of unattended train operation (UTO) is predicted to triple in the next 10 years. Despite significant investment in this technology, empirical evidence for the financial and service quality impacts of UTO in metros remains scarce. This study used questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with the Community of Metros and Nova Group benchmarking groups to assemble emerging evidence of how automation affected costs, staffing, service capacity, and reliability. The results from an analysis of data from 23 lines suggested that UTO could reduce staff numbers by 30% to 70%, with the amount of wage cost reduction depending on whether staff on UTO lines were paid more. On the basis of the experience of seven metros, the capital costs of lines capable of UTO were higher, but the internal rate of return had been estimated by two metros at 10% to 15%. Automated lines were capable of operating at the highest service frequencies of up to 42 trains per hour, and the limited available data suggested that automated lines were more reliable. The findings indicated that UTO was a means to a more flexible and reliable operating model that could increase metro productivity and efficiency. The study identified important work needed to understand the impacts of UTO and identify where statistical analyses would add value once sufficiently large data sets became available.

[1]  Paula Savioja,et al.  Hidden roles of the train driver: A challenge for metro automation , 2011, Interact. Comput..

[2]  G. R. J. Hockey,et al.  The railway as a socio-technical system: Human factors at the heart of successful rail engineering , 2007 .

[3]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  Variability in Comparable Performance of Urban Bus Operations , 2009 .

[4]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  The determinants of efficiency and productivity in European railways , 2009 .

[5]  Richard J. Anderson,et al.  An international comparison of urban rail boarding and alighting rates , 2007 .

[6]  Álvaro Costa,et al.  PUBLIC TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS: METRO DE MADRID. , 1998 .

[7]  Richard J. Anderson,et al.  Passenger -Focused Management Approach to Measurement of Train Delay Impacts , 2013 .

[8]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  Improving Fares and Funding Policies to Support Sustainable Metros , 2012 .

[9]  Yap Kwee Seng,et al.  1.1.1 Automated Metro – Ensuring Safety and Reliability with Minimum Human Intervention , 2009 .

[10]  Jeremy Shires,et al.  Impact of Delays on Passenger Train Services , 2009 .

[11]  J. Preston,et al.  The demand for public transport: The effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership , 2006 .

[12]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  Metro Station Operating Costs: An Econometric Analysis , 2007 .

[13]  Rui Cunha Marques,et al.  Efficiency of the Portuguese metros. is it different from other European metros , 2010 .

[14]  Constanti Serrallonga New Staffing Model Captures the Benefits of an Automated Network , 2006 .

[15]  John D. Nelson,et al.  The Benchmarking Handbook , 2000 .

[16]  Richard J. Anderson,et al.  A Dynamic Panel Analysis of Urban Metro Demand , 2009 .

[17]  Timothy Coelli,et al.  An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis , 1997 .

[18]  T. Litman Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements , 2008 .

[19]  Daniel J. Graham,et al.  Determinants of Delay Incident Occurrence in Urban Metros , 2011 .