Contributors |
|
xiii | |
|
|
1 | (16) |
|
1.1 CityMobil2 an EC Funded Project |
|
|
2 | (7) |
|
Patrick Mercier-Handisyde |
|
|
1.1.1 The Project and Its Selection |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
1.1.2 A Flexible Description of Work and Resource Allocation |
|
|
2 | (2) |
|
1.1.3 The Selection of the ARTS Providers |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
1.1.4 The Organisation of the Demonstrations and the Other Project Work |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
1.1.5 The Selection of the Demonstration Cities and Sites |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
1.1.6 The CityMobil2 Key Successes |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
|
8 | (1) |
|
1.2 ARTS---Automated Road Transport Systems |
|
|
9 | (8) |
|
|
|
1.2.1 Introduction to Road Automation |
|
|
9 | (2) |
|
1.2.2 Commonalities and Differences Between ARTS and Autonomous Vehicles |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
1.2.4 The Last Mile ARTS Demonstrated in CityMobil2 |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
1.2.5 The Future of ARTS Integrated With All Transport Modes in Cities and Out |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
2 ARTS for Last-Mile Transport Designing and Integrating in Cities |
|
|
17 | (64) |
|
2.1 Dimensioning ARTS for Last Mile Transport |
|
|
19 | (9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 The Procedure to Dimension an ARTS for Last Mile Transport |
|
|
19 | (7) |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
2.2 Determining ARTS Speed Profiles on the Basis of Infrastructures |
|
|
28 | (15) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2.1 ARTS Maximum Allowed Speeds: How to Establish Them? |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
2.2.2 Possible Hazards on the ARTS Lanes |
|
|
29 | (2) |
|
2.2.3 ARTS Maximum Allowed Speeds for the Most Dangerous Hazard Configuration |
|
|
31 | (7) |
|
2.2.4 The Methodology Application to the Trikala Site in Greece |
|
|
38 | (3) |
|
|
41 | (2) |
|
2.3 Integrating ARTS in Existing Urban Infrastructures: The General Principles |
|
|
43 | (18) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
2.3.2 Selection of the Network Portion to Integrate ARTS: General Principles |
|
|
44 | (6) |
|
2.3.3 Examples of Integration on Arterial Roads, Urban Streets, Collector Streets |
|
|
50 | (5) |
|
2.3.4 Examples of Real Urban Integration From Japan and Holland |
|
|
55 | (2) |
|
2.3.5 General Approach for the Intersections |
|
|
57 | (3) |
|
|
60 | (1) |
|
2.4 Integrating ARTS on Signalised and Nonsignalised Intersections for Safety Maximisation and Comparison With Conventional Car Safety Assessment |
|
|
61 | (20) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
61 | (4) |
|
2.4.2 ROAD Safety Assessment and Typical Risk Factors of Signalised and Nonsignalised Intersections |
|
|
65 | (3) |
|
2.4.3 ARTS Insertion Schemes in Nonsignalised Intersections |
|
|
68 | (4) |
|
2.4.4 ARTS Insertion Schemes in Signalised Intersections |
|
|
72 | (5) |
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
2.4.6 Conclusions and Perspectives |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
3 Evaluation of Automated Road Transport Systems in Cities |
|
|
81 | (128) |
|
3.1 The CityMobil2 Evaluation Framework |
|
|
84 | (24) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
3.1.2 The Methodology Adopted for ARTS Evaluation |
|
|
85 | (2) |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
3.1.4 First Assessment of Users' Attitude Towards Automation |
|
|
88 | (9) |
|
3.1.5 Monitoring Vehicle and System Performance |
|
|
97 | (1) |
|
3.1.6 Understanding Attitudes and Behaviours of Users and Other Stakeholders |
|
|
98 | (6) |
|
3.1.7 Determining Impacts of Those in Contact With the Vehicles/Systems |
|
|
104 | (1) |
|
3.1.8 Economic and Financial Implications |
|
|
105 | (1) |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
3.2 Evaluating ARTS in La Rochelle |
|
|
108 | (17) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
108 | (6) |
|
3.2.2 The CityMobil2 Demonstration |
|
|
114 | (4) |
|
3.2.3 ARTS Operation and Evaluation |
|
|
118 | (3) |
|
|
121 | (1) |
|
3.2.5 Conclusions and Future Plans in the City |
|
|
122 | (2) |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
3.3 Evaluating ARTS in Trikala |
|
|
125 | (14) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 | (1) |
|
3.3.2 Demonstration Design and Preparatory Actions |
|
|
126 | (5) |
|
|
131 | (4) |
|
3.3.4 Discussion and Lessons Learnt |
|
|
135 | (2) |
|
|
137 | (2) |
|
3.4 Evaluating ARTS in Lausanne |
|
|
139 | (22) |
|
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
3.4.2 Overview of the Demonstration |
|
|
139 | (3) |
|
|
142 | (17) |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
3.5 Evaluating ARTS in Oristano |
|
|
161 | (14) |
|
|
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
|
161 | (2) |
|
3.5.3 The CityMobil2 Demonstration |
|
|
163 | (5) |
|
3.5.4 ARTS Operation and Evaluation |
|
|
168 | (5) |
|
3.5.5 Conclusions and Future Plans of the City |
|
|
173 | (1) |
|
|
173 | (2) |
|
3.6 Evaluating ARTS in Vantaa |
|
|
175 | (15) |
|
|
|
175 | (1) |
|
|
176 | (1) |
|
3.6.3 The CityMobil2 Demonstration |
|
|
177 | (5) |
|
3.6.4 ARTS Operation and Evaluation |
|
|
182 | (6) |
|
3.6.5 Conclusions and Future Plans in the City |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
|
189 | (1) |
|
3.7 Evaluating ARTS in San Sebastian |
|
|
190 | (19) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
|
191 | (3) |
|
3.7.3 The CityMobil2 Demonstration |
|
|
194 | (3) |
|
3.7.4 ARTS Operation and Evaluation |
|
|
197 | (5) |
|
|
202 | (3) |
|
3.7.6 Conclusions and Future Plans in the City |
|
|
205 | (1) |
|
|
206 | (1) |
|
|
206 | (3) |
|
4 Lessons Learnt From Cross Comparing City Applications |
|
|
209 | (56) |
|
4.1 Assessing User Behaviour Around ARTS |
|
|
210 | (7) |
|
|
4.1.1 Some Ideas From the Car-Making Industry |
|
|
210 | (1) |
|
4.1.2 CityMobil2 Measuring Other People Behaviour |
|
|
210 | (2) |
|
4.1.3 CityMobil2 Interviews With Users |
|
|
212 | (3) |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
|
216 | (1) |
|
4.2 Assessing Automation Impact on Transport Demand |
|
|
217 | (17) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
217 | (1) |
|
|
217 | (6) |
|
|
223 | (8) |
|
|
231 | (1) |
|
|
232 | (1) |
|
|
232 | (2) |
|
4.3 User Acceptance and Socio-Economic Evaluation |
|
|
234 | (31) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
234 | (1) |
|
4.3.2 Objectives of the Evaluation |
|
|
234 | (1) |
|
4.3.3 Methods Used for the Evaluation |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
4.3.4 Cities Involved in the Evaluation |
|
|
235 | (1) |
|
4.3.5 User Acceptance Evaluation of the CityMobil2 Demonstrations |
|
|
235 | (6) |
|
4.3.6 Effects of Socio-Economic Characteristics on Some User Evaluation Survey Indicators |
|
|
241 | (17) |
|
|
258 | (6) |
|
|
264 | (1) |
|
5 ARTS Certification and Legal Framework |
|
|
265 | (30) |
|
5.1 The Certification Approach for ARTS |
|
|
266 | (7) |
|
|
|
|
|
266 | (1) |
|
5.1.2 Risk-Assessment Procedure |
|
|
266 | (1) |
|
5.1.3 Threats Identification and Selection of Mitigation Measures |
|
|
267 | (2) |
|
5.1.4 FMECA and System Verification |
|
|
269 | (1) |
|
5.1.5 Verification of Operations |
|
|
270 | (1) |
|
|
271 | (1) |
|
|
271 | (1) |
|
|
271 | (2) |
|
5.2 Existing Legal Barriers and the Proposed CityMobil2 Approach |
|
|
273 | (6) |
|
|
5.2.1 The Legal Problem for Automated Vehicles |
|
|
273 | (1) |
|
5.2.2 The CityMobil2 Approach |
|
|
273 | (1) |
|
5.2.3 Characteristics of the Proposed Harmonisation Directive |
|
|
274 | (1) |
|
5.2.4 How to Make of This Proposed Approach the Certification Procedure for Autonomous Vehicles Too |
|
|
275 | (1) |
|
5.2.5 One Example of Application to Autonomous Vehicles |
|
|
275 | (2) |
|
|
277 | (1) |
|
|
278 | (1) |
|
|
278 | (1) |
|
5.3 The Greek New Legal Framework |
|
|
279 | (16) |
|
|
|
|
|
279 | (2) |
|
|
281 | (2) |
|
5.3.3 The Greek Legal Pathway |
|
|
283 | (5) |
|
5.3.4 How it Has Worked in Practice? |
|
|
288 | (3) |
|
5.3.5 Conclusions and Discussion |
|
|
291 | (1) |
|
|
292 | (3) |
|
6 CityMobil2 Impacts Seen from Outside |
|
|
295 | (16) |
|
6.1 Successes and Shortcomings of the CityMobil2 Project as Seen From the Project Advisory Panel |
|
|
296 | (10) |
|
|
|
|
|
296 | (1) |
|
6.1.2 Successes and Shortcomings in Meeting These Goals |
|
|
297 | (9) |
|
6.2 Reviewing CityMobil2 for the European Commission |
|
|
306 | (5) |
|
|
6.2.1 The 12 Years CityMobil Experience as Independent Evaluator and Reviewer |
|
|
306 | (5) |
Index |
|
311 | |