CityMobil2: Challenges and Opportunities of Fully Automated Mobility

  • Adriano AlessandriniEmail author
  • Alessio Cattivera
  • Carlos Holguin
  • Daniele Stam
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


The main benefits of road automation will be obtained when cars will drive themselves with or without passengers on-board and on any kind of roads, especially in urban areas. This will allow the creation of new transport services—forms of shared mobility, which will enable seamless mobility from door to door without the need of owning a vehicle. To enable this vision, vehicles will not just need to become “autonomous” when automated; they will need to become part of an Automated Road Transport System (ARTS). The CityMobil2 EC project mission is progressing toward this vision defining and demonstrating the legal and technical frameworks necessary to enable ARTS on the roads. After a thorough revision of the literature which allows us to state that automation will perform its best when it will be full-automation and vehicles will be allowed to circulate in urban environments, the paper identifies where these transport systems perform their best, with medium size vehicle as on-demand transport services feeding conventional mass transits in the suburbs of large cities, on radial corridors as complementary mass transits with large busses and platoons of them and as main public transport for small cities with personal vehicles; then defines the infrastructural requirements to insert safely automated vehicles and transport systems in urban areas. Finally it defines the vehicle technical requirements to do so.


ARTS Automated vehicle Road users Infrastructure Safety 


  1. 1.
    Marshall JW (2013) NHTSA role in the future of automated vehicles. Paper presentation given Monday, 15 July 2013 at the 2013 AAMVA region I conference in Dover, DE.
  2. 2.
    SAE (2013) On-road automated vehicle standards committee open meeting, handout: definitions and levels of automation. TRB’s 2nd annual workshop on road vehicle automation, 15–19 July 2013, Stanford University. Available on-line at:
  3. 3.
    Piao J, McDonald M (2008) Advanced driver assistance systems from autonomous to cooperative approach. Transp Rev: Transnational Transdisciplinary J 28(5):659–684. doi: 10.1080/01441640801987825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stanton NA, Young MS (1998) Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics 41(7):1014–1028. doi: 10.1080/001401398186568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stanton NA, Young MS, Walker GH, Turner H, Randle S (2001) Automating the driver’s control tasks. Int J Cogn Ergon 5(3):221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Young MS, Stanton NA (2007) Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Ergonomics 50(1):46–58. doi: 10.1080/00140130600980789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young MS, Stanton NA (2007) What’s skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload. Ergonomics 50(8):1324–1339. doi: 10.1080/00140130701318855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vander Werf J, Shladover SE, Miller MA, Kourjanskaia N (2002) Effects of adaptive cruise control systems on highway traffic flow capacity. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 1800(1)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith BW (2012) Automated vehicles are probably legal in the United States. The Center for Internet and Society, Stanford, 1 Nov 2012Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Psaraki V, Pagoni I, Schafer A (2012) Techno-economic assessment of the potential of intelligent transport systems to reduce CO2 emissions. IET Intell Transp Syst 6(4):355–363Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klunder GA, Malone K, Mak J et al (2009) Impact of information and communication technologies on energy efficiency in road transport—final report. TNO report for the European Commission, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsugawa S, Kato S (2010) Energy ITS: another application of vehicular communications. IEEE Commun Mag 48:120–126Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davila A (2013) Report on fuel consumption. Deliverable 4.3 of SARTRE European Project, 15 Jan 2013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cottrel WD, Mikosza O (2008) New-generation personal rapid transit technologies: overview and comparison. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2042:101–108 cat. Public TransportationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benmimoun A, Lowson M, Marques A, Giustiniani G, Parent M (2009) Demonstration of advanced transport applications in CityMobil project. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2110:9–17 cat. Public TransportationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parent M (2006) New technologies for sustainable urban transportation in Europe. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 1986:78–80 cat. Public TransportationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alessandrini A, Parent M, Holguin C (2008) Advanced city cars, PRT and cybercars, new forms of urban transportation. In: Proceedings of the transport research arena (TRA) Europe Conference, Ljubljana, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parent M (2009) Cybercars: new technologies for sustainable transport. In: Proceedings of the Transport Research Board conference, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Filippi F, Alessandrini A, Stam D, Chanard T, Janse M (2004) Final evaluation report. Deliverable D6.3, CyberMove EU Project. CityMobil project website:
  20. 20.
    CITYMOBIL CONSORTIUM (2006) CityMobil evaluation framework. Deliverable D5.1.1 of CityMobil projectGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    CITYMOBIL CONSORTIUM (2010) Field trial B ex-ante evaluation report. Deliverable D5.2.1b of CityMobil projectGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    CITYMOBIL CONSORTIUM (2010) Evaluation report for the ex-ante study. Deliverable D5.3.1b of CityMobil projectGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    CityMobil2 project website:
  24. 24.
    Koymans A, Llimao S (2013) Functional specifications of vehicles and related services. Deliverable 15.1 of the EC FP5 project CityMobil2Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pace JF et al (2012) Basic fact sheet “urban areas”. Deliverable D3.9 of the EC FP7 project DaCoTaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    NHTSA (2012) Traffic safety facts, 2010 data—pedestrians. DOT HS 811 625, Washington DC. Available online:
  27. 27.
    Pace JF et al (2011) Traffic safety basic facts “pedestrians”. EC FP7 project DaCoTaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Naumann R, Beck L (2013) Motor vehicle traffic-related pedestrian deaths—United States, 2001–2010, Centers for Disease Control and prevention. MMWR 62(15):277–282Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Dijke JP et al (2004) Safe sites and systems. Deliverable 3.2 of the EC FP5 project CyberMoveGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giustiniani G, Buccino NM et al (2011) Certification of the CTS. Deliverable of the EC FP6 project CityMobil, p 9Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang S, Yang J, Eklund F (2008) Evaluation of remote pedestrian sensor system based on the analysis of car-pedestrian accident scenarios. Saf Sci 46(9):1345–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Habibovic A, Davidsson J (2011) Requirements of a system to reduce car-to-vulnerable road user crashes in urban intersections. Accid Anal Prev 43(4):1570–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gandhi T, Trivedi MM (2007) Pedestrian protection systems: issues, survey and challenges. IEEE Trans Int Transp Syst 8(3):413–430Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bly P, Lowson MV (2010) Deliverable of the EC FP6 project CityMobilGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriano Alessandrini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alessio Cattivera
    • 1
  • Carlos Holguin
    • 1
  • Daniele Stam
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Transport and Logistics (CTL)Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations