Article
Passenger Acceptability of Teleoperation in Railways
Baris Cogan * , Julia Tandetzki and Birgit Milius
Citation: Cogan, B.; Tandetzki, J.;
Milius, B. Passenger Acceptability of
Teleoperation in Railways. Future
Transp. 2022, 2, 956–969. https://
doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp2040053
Received: 18 October 2022
Accepted: 11 November 2022
Published: 18 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Future Transp. 2022, 2, 956–969. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp2040053
Department of Land and Sea Transport Systems, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135,
10623 Berlin, Germany
* Correspondence: baris.cogan@tu-berlin.de
Abstract: In this survey-based study, passenger awareness and acceptability of potential teleoperation
services in the railway domain were analyzed. The literature on the important factors for the
acceptability of automated transport was reviewed. These factors were adapted to teleoperation in
the railway domain. An online survey was conducted for obtaining passengers’ views on automated
rail transport and the remote control of trains. A choice-based conjoint analysis was conducted
to obtain user preferences regarding a potential teleoperation service. Overall, the teleoperation
system and its capabilities received positive feedback. While increased resilience and reliability of rail
services were identified as potential opportunities for higher acceptance, safety and security concerns
of prospective passengers were highlighted as influencing factors.
Keywords: railways; remote operation; acceptability; conjoint analysis; passengers; teleoperation
1. Introduction
The growth in rail passengers and freight traffic demand is resulting in the need for
improvements in existing railway operations. Automation systems such as those enabling
Automatic Train Operation (ATO) are considered as a solution to this challenge. Driverless
metros are already being implemented in various cities around the world. However,
mainline passengers and freight operations bring different challenges due to being more
prone to external disturbances. Remote control of trains can be a potential application to
increase the resilience of railway operations. Remote operation (or teleoperation) allows
for supervising and controlling automated trains and intervening remotely in case of
disruptions. In the event of a failure, a remote operator can interact with the system
remotely, communicate with other stakeholders—technical and human—and drive the
train remotely.
Before developing and implementing such systems, the requirements and preferences
of prospective users must be analyzed to avoid developing systems which are not ac-
ceptable. Acceptability and acceptance can be distinguished. The former refers to the
potential judgement on acceptance before using the technology and the latter describes the
judgement after using it [1]. Since teleoperation is currently not an alternative transport
option in the railway domain, acceptability is the focus of the presented study.
The paper is structured as follows. Previous research on the acceptance of automated
transport and the determinants of public acceptance are discussed on the basis of a literature
review in Section 2. Section 3 describes the methodology of the analysis. In Section 4, the
survey results of public opinion about automated rail transport and teleoperation are
presented. Subsequently, the results of a choice-based conjoint analysis, which enable us
to investigate future passengers’ preferences for the identified attributes, are presented.
Finally, the most important findings are discussed in Section 5 and concluding remarks are
made in Section 6.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/futuretransp
Future Transp. 2022, 2 957

2. Previous Research
A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the acceptance of auto-
mated vehicles or automated transport systems. Most of these studies are concerned with
driverless cars and road-bound public transport vehicles and shuttles. There are few studies
in the area of autonomous rail transport, with research contributions for teleoperation being
particularly sparse. In the railway domain there are several studies and demonstrations
on teleoperation. These studies have investigated the use of different data transmission
technologies [2], the interaction between the operator and assistance systems [3,4], the op-
erational design of the teleoperation system [5,6], and safety and security risk analyses [7].
A pilot site in the Drive2theFuture project investigates user acceptance of teleoperation
from the operator’s perspective [8]. To our knowledge, there are no studies that investigate
teleoperation in railways from the consumer perspective.
Considering rapidly increasing numbers of driverless systems, high awareness and
acceptance levels of such systems are often reported in the literature. Various studies
recorded high levels of interest in owning Level 4 Autonomous Vehicles (AV) [9], high
levels of willingness to use autonomous public transport in the future [10], and high
acceptance of unattended trains [11]. The latter study reported that autonomous rail-bound
means of transport are preferred to autonomous non-rail-bound means of transport [10].
However, there are several important concerns and challenges regarding the safety and
security of autonomous rail transport [12]. Besides several technical challenges, acceptance
of unattended rail operation on the part of passengers is critical.
Another study identified several acceptance factors in two levels [13], micro-level and
meso-level. Micro-level factors are individual difference factors such as sociodemographic
factors, and meso-level factors are related to the exposure of individuals to AVs, domain-
specific system evaluation, and social influence and moral aspects. Trust in automation
technologies is a strong predictor of AV adoption [14]. Perceived risk is closely related to
trust, safety, and security, and thus would affect people’s acceptance of AVs [15]. A 2019
study reported that the presence and responsibilities of an onboard employee influence
transit users’ initial willingness to ride in driverless buses [16]. A passenger survey showed
that the majority of respondents would prefer to see a driver or a driver cabin in a driverless
train to help users adapt to new systems [17]. Service quality factors such as travel time,
waiting time, and travel cost are important factors for the acceptance of automated transport
services [18]. Prior experience with automated transport systems positively affects user
acceptance [10] and feedback on security and safety [19]. Current technology awareness
was shown to increase the interest in AV adoption and willingness-to-pay [9]. A wider list
of determinants behind the acceptance of automated vehicles can be seen in the review of
Becker and Axhause, 2017 [20].
Since teleoperation in railways is not yet an alternative within the transport sector,
passenger choices cannot be observed yet. Therefore, stated choice-based analysis can
be conducted to obtain user preferences regarding transportation services. Choice-based
conjoint (CBC) analyses are widely used in many areas including transportation [21].
Alternatives within teleoperation can be defined by various attributes and the respective
levels. Conclusions can be drawn about the importance of the individual attributes by
systematically varying these factors in a repeated set of choices.
Maas, 2021 conducted a CBC analysis on various combinations of mobility services in
Dresden by using attributes such as type of public transport passes and extent of use [22].
In another study, choice-based conjoint analysis was performed to understand travelers’
preferences concerning a ridepooling system [23]. According to these results, fare was the
most important service attribute, especially for younger participants. Consumer preferences
for teleoperated robotaxis were investigated using choice-based conjoint analysis [24]. That
analysis revealed that price was the most important attribute, followed by the possibility of
intervention, pilot, and interior monitoring. Some of the attributes used in this study were
adapted to rail transport and applied in the present study.
Future Transp. 2022, 2 958

3. Materials and Methods

An online survey was created for the data collection with the use of identified factors
that have the potential to influence passenger opinion. The survey was prepared in English
and German. Survey questions aimed to encompass these factors for the driverless trains
and teleoperation in railways.
The first part of the survey was concerned with autonomous rail transport in general.
The respondents were queried regarding their views on the quality attributes of rail trans-
port. Information regarding technology awareness and prior experience with automated
vehicles was also collected. Questions on attitude and preference regarding driverless
trains and automated operations were asked. The second part of the questionnaire included
questions regarding teleoperation in railways. Factors that are important for the implemen-
tation of teleoperation were assessed by the participants. At the end of the questionnaire,
sets of options were included for the choice-based analysis.
The respondents were informed about the proposed teleoperation system prior to the
survey questions. The teleoperation service defined in the study was limited to the use
case of a fallback system for driverless trains. According to this use case, railway operation
runs in fully automated mode in regular operation. In cases of a system disruption where
the train cannot continue the journey by itself, an operator in a remote-control center can
intervene. Some examples of remote operator tasks are failure diagnosis, manual driving,
and communication with passengers. For the choice-based questions, a scenario was
defined for the purpose of informing the respondents about the operational situation. The
scenario included a train journey with a duration of around two hours. A journey with the
IC train between Berlin and Dresden was used as a reference.
Based on a literature review, five relevant attributes of the operational concept of
teleoperation systems were determined (Table 1). For each attribute, two or more levels
were identified. Several assumptions were employed when determining the attribute levels.
Respondents were informed that part of the journey would be condicted by a remote driver.
Assuming that the teleoperation takes place in cases of emergency for our scenario, the
maximum duration between the stations in the reference ride was 30 min. Therefore, 30 min.
was selected as the attribute level of duration. For the ticket price attribute, the reference
price for the time of the study design (25 €) and a 32% reduced price were considered.
Price reduction was assumed to be the result of potential lower costs in higher automation
levels, an expectation in line with the literature. However, the accurate estimation of
a potential reduction is outside the scope of this analysis. For the study design, a D-optimal
factorial design with 12 choice profiles was used with the help of XLSTAT software version
2022.3.1 [25].

Table 1. CBC attributes and attribute levels.

Attributes Levels
Human Driver
Remote driver A.I. under human supervision
A.I.
Always
Surveillance During remote control
Only after passenger activation
On-board announcements
Communication Interactive communication device
Steward on-board
€25
Ticket price
€17
>30 min
Remotely driven duration
<30 min
Future Transp. 2022, 22, FOR PEER REVIEW
Transp. 2022, 4
959

Each choice
choiceset
setincluded
includedthree answers:
three the the
answers: two two
options and one
options andnone-of-these option.
one none-of-these
Figure 1Figure
option. shows1an example
shows of a choice
an example of aset.
choice set.

Figure 1. An example of a choice set.

Figure 1. An example of a choice set.

4. Results
Results
One-hundred-eighty-six
One-hundred-eighty-six people people completed
completed the the online
online survey
survey (Appendix
(Appendix A). A). Young
Young
people (<34)
(<34) and
and people
people with
with higher
higher education
education (77%
(77% with
with aa bachelor’s
bachelor’s degree
degree or
or higher)
higher)
are overrepresented. This is mainly due to the method of data collection. The reach of the
survey was limited to online survey users who speak English or German. The majority of
responses came from Germany (61%), while 22% 22% came
came from
from other
other EU-countries
EU-countries and and 17%
17%
of the
from the rest of the world.
world. 96%
96%of ofthe
therespondents
respondentshad hadaahigh-income
high-incomecountry
countryof ofresidence,
residence,
while only 8 respondents
respondents were in aa low-low- or
or middle-income
middle-income country
country according
according toto the
the World
World
Bank classification [26].
Twenty-two percent
Twenty-two percentof of
all the
all respondents
the respondentsthink they
thinkarethey
earlyare
adopters
early ofadopters
technologyof
products, while
technology 13% consider
products, while themselves
13% consider among the last. Awareness
themselves among the of automated transport
last. Awareness of
technology transport
automated was relatively high. Ninety-four
technology was relativelypercent of all
high. the respondents
Ninety-four had
percent ofheard of
all the
automated vehicles (AV), and 43% of those had personal experiences
respondents had heard of automated vehicles (AV), and 43% of those had personal with AVs. These were
mostly with with
experiences driverless
AVs. urban
These rail
weresystems.
mostly However, only 56%
with driverless urbanhad heard
rail of teleoperated
systems. However,
vehicles prior to this survey. Descriptive statistics are given in Appendix B.
only 56% had heard of teleoperated vehicles prior to this survey. Descriptive statistics are
given in Appendix B.
4.1. Automated Trains
The Figure
4.1. Automated 2 below shows the distribution of responses regarding the importance of
Trains
several aspects in rail transport. All factors were considered important by the respondents,
The Figure 2 below shows the distribution of responses regarding the importance of
but reliability and safety received the highest proportion of positive answers. The least
several aspects in rail transport. All factors were considered important by the
crucial factors were sustainability and comfort.
respondents, but reliability and safety received the highest proportion of positive
Attitudes towards driverless trains were rated positively by the majority. Sixty-five per-
answers. The least crucial factors were sustainability and comfort.
cent of the respondents support the implementation of driverless trains. In order to analyze
the effect of prior experience with AV and awareness of teleoperation technology, the
responses to the attitude towards driverless trains were compared between the two groups.
The group labeled “AV-experienced” has respondents with prior experience with an auto-
mated vehicle or system and those who had heard of teleoperation technology prior to the
survey. The distribution of answers is given in Figure 3 below. In total, 71% of this group
have a positive attitude, while this value for the other group is 63%. More importantly,
the AV-experienced group has three times more respondents that strongly support the
implementation of driverless trains.
Another question inquired about passengers’ views on the importance of rail personnel
for rail operations. Figure 4 shows that around half of the respondents think that train
drivers are not crucial for the operation of rail services. This is in line with the results of the
support for driverless trains. However, the presence of an onboard staff is highly preferred.
The respondents still prefer GoA-3 systems (53%) over GoA-4 systems (13%).
 Reliability 43% 49%

Accessibility 46% 41%

Comfort 44% 25%

Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 5
Future Transp. 2022, 2 960
Costs 44% 40%

Safety 27% 66%

Characteristics of Rail Transport (n = 186)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sustainablity 35% 27%
1-not important at all 2 3 4 5-very important
Reliability 43% 49%
Figure 2. Important aspects of rail transport.
Accessibility 46% 41%
Attitudes towards driverless trains were rated positively by the majority. Sixty-five
Comfort 25%
44% of driverless
percent of the respondents support the implementation trains. In order to
analyze the effect of prior experience with AV and awareness of teleoperation technology,
Costs 44% 40%
the responses to the attitude towards driverless trains were compared between the two
groups. The group labeled “AV-experienced” has 27%
Safety respondents with 66%prior experience with
an automated vehicle or system and those who had heard of teleoperation technology
prior to the0%survey.
10%The 20%
distribution
30% of answers
40% 50% is given
60% in Figure
70% 3 below.
80% 90% In100%
total, 71%
of this group have a positive attitude, while this value for the other group is 63%. More
1-not important at all 2 3 4 5-very important
importantly, the AV-experienced group has three times more respondents that strongly
support
Figure the implementation
2. Important of transport.
aspects of rail driverless trains.
Figure 2. Important aspects of rail transport.

AttiduteAttitudes
Towards towards driverless
Driverless trains were rated positively by the majority. Sixty-five
Trains
percent of the respondents support the implementation of driverless trains. In order to
60% analyze the effect of prior experience with AV and awareness of teleoperation technology,
53%
the responses to the attitude towards driverless trains were compared between the two
50% groups. The group labeled “AV-experienced” has respondents with prior experience with
an automated vehicle or system and those who had heard of teleoperation technology
40% prior to the survey. The distribution of39%answers is given in Figure 3 below. In total, 71%
of this group have a positive attitude, while this value for33%
the other group is 63%. More
importantly, the AV-experienced group has three times more respondents that strongly
30%
support the implementation
23% of driverless trains.
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 6
20% 16%
10% Attidute Towards Driverless Trains 10%
6% 60% 8%
10%
2% Another question inquired about passengers’ views 53% on the importance of rail
0% personnel for rail operations. Figure 4 shows that around half of the respondents think
50%
that train drivers
1-Strongly oppose 2 are not crucial3 for the operation
4 of rail 5-Strongly
services. This is in line with the
support
results of the support for driverless trains. However, the 39%
presence of an onboard staff is
40%
highlyNot-AV-experienced (n=62)
preferred. The respondents AV-experienced (n=49)
still prefer GoA-3 systems (53%) over GoA-4 33% systems
30%(13%).
Figure 3. General opinion towards driverless trains.
Figure 3. General opinion towards driverless23%
trains.
20% 16%
Importance of Rail Personnel (n = 186)
10% 10%
6% 8%
45% 10%
2% 40%
40%
35% 0%
31%
30% 1-Strongly oppose 2 26% 3 26% 4 5-Strongly support
25% 20% 22%(n=62)
Not-AV-experienced 20%
AV-experienced (n=49)
20%
15% Figure
9% 3. General opinion towards driverless trains.
10%
5% 3% 3%
0%
1-Not important 2 3 4 5-Very important
at all

Train driver Onboard staff

Figure 4. Importance of rail personnel for rail operations.

Figure 4. Importance of rail personnel for rail operations.

4.2. Teleoperation
The importance of the factors regarding the implementation of teleoperated trains
 1-Not important 2 3 4 5-Very important
at all

Train driver Onboard staff

Future Transp. 2022, 2 961

Figure 4. Importance of rail personnel for rail operations.

4.2. Teleoperation
4.2. Teleoperation The importance of the factors regarding the implementation of teleoperated tr
The importance of the by
was evaluated factors regarding thePotential
the respondents. implementation
aspects of teleoperated
teleoperationtrains
were determi
was evaluated withbyreference
the respondents. Potential
to the frequently aspects of
discussed teleoperation
benefits of railwaywere determined
automation in the literat
with reference to the
These frequently
benefits discussed
include, amongbenefits
others, of railway automation
operational efficiency, in thesavings,
cost literature.
and stabilit
These benefitstheinclude,
schedule among
[27]. others, operational
Therefore, efficiency,
this survey questioncostaims
savings, and stability
to explore the importanc
of the schedule [27].that
aspects Therefore, this survey
can influence questionpreferences
respondents’ aims to explore the importance
for future of
systems. Whether or h
aspects that can influence respondents’ preferences for future systems. Whether
teleoperation can achieve these goals is outside of the scope of this study. or how
teleoperation can Reduced
achieve these goals
delays is outside
caused of the scopeare
by disruptions of this
ratedstudy.
highest in terms of importa
Reducedwhile
delays caused
lower by disruptions
ticket prices seemedare to
rated
be highest
the leastinimportant
terms of importance,
determinant while
in choosing
lower ticket prices seemed to be the least important determinant
railway system as the preferred option (Figure 5). in choosing this railway
system as the preferred option (Figure 5).

Operational Aspects of Teleoperation (n = 186)

Reduced delays due to disruptions 41% 44%

Increased train frequency 46% 34%

Extended running periods 44% 23%

Lower ticket prices 41% 18%

Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 7

1-not important at all 2 3 4 5-very important

Figure 5. Factors that would influence passengers for considering teleoperation as preferred
Figure 5. Factors that would influence passengers for considering teleoperation as preferred option.
option.

The aspects of teleoperation

The aspects were
of teleoperation analyzed
were analyzed with
with regard
regardtotothe
the age ofthe
age of therespondents
respondents
(Figure(Figure
6). Two age groups were defined for probing the effect of age on importance
6). Two age groups were defined for probing the effect of age on importance rates: rates:
a younger group under 25 years (n = 74), and an older group over 35 years
a younger group under 25 years (n = 74), and an older group over 35 years (n = 50). The (n = 50). The
age group of 25–35
age group was excluded
of 25–35 was excludedin order
in order to to
consider
considerextreme
extreme ends of the
ends of theage
agespectrum
spectrum
within within
the dataset. Younger
the dataset. respondents
Younger respondents attribute
attributehigher
higherimportance
importance to lower
lowerticket
ticketprices
prices
for the implementation of teleoperation (H statistic = 6.5867, (1, n = 122),
for the implementation of teleoperation (H statistic = 6.5867, (1, n = 122), p = 0.01027). Evenp = 0.01027). Even
thoughthough the importance
the importance of reduced
of reduced delays
delays is rated
is rated highestby
highest byboth
both groups,
groups, this
thisseems
seemsmuch
much
higher for younger people (H statistic = 5.081, (1, n = 122),
higher for younger people (H statistic = 5.081, (1, n = 122), p = 0.02419). p = 0.02419).

Age < 25 (n = 74) Age > 35 (n = 50)

Reduced delays due to

40% 54% 38% 38%
disruptions

Increased train frequency 42% 42% 54% 18%

Extended running periods 46% 26% 46% 14%

Lower ticket prices 44% 25% 42% 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1-not important at all 2 3 4 5-very important

Figure 6. Importance of the Operational Aspects of Teleoperation per age.

Figure 6. Importance of the Operational Aspects of Teleoperation per age.

Acceptable safety levels were inquired with comparison to the safety perception of
the current systems. The respondents were divided into two country classes, Germany
and others, in order to compare the public opinion in Germany with the rest of the
respondents. Figure 7 shows the answers of the respondents from Germany and from
other countries. The respondents in Germany have lower safety requirements, with 34%
Future Transp. 2022, 2 962

Acceptable safety levels were inquired with comparison to the safety perception of the
current systems. The respondents were divided into two country classes, Germany and
others, in order to compare the public opinion in Germany with the rest of the respondents.
Figure 7 shows the answers of the respondents from Germany and from other countries.
The respondents in Germany have lower safety requirements, with 34% thinking it is
acceptable to have the same level of safety as the trains of today. Nevertheless, 43% expect
fewer accidents from new systems. On the other hand, 39% of the respondents in the other
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW
category expect much fewer accidents (i.e., reduction by half or more) from driverless8
vehicles with a teleoperation fallback. The Kruskal–Wallis test (KW) showed that the
difference between the groups was statistically significant (χ2 (2) = 6.984, n = 186, p = 0.008).

Acceptable safety levels compared to today

50%

40%

30%

20% 43% 43%

39%
34%
10% 23%
18%

0%
Same accidents Fewer accidents Much less accidents

Germany (n=114) Other (n=72)

Figure 7. Acceptable levels of safety for driverless vehicles with remote operation as fallback system.
Figure 7. Acceptable levels of safety for driverless vehicles with remote operation as fallback
system.
The last question of the first part of the survey collected responses to statements
on several aspects of teleoperation. Figure 8 below shows the distribution of answers.
The last question of the first part of the survey collected responses to statements on
Statement 4 has the most equally distributed responses compared to the other statements.
several aspects of teleoperation. Figure 8 below shows the distribution of answers.
Thirty-three percent of respondents are unsure about the state of the technology for safe
Statement 4 hasand
teleoperation, the30%
mostthink
equally
the distributed
current state responses compared
of technology would to not
the be
other statements.
sufficient. The
Thirty-three percent of respondents are unsure about the state of the technology
majority of the respondents (68%) think that the use of a remote operator for fallback forlevel
safe
teleoperation,
is a good idea. and 30% think
However, only the
halfcurrent state of technology
of the respondents would not can
think teleoperation be sufficient. The
reduce delays
majority
caused by ofdisturbances.
the respondents The(68%) think
threat that the use ofisaanother
of cybersecurity remote aspect
operator forpeople
that fallback level
mostly
is a good
agree on. idea. However, only half of the respondents think teleoperation can reduce
delays caused by disturbances.
Country-wise The threat
comparison resulted of cybersecurity
in significant is another
differences only foraspect that people
statements 4 and
mostly agree on.
6. The Kruskal–Wallis H test indicated that there is a significant difference across country
of residence at 95% confidence level for statement 4 (H = 9.035, n = 114-72, p = 0.0027) and
statement 6 (H = 5.97, n = 114-72, p = 0.0145). Parallel to the results of the acceptable level of
1-Delays due to disturbances
safety, would be lower
responses with a 6 indicate a higher trust of the automated system in Germany
to statement 8% 15% 28% 31% 18%
remote operator.
compared to the other group (Figure 9). These statements did not differ significantly
between
2-Ride comfort would be as younger
good with remoteand older
driver as age groups.
4% 6%15% 37% 38%
with an on-board driver.

3-Using remote operators is a good idea. 5%5% 23% 44% 24%

4-Current state of technology would not allow for safe

12% 25% 33% 19%11%
teleoperation.

5-Cybersecurity is a big threat for teleoperation. 3%11%19% 39% 28%

6-I would entrust the safety of a close relative to a

4% 9% 27% 40% 20%
teleoperated vehicle.
7-Remote operator would perform as good as a driver
6% 19% 25% 37% 13%
on-board.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Future Transp. 2022, 2
Thirty-three percent of respondents are unsure about the state of the technology for safe
teleoperation, and 30% think the current state of technology would not be sufficient. The
majority of the respondents (68%) think that the use of a remote operator for fallback level
is a good idea. However, only half of the respondents think teleoperation can reduce
delays caused by disturbances. The threat of cybersecurity is another aspect that people 963
mostly agree on.

1-Delays due to disturbances would be lower with a

8% 15% 28% 31% 18%
remote operator.
2-Ride comfort would be as good with remote driver as
4% 6%15% 37% 38%
with an on-board driver.

3-Using remote operators is a good idea. 5%5% 23% 44% 24%

4-Current state of technology would not allow for safe

12% 25% 33% 19%11%
teleoperation.

5-Cybersecurity is a big threat for teleoperation. 3%11%19% 39% 28%

6-I would entrust the safety of a close relative to a

Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 4% 9% 27% 40% 20% 9
teleoperated vehicle.
7-Remote operator would perform as good as a driver
6% 19% 25% 37% 13%
on-board.
country of residence at 95% confidence level for statement 4 (H = 9.035, n = 114-72, p =
0.0027) and statement 6 (H 0% = 5.97,
10%n 20%
= 114-72, p = 0.0145).
30% 40% 50% 60%Parallel to the
70% 80% 90%results
100% of the
acceptable level of safety, responses to statement 6 indicate a higher trust of the automated
system1-Strongly disagree
in Germany 2
compared 3 the4 other
to 5-Strongly
group agree
(Figure 9). These statements did not
differ significantly between younger and older age groups.
Figure 8. Passenger statements on teleoperation in railways.
Figure 8. Passenger statements on teleoperation in railways.

Statement 4
Country-wise comparison resulted in significant differences only for statements 4
Statement 6
and 6. The Kruskal–Wallis H test indicated that there is a significant difference across
Germany Other
Germany Other
50%
40% 50%
40% 39%40%
32% 40%
28% 28% 31%
30% 30% 25% 26%
20% 16% 14% 14% 20% 14%
11%11% 11%
10% 7% 6%
10% 4%4%
0% 0%
1-Strongly 2 3 4 5-Strongly 1-Strongly 2 3 4 5-Strongly
disagree agree disagree agree

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Statements
Statements on
on technology
technology capability
capability (left)
(left) and
and trust
trust in
in the
thesystem
system(right).
(right).

4.3.
4.3. Choice-Based
Choice-Based Conjoint
Conjoint Analysis
Analysis
The
The table below (Table 2)
table below (Table 2) shows
shows the
the utilities
utilities of
of the
the attribute
attribute levels.
levels. For
For most
most ofof the
the
attributes,
attributes, the signs and relative magnitudes of the parameter values are reasonable. For
the signs and relative magnitudes of the parameter values are reasonable. For
example,
example, thethehigher
higherticket
ticketprice
price attribute hashas
attribute a negative andand
a negative lower utility.
lower However,
utility. con-
However,
trary to expectations, the longer duration of the remote driving option received
contrary to expectations, the longer duration of the remote driving option received higher higher
utility
utility value in the
value in the respective
respective attribute.
attribute.InInthe
theattribute
attributeofofremote
remotedriver
driver types,
types, the
the level
level of
of automated remote driving received the highest utility value (0.682). The highest utility
automated remote driving received the highest utility value (0.682). The highest utility
within the surveillance type is the level of surveillance during teleoperation rather than
within the surveillance type is the level of surveillance during teleoperation rather than
continuous surveillance. According to the choice analysis, a communication system con-
continuous surveillance. According to the choice analysis, a communication system
sisting of an interactive interface is preferable to the presence of a steward on board. The
consisting of an interactive interface is preferable to the presence of a steward on board.
attribute level none-of-these indicates the high utility of an alternative that is not captured
The attribute level none-of-these indicates the high utility of an alternative that is not
by the analysis.
captured by the analysis.

Table 2. Aggregated utilities of CBC attribute levels.

Attribute Levels Utility Std. Dev.

A.I. 0.682 0.077
Remote driver A.I. under human supervision −0.477 0.100
Human driver −0.205 0.079
Always −0.320 0.107
Future Transp. 2022, 2 964

Table 2. Aggregated utilities of CBC attribute levels.

Attribute Levels Utility Std. Dev.

A.I. 0.682 0.077
Remote driver A.I. under human supervision −0.477 0.100
Human driver −0.205 0.079
Always −0.320 0.107
Surveillance During remote control 0.606 0.105
Only after passenger activation −0.286 0.098
Interactive device 0.242 0.085
Communication Onboard announcements 0.089 0.077
Steward onboard −0.332 0.060
€17 0.147 0.028
Ticket price
€25 −0.147 0.028
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 10
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEWRemotely driven <30 min −0.305 0.050 10
duration >30 min 0.305 0.050
None-of-these - −1.520 0.084
The results of the relative importance of the attributes are given in Figure 10. The
The results of the relative importance of the attributes are given in Figure 10. The
The
type of results
remote of the
driver relative
had importance
the highest relativeofimportance
the attributes areoverall
on the given in Figure 10.
judgement of The
the
type of remote driver had the highest relative importance on the overall judgement of the
type of remoteservices
teleoperation driver had the highest
(32.5%). The relative importance
ticket price on the
attribute hadoverall
the judgement of the
lowest relative
teleoperation services (32.5%). The ticket price attribute had the lowest relative
teleoperation
importance services
(8.2%). The(32.5%).
type ofThe ticket price
surveillance attribute
(26%) had theoperations
for remote lowest relative importance
was rated more
importance (8.2%). The type of surveillance (26%) for remote operations was rated more
(8.2%). The
important type
than theoftype
surveillance (26%) for channels
of communication remote operations
(16.1%). The was rated more
differences important
between the
important
thanage
than the type of communication
thegroups
type ofincommunication channels
channels
(16.1%).
(16.1%). The differences
The differences between
between the
two terms of attribute importance are given in Figure 11 below. the two age
two age in
groups groups
termsinofterms of attribute
attribute importance
importance are givenareingiven
Figurein11Figure
below.11 below.

Relative Importance of Attributes

Relative Importance of Attributes
Attributes
Attributes

Remote driver Remotely driven Communication,

Remote driver Surveillance, 26.0% Remotely driven Communication, Ticket price,
type, 32.5% Surveillance, 26.0% duration, 17.1% 16.1% Ticket price,
type, 32.5% duration, 17.1% 16.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 10. Relative importance of attributes.
Figure
Figure10.
10.Relative
Relativeimportance
importanceofofattributes.
attributes.

Importance of attributes per age group

Importance of attributes per age group
35% 31%
35% 31% 29%
30% 29%
30% 23%
25% 22% 23%
25% 22% 21% 23% 23%
21% 18%
20% 18%
20% 13%
15% 13% 11%
15% 8% 11%
10% 8%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Remote driver Surveillance Communication Ticket price Remotely driven
Remote driver Surveillance Communication Ticket price Remotely driven
duration
duration
Age<25 (n=74) Age>35 (n=50)
Age<25 (n=74) Age>35 (n=50)
Figure 11. Relative importance of attributes for younger and older groups.
Figure 11. Relative importance of attributes for younger and older groups.
Figure 11. Relative importance of attributes for younger and older groups.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
Support for the implementation of highly automated rail transport is high among
5. Discussion
Support for
respondents, the implementation
as often of highly
seen in the existing automated
research rail This
literature. transport is high true
is especially amongfor
Support for the implementation of highly automated rail transport is high among
respondents, as often seen in the existing research literature. This is especially true for
respondents, as often seen in the existing research literature. This is especially true for
those who have previous experience with automated vehicles. Even though driverless
those who have previous experience with automated vehicles. Even though driverless
operation is supported by many, the presence of onboard personnel is highly preferred.
operation is supported by many, the presence of onboard personnel is highly preferred.
This preference is also in line with previous research. Factors such as personal security in
This preference is also in line with previous research. Factors such as personal security in
Future Transp. 2022, 2 965

those who have previous experience with automated vehicles. Even though driverless
operation is supported by many, the presence of onboard personnel is highly preferred.
This preference is also in line with previous research. Factors such as personal security in
automated vehicles as well as the need for assistance for disabled individuals might have
played a role in this result. Additionally, the GoA-3 operation is preferred over the GoA-4
operation. This highlights the importance of human intervention from the passengers’
perspective. Teleoperation with human operators as a fallback layer has the potential to
increase the acceptance of this system, especially in the transition period.
Respondents rated reliability and safety highest among the identified service quality
aspects of rail transport. This is important, as remote operation has the potential to
increase operational reliability by fast recovery after disruptions. Reduction of delays
due to disruptions is considered as the most important factor to justify implementation
of teleoperation, especially among young passengers. Ticket price was considered more
important by younger passengers.
The importance of safety was observed in multiple indicators. The majority of respon-
dents demand increased safety levels from automated rail transport and remote fallback
operation. The survey results revealed that trust in the system is an important factor
to be addressed. Trust in the system and in acceptable safety levels showed differences
between Germany and the other countries. This indicates that local differences in safety
perception must be taken into consideration for the implementation of these systems. Addi-
tionally, passengers with prior experience with an automated vehicle are more supportive
of the implementation of driverless trains. Cybersecurity is one of the common concerns
regarding teleoperation.
The type of remote driver and the surveillance of the operation are very important
according to the CBC analysis. Continuous surveillance of the vehicle during remote control
is preferred by respondents. Perceived risk and potential threats to personal security might
have played a role in this rating. Even though the respondents reported that onboard staff
are still crucial, choice analysis suggests that, given the choice, passengers would instead
prefer an automated and interactive communication channel.
It should be noted that the number of respondents (186) and the representation of
the whole population through the sample (in terms of age, education level, etc.) impose
limitations for this study.

6. Conclusions
Even though the teleoperation service for railways is currently not available to the pub-
lic, a few trends can be identified by analyzing the study results. Overall, the teleoperation
system and its capabilities received positive feedback. The results of this questionnaire and
choice-based conjoint analysis reveal several aspects that are important for the acceptability
of teleoperation. Future implementation plans should address perceived safety, security,
and trust concerns. Demographic aspects such as age, country of residence, technology
awareness, and prior experience with AVs could influence the acceptance of these systems.
Teleoperation as a fallback system provides an opportunity for increasing the resilience and
reliability of rail systems, as agreed by most of the respondents.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.C. and J.T.; methodology, B.C.; investigation, B.C. and J.T.;
formal analysis, B.C.; data curation, B.C.; writing—original draft preparation, B.C.; writing—review and
editing, B.C., J.T. and B.M.; visualization, B.C. and J.T.; supervision, B.M. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This publication was funded by the German Research Foundation and the Open Access
Publication Fund of TU Berlin.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
online survey.
Future Transp. 2022, 2 966

Data Availability Statement: Available upon request.

Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support in dissemination of the survey
by partners of the Drive2theFuture consortium (GA 815001).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1. Detailed profile of survey respondents.

Respondent Profile #
Education level
Min Bachelor’s 144
Less than Bachelor’s 42
Gender
Male 100
Female 81
Other 5
Heard of AVs
Yes 174
No 12
Experience with AVs
Yes 80
No 106
Heard of Teleoperation
Yes 104
No 82
When it comes to trying new technologies, I am . . .
Among the first 40
In the middle 121
Among the last 25
Age
under 18 4
18–24 68
25–34 64
35–44 24
45–64 26

Table A2. Transport mode choice.

Transport Mode Choice Commuting Business Travel Leisure/Social Errands Vacation

Passenger
29% 20% 29% 33% 28%
car/motorcycle
Public transport 23% 20% 17% 12% 12%
Taxi 4% 8% 4% 2% 4%
Future Transp. 2022, 2 967

Table A2. Cont.

Transport Mode Choice Commuting Business Travel Leisure/Social Errands Vacation

Bicycle/walking 32% 5% 36% 46% 10%
Airplane 1% 19% 4% 1% 34%
Ship 1% 2% 3% 0% 8%
Sharing services 1% 2% 6% 3% 2%
I don’t take such trips 8% 24% 1% 2% 2%

Appendix B
Table A3. Descriptive statistics.

Quantiles
Items Mean Median SD CI 25% 50% 75%
Important aspects of rail transport
Safety 4.56 5 0.687 0.099 4 5 5
Costs 4.19 4 0.839 0.121 4 4 5
Comfort 3.88 4 0.866 0.124 3 4 4.75
Accessibility 4.25 4 0.780 0.112 4 4 5
Reliability 4.39 4 0.720 0.103 4 4 5
Sustainability 3.74 4 1.059 0.152 3 4 5
Attitude towards driverless trains 3.67 4 1.063 0.153 3 4 4
Importance of rail personnel
Train driver 3.46 4 1.106 0.159 3 4 4
On-board staff 3.90 4 1.125 0.162 3 4 5
Operational aspects of teleoperation
Reduced delays due to disruptions 4.23 4 0.859 0.123 4 4 5
Increased train frequency 4.05 4 0.926 0.133 4 4 5
Extended running periods 3.72 4 1.028 0.148 3 4 4
Lower ticket prices 3.46 4 1.195 0.172 3 4 4
Acceptable safety levels (3-point-scale) 2.01 2 0.757 0.109 1 2 3
Passenger statements
1-I believe the delays due to
disturbances would be lower with 3.38 3 1.162 0.167 3 3 4
a remote operator
2-I believe ride comfort would be as
good with a remote driver as with 3.99 4 1.065 0.153 3.25 4 5
an on-board driver
3-I think that using remote operators is
3.77 4 1.022 0.147 3 4 4
a good idea
4-I believe the current state of
technology would not allow for 2.91 3 1.169 0.168 2 3 4
safe teleoperation
5-I believe cybersecurity is a big threat
3.79 4 1.062 0.153 3 4 5
for teleoperation
Future Transp. 2022, 2 968

Table A3. Cont.

Quantiles
Items Mean Median SD CI 25% 50% 75%
6-I would entrust the safety of a close
3.64 4 1.026 0.147 3 4 4
relative to a teleoperated vehicle
7-I believe the remote operator would
3.31 3 1.105 0.159 2.25 3 4
perform as well as a driver on-board

References
1. Distler, V.; Lallemand, C.; Bellet, T. Acceptability and acceptance of autonomous mobility on demand. In Proceedings of the 2018
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’18, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; Mandryk, R., Ed.;
ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–10, ISBN 9781450356206.
2. Masson, É.; Richard, P.; Garcia-Guillen, S.; Adell, G.M. TC-Rail: Railways remote driving. In Proceedings of the 12th World
Congress on Railway Research, Tokyo, Japan, 28 October–1 November 2019.
3. Gadmer, Q.; Pacaux-Lemoine, M.-P.; Richard, P. Human-automation—Railway remote control: How to define shared information
and functions? IFAC-PapersOnLine 2021, 54, 173–178. [CrossRef]
4. Pacaux-Lemoine, M.-P.; Gadmer, Q.; Richard, P. Train remote driving: A human-machine cooperation point of view. In Proceedings
of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS), Rome, Italy, 7–9 September 2020; IEEE:
Manhattan, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–4, ISBN 978-1-7281-5871-6.
5. Brandenburger, N.; Naumann, A. Towards remote supervision and recovery of automated railway systems: The staff’s changing
contribution to system resilience. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Rail Transportation (ICIRT),
Singapore, 12–14 December 2018; IEEE: Manhattan, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–5, ISBN 978-1-5386-7528-1.
6. Tonk, A.; Boussif, A.; Beugin, J.; Collart-Dutilleurl, S. Towards a specified operational design domain for a safe remote driving of
trains. In Proceedings of the 31st European Safety and Reliability Conference, Angers, France, 19–23 September 2021.
7. Aktouche, S.R.; Sallak, M.; Bouabdallah, A.; Schön, W. Towards reconciling safety and security risk analysis processes in railway
remote driving. In Proceedings of the 2021 5th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), Palermo, Italy,
24–26 November 2021; pp. 148–154.
8. Cogan, B.; Milius, B. Development and optimization of an HMI for the remote control of automated trains in case of a sys-
tem disruption: Work-in-progress. In Proceedings of the 7th Humanist Conference, Rhodes, Greece, 26–27 October 2021;
ISBN 978-2-9531712-6-6.
9. Bansal, P.; Kockelman, K.M.; Singh, A. Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin
perspective. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 67, 1–14. [CrossRef]
10. Pakusch, C.; Bossauer, P. User acceptance of fully autonomous public transport. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint
Conference on e-Business and Telecommunications, Madrid, Spain, 24–26 July 2017; SCITEPRESS—Science and Technology
Publications: Setúbal, Portugal, 2017; pp. 52–60, ISBN 978-989-758-257-8.
11. Morast, A.; Voß, G.M.I.; Dautzenberg, P.S.C.; Urban, P.; Nießen, N. A survey on the acceptance of unattended trains. SSRN
Electron. J. 2022. [CrossRef]
12. Šotek, M.; Márton, P.; Lendel, V.; Lendelová, L. Investigation of opinions on the acceptance of autonomous railway vehicles in
Slovakia. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 1337–1344. [CrossRef]
13. Nordhoff, S.; Kyriakidis, M.; van Arem, B.; Happee, R. A multi-level model on automated vehicle acceptance (MAVA): A review-
based study. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2019, 20, 682–710. [CrossRef]
14. Jing, P.; Xu, G.; Chen, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhan, F. The determinants behind the acceptance of autonomous vehicles: A systematic review.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1719. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, T.; Tao, D.; Qu, X.; Zhang, X.; Lin, R.; Zhang, W. The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of
automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2019, 98, 207–220. [CrossRef]
16. Dong, X.; DiScenna, M.; Guerra, E. Transit user perceptions of driverless buses. Transportation 2019, 46, 35–50. [CrossRef]
17. Fraszczyk, A.; Brown, P.; Duan, S. Public perception of driverless trains. Urban Rail Transit 2015, 1, 78–86. [CrossRef]
18. Krueger, R.; Rashidi, T.H.; Rose, J.M. Preferences for shared autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 69,
343–355. [CrossRef]
19. Soe, R.-M.; Müür, J. Mobility acceptance factors of an automated shuttle bus last-mile service. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5469.
[CrossRef]
20. Becker, F.; Axhausen, K.W. Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation 2017,
44, 1293–1306. [CrossRef]
21. Eggers, F.; Sattler, H.; Teichert, T.; Völckner, F. Choice-based conjoint analysis. In Handbook of Market Research; Homburg, C.,
Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 781–819, ISBN 978-3-319-57411-0.
22. Maas, B. Conjoint analysis of mobility plans in the city of Dresden. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2021, 13, 25. [CrossRef]
Future Transp. 2022, 2 969

23. König, A.; Bonus, T.; Grippenkoven, J. Analyzing urban residents’ appraisal of ridepooling service attributes with conjoint
analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3711. [CrossRef]
24. Keller, K.; Zimmerman, C.; Zibuschka, J.; Hinz, O. Trust is good, control is better—Customer preferences regarding control in
teleoperated and autonomous taxis. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2021,
Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021; ScholarSpace: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2021.
25. Addinsoft. XLSTAT Statistical and Data Analysis Solution. Available online: https://www.xlstat.com (accessed on
17 October 2022).
26. World Bank Country and Lending Groups—World Bank Data Help Desk. Available online: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.
org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (accessed on 16 August 2022).
27. Pachl, J. Betriebliche randbedingungen für autonomes fahren auf der schiene. Deine Bahn 2017, 9, 10–19.