RECONNECT - Final Report · Long distance 80-500 km medium priority Very long distance >500 km low priority Natural bottlenecks & barriers 0-15(-80) km medium priority ... • lighter-than-air

FINAL REPORT

– for publication –

RECONNECT"Reducing Congestion by Introducing New Concepts of Transport"

Contract No. RO-98-RS.3038

Project co-ordinator: Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (IABG, Germany)

Partners: Forschungsgesellschaft Mobilität – Austrian Mobility Research (FGM-AMOR, Austria)AEA Technology Environment plc. (ETSU, UK)CEC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS, Spain)Studiengesellschaft für unterirdische Verkehrsanlagen e.V. (STUVA, Germany)Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO, The Netherlands)

Project duration: 01.12.1998 – 31.03.2000

Date: May 2000

Project funded by the European Commissionunder the Transport RTD Programme of the

4th Framework Programme

Reducing Congestion by IntroducingNew Concepts of Transport

Final ReportMay 2000

Page i of vii

PARTNERSHIP

The RECONNECT project was carried out by a consortium of six partners from fivecountries as follows:

Project co-ordinatorIABG: Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH, Germany

Mr. Ulrich LeissEinsteinstrasse 20D-85521 Ottobrunn

Tel: +49 89 6088 2219Fax: +49 89 6088 2088E-mail: [email protected]

PartnersFGM-AMOR: Forschungsgesellschaft Mobilität – Austrian Mobility Research, AustriaETSU: AEA Technology Environment plc, UKIPTS: CEC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological

Studies, SpainSTUVA: Studiengesellschaft für unterirdische Verkehrsanlagen e.V., GermanyTNO: Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, The Neth-

erlands

European CommissionDirectorate General Energy and Transport (DG TREN), B4

Mr. Uwe FischerRue de Mot 28, 6/21B-1040 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 29 55001Fax: +32 2 29 68350E-mail: [email protected]

RECONNECT was a task of the 4th Call in the 4th Framework RTD Programme. Forfurther contact details see Annex A of this document.

For a comprehensive overview on deliverables produced by RECONNECT pleaseconsult Annex B. A reference to worthwhile project deliverables for further investiga-tion into a specific topic is highlighted in this document at chapter-end as follows

➲ D5 "Policy and market synthesis"

All documents with the status "public" have been subsequently made available viathe project homepage, which is accessible at

http://www.etsu.com/reconnect/reconnect.html

This final report was prepared by Wolfgang Helmreich (IABG).

mailto:[email protected]?subject=RECONNECT

mailto:[email protected]?subject=RECONNECT

http://www.etsu.com/reconnect/reconnect.html



Page ii of vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BackgroundCongestion on road and in the air is, at present, possibly the greatest single problemof transport policy in Europe. The economy is growing and transport is in parallelgrowing even faster. This has consequences for the volume and the quality of trans-port, is threatening the environment and entailing risks for safety. In addition, theEuropean Union is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and a lackof space is emerging. Congestion is producing intolerable costs and problems. Thissituation is calling for a reflection on possibilities to find new ways of transportation,using less surface space, enhancing safety, being more environmentally friendly,consuming less energy and being more efficient. Modern society is requiring hightech solutions characterised by a high degree of reliability. Industry and research aredeveloping new ways of transportation which respond to most of the requirementsmentioned.

ObjectivesThe strategic research study RECONNECT – "Reducing Congestion by IntroducingNew Concepts of Transport" – aimed to identify, analyse and assess new means oftransport in different generic categories with particular respect to their potential toease congestion and promote sustainable mobility.Particular objectives have been:• to describe and analyse the potential of new means of transport to ease conges-

tion in Europe’s transport systems and also to contribute to the objectives ofsustainable mobility;

• to show the new concepts technical and financial feasibility;• to identify suitable geographical areas/corridors for optimal function;• to assess the impacts of the new concepts on the environment, safety, reliability,

efficiency, acceptability and employment;• to identify the technical, legal and financial requirements for realisation, and the

opportunities for adaptation of existing laws and standards.

Key resultsThis final report presents a concise overview of the potential of selected new trans-port concepts to overcome ground level congestion. In particular, it summarises theproject’s findings regarding expected improvements in the relevant areas of conges-tion as well as the applicability and feasibility of the new concepts in the Europeantransport system.

Congestion areasSeveral new transport concepts for passenger and/or freight service have the poten-tial to reduce congestion and promote sustainable mobility. These concepts aim atdifferent traffic problem or "congestion areas", characterised by geographical, infra-structure or organisational levels and reflecting a considerable range of overall im-portance. RECONNECT introduced the definition of "congestion areas" to allow forclustering of new means of transport, independent of the vehicle type, mode ortransport concept, as shown in the Table below.



Page iii of vii

Congestion area Geographical level Overall importance

Urban congestion 0-15 km very high priorityIntercity highways 15-80 km very high priorityIntra-rural 0-80 km medium priorityLong distance 80-500 km medium priorityVery long distance >500 km low priorityNatural bottlenecks & barriers 0-15(-80) km medium priorityTraffic nodes 0-15(-80) km high to very high priority

Key contributing conceptsApart from important improvements in road and rail based ground transportationsystems, considerable leaps forward can be expected from three principal modes oftransport:• elevated public transport of all sizes;• underground systems, but not the microtunnel concepts in particular; and• lighter-than-air vehicles that offer unique transport capabilities and serve me-

dium priority areas at improved efficiency and environmental performance.The RECONNECT assessment methodology, building on experience from the stra-tegic FANTASIE project and structuring transport systems in 19 generic classes, al-lows for transfer of singular findings to a wider context. To make best use of availableresources, this study focused on key representatives of transport concepts, based onthe pre-selection of 21 "most promising" new means of transport.The main conclusions of the assessment work regarding the key representatives ofnew transport concepts are:• High capacity elevated passenger transport systems such as the H-Bahn Dort-

mund and the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn (combined with new technologies)offer good congestion reduction potential in urban and inter-urban environments,where they are suited to become the backbone of public transport systems.Smaller concepts such as the Cable Liner are better suited for feeder and shuttleservices.

• Underground concepts such as the Underground Logistics System (ULS) pro-vide an efficient means of freight distribution and intermodal freight handling.They rely on automated and driverless electric vehicles that run in tunnels, andrequire moderately expensive new infrastructure.

• Airships naturally target niche applications and allow for point-to-point operationsin freight and passenger transport. Here, the CargoLifter (CL 160) is a promi-nent example of an innovative logistic solution in bulky and heavy cargo trans-port, aiming at replacing a whole shipment chain. Other versatile airship vehiclessuch as the Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) may also contribute to improvedtraveller intermodality in remote regions.



Page iv of vii

Perceived barriers for market successA set of barriers has been investigated to understand the underpinning obstacles fornew transport concepts that may delay or ultimately hinder market penetration,namely:• the information barrier;• regulatory and legal barriers;• technical barriers;• financial and commercial barriers;• societal barriers; and• decision-making barriers.Financial and commercial hurdles pose the biggest obstacle. However, this clearlydepends on the area of application. Public transport options typically involve expen-sive development cycles, and require the financial commitment of local or regionalauthorities for improved market access. In contrast, tailor-made concepts often at-tract private investors, therefore generating sufficient funds for costly ventures. Thestory of the CargoLifter is proof for this approach.Regulatory and legal barriers are also of major concern and often reflect shortfallsin the decision-making process. This is particularly true for radically new designs andhybrid concepts. For example, transport users and regulatory bodies have strongreservations against fully automated and driverless operation.Finally, the technical realisation of new ideas is found to be an obstacle for entirelynew concepts, especially telematics based applications and collective transport sys-tems.

Recommended actions to overcome barriersTo overcome the barriers for market penetration, the necessary measures and ac-tions need to involve all stakeholders. The recommended actions are (by barrier andin order of concern):• Financial and commercial barriers: initial “seed” funding (e.g. government, pri-

vate sector with vested interests); wide-spread introduction of public-private part-nerships (PPP); improved commercial marketing of new systems;

• Regulatory and legal barriers: early involvement of all possible stakeholders;improved co-operation between different modes of transport; creation of lowemission zones in sensitive areas; properly addressing the quality aspect intransport service; speeding up of legal procedures by installing a special govern-ment agency for legal aspects of new transport concepts (e.g. strategic railauthority);

• Decision-making barriers: co-operation and exchange of information; activeparticipation of all decision-makers in pilot and demonstration projects to show thepotential of a new system;

• Information barrier: using new media such as the Internet and utilising existingEuropean information channels to enhance dissemination; involving potential us-ers in pilot and demonstration projects involving new transport concepts;

• Technical barriers: continued research, development and demonstration of in-novations; consensus-building amongst industry and technical certification bodiesin terms of standardisation;

• Societal barriers: better marketing by showing the benefits (service level im-provements, comfort, safety); fair and open-minded assessment of effects, earlyinvolvement of transport users (in particular fleet operators, passengers).



Page v of vii

Key RTD needsA principal field for European RTD is to advance the market introduction of the mostpromising concepts by increasing certainty and reducing production costs. The rele-vant areas of research are:• vehicle drive-lines (electric propulsion, hybrid propulsion, person-powered pro-

pulsion);• lateral and longitudinal vehicle guidance;• construction of vehicle bodies of new concepts to current and future legislative

standards (e.g. recycling);• vehicle equipment (e.g. Information Technology and Communication);• operations control and Telematics;• automated road and rail infrastructure;• environmental costs and benefits of new concepts;• noise and safety effects of new concepts.In addition, further research work is necessary for underground infrastructure tech-nologies, namely:• ground exploration;• tunnel driving;• mucking;• tunnel lining;• standardisation of dimensions.On a more generic level, note that RTD work is mainly necessary to overcome tech-nical barriers, especially for concepts that are up to now in an early stage of devel-opment. Furthermore, research work can help to spread the application of promisingconcepts that are fairly well developed or even fully operational by cutting down theirhigh investment costs and ensuring proper marketing.

Recommended EC research studiesFrom the experience of this study, the following activities are proposed:• An in-depth research study on the new means of transport identified in RECON-

NECT, FANTASIE and other technology assessment studies. This should focuson a refined class characterisation, detailed technology assessment as well ascost-benefit analysis of the most promising classes, based on the sophisticatedframework of RECONNECT (which in turn is based on FANTASIE).

• Targeted (exploratory) assessment studies and thematic networks on:• small underground tube systems for freight transport;• elevated automated guided passenger transport of various cabin sizes;• airship technology based concepts with new and unique transport capabilities

for people and goods.• Targeted pilot and demonstration projects of the most promising ground level

concepts ready for market introduction in the near future:• road based people movers;• individual public transport;• automated vehicle guidance;• man-wide cars.



Page vi of vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTNERSHIP ............................................................................................................I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................II

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................11.1 Background ...............................................................................................................11.2 Objectives..................................................................................................................21.3 Means used to achieve the objectives.....................................................................2

2. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY GUIDELINES..................42.1 Impact assessment and feasibility criteria..............................................................42.2 Criteria categories for legislation and standardisation ..........................................52.3 Criteria categories for improved services ...............................................................52.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology ........................................................................62.5 Integration of the framework....................................................................................7

3. NEW CONCEPTS OF TRANSPORT ......................................................................84. THE TARGETED ASSESSMENT DATABASE ....................................................155. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NEW TRANSPORT CONCEPTS............................17

5.1 Impact assessment .................................................................................................175.2 Mobility market analysis.........................................................................................175.3 Legal barriers and standardisation gaps ..............................................................215.4 Comparative analysis .............................................................................................22

6. MARKET POTENTIAL AND KEY POLICY ISSUES ............................................246.1 Identification of congestion areas .........................................................................246.2 Compatibility with Common Transport Policy objectives ....................................286.3 Urban transport and the "City of Tomorrow"........................................................306.4 Interurban transport within networks ....................................................................346.5 Long-range transport..............................................................................................366.6 Intermodality and interoperability..........................................................................386.7 Niche applications ..................................................................................................426.8 Options to eliminate barriers .................................................................................446.9 Service level improvements to the transport market ...........................................516.10 Major benefits ........................................................................................................526.11 Identification of further RTD needs ......................................................................60

7. OUTLOOK: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................66BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................70

ANNEX A: RECONNECT CONTACT LIST .............................................................71ANNEX B: LIST OF PROJECT DELIVERABLES ...................................................72ANNEX C: LINKS TO WEBSITES OF INTEREST ..................................................73



Page vii of vii

List of tables

Table 1: Defined classes and covered concepts in RECONNECT....................................................9Table 2: Overview of principal effects of new means of transport.................................................20Table 3: Overview of scenario-based future analysis – forecast horizon: year 2020...................21Table 4: Selected new transport concepts and assigned base concepts used for

comparative analysis in RECONNECT................................................................................22Table 5: Definition of congestion areas ............................................................................................25Table 6: Congestion reduction potential per identified area (1) .....................................................26Table 7: Congestion reduction potential per identified area (2) .....................................................27Table 8: Qualitative check of new transport concepts against main CTP themes .......................29Table 9: Potential of urban and sub-urban systems to contribute to the "City of Tomorrow"

objectives...............................................................................................................................31Table 10: Integration of new transport concepts with interurban networks.................................35Table 11: Long range transport potential of new concepts............................................................37Table 12: Potential of new concepts to enhance intermodality and interoperability...................40Table 13: Contributions to the European transport logistic system .............................................42Table 14: Impediments for introduction of new transport concepts .............................................45Table 15: Overcoming financial and commercial barriers ..............................................................47Table 16: Overcoming regulatory and legal barriers.......................................................................48Table 17: Overcoming decision-making barriers.............................................................................49Table 18: Overcoming the information barrier .................................................................................49Table 19: Overcoming technical barriers..........................................................................................50Table 20: Overcoming societal barriers............................................................................................50Table 21: Overview of service level improvements of new concepts of transport ......................52Table 22: Major benefits of new transport concepts .......................................................................53Table 23: Overview of environmental improvements attained with new means of transport.....54Table 24: Overview of service safety improvements of new means of transport ........................55Table 25: Reliability improvements of new concepts of transport ................................................56Table 26: Efficiency improvements of new concepts of transport ................................................58Table 27: Public acceptance of new concepts of transport............................................................59Table 28: Development status of pre-selected new concepts........................................................61

List of figures

Figure 1: The RECONNECT logics ......................................................................................................3Figure 2: Image gallery of RECONNECT's pre-selected transport concepts ...............................13Figure 3: Structure of the RECONNECT database on new concepts of transport.......................16



Page 1 of 73

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BackgroundCongestion on road and in the air is, at present, possibly the greatest single problemof transport policy in Europe. The economy is growing and transport is in parallelgrowing even faster. This has consequences for the volume and the quality of trans-port, is threatening the environment and entailing risks for safety. In addition, theEuropean Union is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and a lackof space is emerging. Congestion is producing intolerable costs and problems. Thissituation is calling for a reflection on possibilities to find new ways of transportation,using less surface space, enhancing safety, being more environmentally friendly,consuming less energy and being more efficient. Modern society is requiring hightech solutions characterised by a high degree of reliability. Industry and research aredeveloping new ways of transportation which respond to most of the requirementsmentioned.

Constantly growing traffic in Europe leads to increasing environmental, economicaland social problems and deteriorates the competitiveness of economic activities andquality of life of its citizens. Already today, transport is one of the main contributors toair pollution and climate change/CO2 emissions. In particular, it is the fastest growingemission source. Other external costs of transport occur in terms of safety/accidents,noise, uncovered infrastructure costs and congestion. Overall, external costs are es-timated to about 4 % of GDP, depending on the country and method for calculation(Rothengatter, W., 1994).On the other hand, transport services are indispensable to satisfy basic societyneeds on mobility and accessibility and their high standard of quality is a prerequisiteand an enabling condition for European competitiveness. Moreover, the industries in-volved in the supply of transport equipment and services constitute a substantial partof the activity of the EU in terms of added value, employment and trade.Transport policy makers at local, regional, national and the European level agree to avery large extent that swift action has to be taken to secure future economic devel-opment, to protect the environment, and to safeguard the quality of life for their citi-zens. The European Union took a leading role pursuing this objective in defining itsCommon Transport Policy (CTP) as a valuable strategic framework.It seems clear that several and not only one singular measure have to be taken topursue sustainable mobility and the necessary adaptations in our transport system.Basically, there are three levels of intervention to achieve the decoupling of economicdevelopment and transport demand:• direct reduction of the demand for transport;• a shift to more sustainable modes, e.g. by means of intermodal services; and• improvements of the environmental characteristics of the remaining traffic.

To analyse the full potential of the second option, the shift to more sustainablemodes, the European Commission launched an investigation in its fourth call for pro-posals within the transport programme of its fourth Framework Programme. This“Study of potential contribution of new means of transport to sustainable mobility” hasbeen designed to evaluate the potential of emerging transport technologies and or-



Page 2 of 73

ganisational concepts, which might improve the European transport system, its eco-nomic competitiveness and the quality of life of its citizens in the next 10 to 30 years.In addition to the ongoing efforts of European policy makers to shift traffic towardsestablished transport modes with a higher degree of sustainability, this investigationshould give important complimentary information, where new sustainable modes oftransport can be expected on the market within this time frame.

1.2 ObjectivesThe strategic research study RECONNECT – "Reducing Congestion by IntroducingNew Concepts of Transport" – aimed to identify, analyse and assess new means oftransport in different generic categories with particular respect to their potential toease congestion and promote sustainable mobility.Particular objectives have been:• to describe and analyse the potential of new means of transport to ease conges-

tion in Europe’s transport systems and also to contribute to the objectives ofsustainable mobility;

• to show the new concepts technical and financial feasibility;• to identify suitable geographical areas/corridors for optimal function;• to assess the impacts of the new concepts on the environment, safety, reliability,

efficiency, acceptability and employment;• to identify the technical, legal and financial requirements for realisation, and the

opportunities for adaptation of existing laws and standards.

1.3 Means used to achieve the objectivesStarting with a survey of new transport and vehicle concepts – from early conceptideas to already operational systems – for ground level vehicles (including water-borne systems), underground transport vehicles and logistics, and complemented byairships and hypersonic transports, RECONNECT provides a tailor-made clusteringinto representative classes and subsequent in-depth data gathering for conceptsdeemed "most promising". With equal attention, the infrastructure side of new meansof transport has been analysed to allow for comprehensive judgements later on in theproject. An assessment framework and methodology guidelines have been devel-oped, heavily building on output from the major strategic EC study FANTASIE1.

1 "Forecasting and Assessment of New Technologies and Transport Systems and their Impacts on the Environment" [8]



Page 3 of 73

Figure 1: The RECONNECT logics

Based on a targeted and thoroughly structured database, RECONNECT has as-sessed environmental, safety, reliability and efficiency impacts. To integrate regula-tory, administrative or operational aspects in the overall consideration, an investiga-tion into standardisation gaps and legal barriers has been added. The final stage ofRECONNECT was meant to give first concise answers to the question of how newconcepts of transport may actually affect congestion-inflicted traffic systems, andwhere their specific potential in a variety of application areas is foreseen. With re-spect to limited resources and a tight timeline this study only aimed to give first hintson a comprehensive basis, while identifying the need for extended strategic researchon behalf of the European Commission.Figure 1 (above) summarises the RECONNECT project logics (D stands for Deliver-able, WP for Workpackage).

1st Milestone: Concepts and methodology base

2nd Milestone: Input data for assessment

3rd Milestone: Comparison of concepts

4th Milestone: Potential of concepts, policy options and RTD needs

RECONNECT:"How can new concepts of

transport reduce congestion?"

WP 3: New infrastructure survey

WP 2: New means of transport – survey and preselection

WP 4: Assessment framework, methodology guideline

WP 5: Targeted assessment database

WP 6: Impact assessment and comparative cost analysis

WP 7: Policy and market synthesis

D1: "New means of transport –survey and preselection"

D2: "Assessment framework andmethodology guidelines"

D3: "Targeted assessment data-base"

D4: "Impact assessment of newtransport concepts"

D5: "Policy and market synthesis"



Page 4 of 73

2. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY GUIDELINES

A comprehensive assessment framework was presented for use in the RECONNECTproject, which aimed to identify and assess the implications and benefits of newmeans of transport, especially in meeting the need to reduce congestion and achievesustainable mobility in Europe. Throughout, key issues and criteria were highlightedto focus data collection and analysis in later stages of the project.Impact assessment and feasibility issues were addressed by a set of criteria whichdraws from European policy priorities in transport and other related sectors. Giventhe longer-term horizons for application of many of the technologies being studied inRECONNECT, it was necessary to consider both a) the match with current policygoals and criteria, and b) the contribution to forward-looking policy objectives andtrends. Both these horizons have been considered.

The main criteria headings for the three main areas are stated in the following sec-tions. In combination, they present a comprehensive set of measures for comparingnew means of transport with other means and conventional methods of transport.The criteria considered to be of key importance, based on analysis of Europeantransport policy priorities, are (below) highlighted in bold. These criteria have beenthe focus for subsequent information gathering for new means or systems that aredata-poor.

2.1 Impact assessment and feasibility criteriaThe impact assessment and feasibility criteria enable the analysis of the impact ofnew means of transport and also the factors that are fundamental to their deploy-ment:• System performance; environmental impacts; safety impacts; technical feasibility;

integration with other modes, acceptance & take-up; socio-economic impacts.This part of the framework gave a basis for assessing the various impacts and gen-eral feasibility issues concerned with introducing new means of transport. The criteriaare policy-led and encompass the latest policy directions at the European level.

Criteria Sub-category Impact assessmentSystem performance CongestionEnvironmental impacts Environmental sustainability; local air quality; regional

air quality; nuisance; wasteSafety impacts Safety of users; safety of non- users FeasibilityTechnical feasibility Primary technological feasibility; productionIntegration with other modes IntermodalityAcceptance & take-up Public acceptance; market possibilities; political fea-

sibilitySocio-economic impacts Economic development; completion of single market;

social cohesion / quality of lifeNote: The criteria considered to be of key importance, based on analysis of European transport policy priorities,are highlighted in bold.



Page 5 of 73

2.2 Criteria categories for legislation and standardisationThe criteria categories for legislation and standardisation also indicate deploymentissues, specifically the laws, regulations and institutional topics that may affect thesuccess or potential of a new means or technology:• Vehicle rules; infrastructure rules; operational; mobility market; environmental

concerns; strategic and institutional.These criteria enable the description of new means of transport in terms of their po-tential relationships with transport (vehicle and infrastructure) legislation and thestandards that are in place across Europe covering aspects such as safety, operationwithin existing systems/means, technical characteristics etc.

Criteria Sub-categoryVehicle rules Definition; technical issues; maintenance; safetyInfrastructure rules Technical description; construction; maintenance; safetyOperational Definition; rules governing traffic; operation; safetyMobility market Direct support; tax policies; cost reduction; policies for

modal shift; organisation of the marketEnvironmental concerns Emissions; land use; development control & building

rules; recyclingStrategic & institutional Long term programmes; safety / security; institutional re-

sponsibility; overall objectives

2.3 Criteria categories for improved servicesThe criteria for the assessment area of improved services focus on issues that areimportant for users of transport:• Availability; frequency; reliability; travelling speed; accessibility; security; comfort/

services; trip information; flexibility; costs; tariff system; role in European logisticsystem.

The assessment of the quality of new means of transport involves the level of trans-port services that are offered. Criteria for this assessment area therefore focus on is-sues that are important for users of transport. These may involve service require-ments or measures of user satisfaction that can be associated with criteria for im-proved services. The aim of the whole set of criteria within this grouping is to obtainclear information with respect to services of new transport means that can be used toexecute a multi-criteria or simple cost-benefit analysis of new transport means. Thecriteria cover both passenger and freight transport services.



Page 6 of 73

Criteria Measures of satisfactionAvailability Type of transport service; supply to user groups; system capacity;

supply hours; time scheduling; route flexibility; integration withother transport modes; feeder transport

Frequency Frequency; regularityReliability Punctuality / on-time delivery; avoidance of congestion; technical

reliabilityTravelling speed Waiting time; transfer time; access and egress time; in vehicle time;

total travel time / lead time / delivery timeAccessibility General or limited accessibility; distance to access; connections;

density of networkSecurity Traffic safety; personal and property securityComfort / services Comfort and services: at terminals, in vehicle; organisation of trans-

port servicesTrip information Availability of pre-trip information, on-trip informationFlexibility Rules and regulations; adaptation to changes in transport demand

with respect to location, time, volume and transport service typeCosts Price; investment costsTariff system Obtaining tickets; tariff system; reservation requirements; method of

paymentRole in Europeanlogistic system

Integration with other modes; interoperability

Note: The criteria considered to be of key importance, based on analysis of European transport policy priorities,are highlighted in bold.

2.4 Cost-Benefit Analysis MethodologyWithin a project with the limited resources of RECONNECT, it was not possible toapply a comprehensive cost-benefit approach to the assessment of new means oftransport, not least due to the extensive data requirements that such an approachwould entail. However, the basis for applying cost-benefit analysis (CBA) has beeninvestigated and a much-simplified approach was described.

The CBA was to focus on a simplified and quantifiable range of data inputs, to helpguide data collection in subsequent phases of RECONNECT:

Capital costs Pollutant emissionsOperating costs Noise emissionsCost trends with time Accident rateLifetime of equipment, build / installation time Land-useEarliest implementation date Visual impact

The proposed simplified methodology for cost-benefit analysis was based on annu-alised costs (equivalent annual costs). To allow this, a consistent approach was re-quired with respect to:• discount / interest rates;• inflation or changes in price through time;• the approach and underlying assumptions used for determining annual cost data.



Page 7 of 73

The RECONNECT project required a simple approach method for including environ-mental effects within the framework. This can best be met by linking pollutant emis-sions directly to external cost estimates with the use of unit pollution costs (i.e. envi-ronmental costs per tonne emitted). It was proposed that these unit pollution costshave some spatial disaggregation, so that the difference in impacts between differentemission locations is included (i.e. between urban and rural areas).To allow a consistent analysis, data were required on the atmospheric emissions,noise levels, likely accident rates and land-use for each transport mode. These emis-sions had to be categorised according to the location of emission (urban or rural).The collection had to be consistent with the guidelines for cost data above. Thequantification of other possible impacts could not be included at this stage of theframework, though they were listed and rated. When collating this data, informationhad to be taken on a life-cycle basis, rather than just from operation.

2.5 Integration of the frameworkThe assessment framework, including criteria for impact assessment, feasibility, im-proved services and legislation/standardisation was to guide the majority of the as-sessment work to be undertaken in RECONNECT. As mentioned above, cost-benefitanalysis was only envisaged using a highly simplified approach that focused upon aselected list of key criteria. However, Deliverable 2 laid the methodological founda-tions for any future study looking in depth at the costs and benefits of the mostpromising new concepts and means of transport identified by RECONNECT.

➲ D2 "Assessment framework and methodology guidelines"



Page 8 of 73

3. NEW CONCEPTS OF TRANSPORT

The focus of the RECONNECT study has been on technical and organisationaltransport innovations for underground, air and ground level transport beyond tradi-tional metro, air, road and rail transport. To assess their potential for reducing con-gestion as well as improving the environment, safety, reliability, efficiency and em-ployment situation an extensive survey of existing technologies and foreseeable de-velopments was performed, taking vehicles, infrastructure and transport conceptsinto account.Particular emphasis was put on their congestion and pollution reduction potential.Being one of the most populated areas in the world, Europe has to look for new,more efficient, safer and environmental friendlier solutions for freight and passengertransport consuming less energy and using less surface space. The emerging lack ofspace calls for exploiting the third dimension to a higher extent. Therefore improvedtunnel technologies and logistic concepts, logistic and environmental advantages ofairships (e.g. reduced landing infrastructure) and technological innovations for landtransport on and above ground level beyond the traditional road and rail traffic havebeen investigated. These developments are expected to play a very important role inachieving the goal of sustainable mobility of the Common Transport Policy and to se-cure the competitive position of European suppliers of transport technologies and theeconomy as a whole.The methodology for the survey and pre-selection phase was to structure allgathered information in such a way that concepts were clustered into a set of classeswith a few common core characteristics. The description of the class aimed to evalu-ate the class as a whole and to assess the information on the basis of experienceand expertise of the RECONNECT partners. Respective coverage has been concise(1-2 pages each) and summed up the characteristic key points of the state of devel-opment of the class. Annexes in Deliverable 1 provide detailed information on allconcepts and rely more on information received by companies and promoters.The structure of class descriptions addressed the following issues:• congestion reduction potential;• sustainable mobility potential;• role in existing transport system (intermodality, interoperability, replacement, co-

existence);• technical and financial feasibility;• infrastructure issues;• representative system.The information for initial vehicle and infrastructure surveys has been gatheredmainly by literature screening, questionnaires and interviews. The project partnershave tried to rely on direct information from companies and expert opinions from in-dependent scientists at universities and research institutions.The pre-selection of candidates has been based on criteria such as sustainabilitypotential, maturity of development, adaptability of concept to existing infrastructure,financial and technical background of partners in the development, as well as dataavailability.



Page 9 of 73

Classes of transport concepts Classcode

Main characterisation Concept survey(pre-selected concepts in bold)

Ground level vehicles (including waterborne)Guided people movers GPM dedicated track, small

vehicles, frequent service(< 40sec) or on demand

Cable Liner; Poma-Otis, Odyssey,Intamin, American people mover,Raytheon, Cable tracks, Cabinen-taxi, Ultra, Soulé SK; other GPMs

Road based people movers RBPM no dedicated track Rivium ParkShuttle; Serpentine,Horlacher Taxlwurm, Parry PeopleMover

Elevated public transport EPT elevated systems withdriver

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn;Safege, Aerobus, Alweg-Monorail

Moving walkways MW conveyor belt driven Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX);Trans-18, Passenger ConveyorSystem

Fast water vessels FWV waterborne transport Fast Ferry Rotterdam–Dordrecht;Fast ships

Fast bikes FB bicycle related BTS TransGlide 2000, Bicycle Lift;Sky bikes–Bike trains, High speedbikes, new bike infrastructure

Man wide cars MWC narrow shaped vehicles TWIKE; V2P, BMW Scooter; manwide car in general

Individual public transport IPT transport on demand; ve-hicles on a rental basis;alternative propulsion

Praxitèle; Tulip, ICVS, Station Car,Domobile, CityCar

Small individual cars SIC small and light weight in-dividual cars

TH!NK; Smart, LEM, Aixam 300/400

Automated vehicle guidance/Automated highway systems

AVG/AHS

automated passengertransport on roads

Automated Vehicle Guidance(AVG) f. passenger cars; Flexitrain

Dual mode DM alternating guided andunguided transport

RUF Dual-Mode, Road Train;Monomobile, Carmeleon, U-Bus,Spurbus Essen, DMT

Multifunctional urban vehicles MUV adaptable chassis NT SystèmesTechnical innovation for logistics TIL hardware innovation for

freight transportTMC, Salami Container, LechTGZS

Underground transport vehicles and logisticsDriverless guided public transport DGPT automated passenger

transport in vehicles big-ger than people movers

H-Bahn Dortmund; Meteor, MetroLyon, VAL, Small Metro, M-Bahn,Dorfbahn Serfaus

High speed guided systems HSGS high speed guided vehi-cles on dedicated track

Transrapid; Swissmetro, MagLev,MLU, HSST, Seraphim, Eurotunnel

Automated freight-trainand -road concepts

AFT automated guided freighttransport on road or rail

Underground Logistics System(ULS)2; Underground transport andtube systems, MetroFreight, Auto-mated freight trains, Combi-Road

Microtunnels MIT freight transport in micro-tunnels beyond pipelines

Mail tube system, Sumitomo ce-ment capsule liner, Slurry pipeline

Airships and hypersonic transportAirships AIRS dirigible lighter-than-air

craftCargoLifter (CL 160), Rigid Air-ship Design (RA-180), ZeppelinNT (LZ N07); Hamilton Airship, Ro-sAeroSystems, Aeros, AirshipTechnologies, American Blimp,Global Skyship, Goodyear, WDL,Coopership, Aérospatiale

Super-/hypersonic transport HST air transport in planesquicker than sound

LLNL HyperSoar; HSCT, Sänger

Table 1: Defined classes and covered concepts in RECONNECT 2 In RECONNECT Deliverable 1 "Underground Logistics System (ULS)" was the collective title for similar Dutch underground

projects including the microtunnel concept, hence it was included in the MIT class then. [1]



Page 10 of 73

The pre-selected transport concepts

AVG

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG)for passenger cars

(concept of a demonstration site)

FB

GPM

Bicycle Lift(in Trondheim, Norway)

Cable Liner

AIRS

FWV

CargoLifter (CL 160)(design of prototype P1)

FastFerry Rotterdam – Dordrecht(model shown)



Page 11 of 73

MW

DGPT

Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX)(conventional MW shown)

H-Bahn Dortmund(artist's impression of new H-Bahn connection toDuesseldorf airport, currently under construction)

HST

MultifunctionalUrbanVehicle

(no picture available)

MUV

LLNL HyperSoar(artist's impression)

NT Systèmes

IPT

AIRS

Praxitèle

Rigid Airship Design (RA-180)(preliminary design)



Page 12 of 73

RBPM

DM

Rivium ParkShuttle

Road Train(sketch of concept idea)

DM

SIC

RUF Dual-mode(vehicle demonstrator)

TH!NK(TH!NK Neighbour)

FB

HSGS

BTS TransGlide 2000(artist's impression)

Transrapid(TR 08 design shown)



Page 13 of 73

MWC

AFT

TWIKE(TWIKE II)

Underground Logistics System (ULS)(concept of a freight distribution centre shown)

EPT

AIRS

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07)(first flying prototype)

Figure 2: Image gallery of RECONNECT's pre-selected transport concepts

Class code for concepts: AFT = Automated freight-train and -road concepts; AIRS = Airships; AVG/AHS = Automated vehicle guidance/Automated highway systems; DGPT =Driverless guided public transport; DM = Dual mode; EPT = Elevated pub-lic transport; FB = Fast bikes; FWV = Fast water vessels; GPM = Guidedpeople movers; HSGS = High speed guided systems; HST = Super-/hyper-sonic transport; IPT = Individual public transport; MIT = Microtunnels; MUV= Multifunctional urban vehicles; MW = Moving walkways; MWC = Manwide cars; RBPM = Road based people movers; SIC = Small individualcars; TIL = Technical innovations for logistics

Sources of illustrations: All images are taken from homepages of concept proposers or other in-volved institutions. Technologies or concepts are depicted for illustrationpurposes only and do not constitute an advertisement of any kind. Copy-right and all related property rights remain with the developing companies.



Page 14 of 73

The above Table 1 puts the initial work of the RECONNECT team into context withthe pre-selection of "most promising" concepts, later assessments and potentialanalyses. It gives an overview of the 19 defined transport classes outlining their mainfeatures, and lists all surveyed concepts. Introduced class codes are later used toaggregate the potential analysis for specific concepts to their generic classes.Figure 2 illustrates pre-selected concepts with reference to their generic classes.It should be noted that some systems appear under slightly altered concept namescompared to the initial survey in Deliverable 1.

As shown in Table 1, nearly one hundred transport concepts have been covered inthe initial survey, additionally mirroring investigations by RECONNECT partnersagainst an internal working paper from the European Commission, dated April 1997.The document called "New ways of transport. Operational and planned systemsknown at present" had been summarising a meeting at DG VII (now DG TREN),where an overview of some 75 innovative transport solutions for underground trans-port, people movers, automated vehicle guidance and other options was presented.

Compiled surveys of new transport concepts and related infrastructure requirementshave been the comprehensive basis for in-depth investigation into pre-selected con-cepts, anticipated to be most promising with respect to the project's main objectives.While this chapter introduces the scope of the study and explains the starting pointfor work undertaken, the following two chapters describe in brief the means used toachieve the main objectives, i.e. by implementing a targeted assessment databaseand by performing a detailed impact assessment of the 21 pre-selected transportconcepts.Chapter 6 ("Congestion reduction through new transport concepts") finally presentskey findings of RECONNECT, thereby summarising consecutive groundwork of allworkpackages.

➲ D1 "New means of transport – survey and preselection"➲ D4 "Impact assessment of new transport concepts"➲ D5 "Policy and market synthesis"



Page 15 of 73

4. THE TARGETED ASSESSMENT DATABASE

A custom made database has been designed to comprise all the relevant informationon the most promising new means of transport pre-selected in an earlier stage of theproject.The data met, in scope and nature, the criteria laid down in WP 4 "Assessmentframework, methodology guideline" ensuring the database was fully “targeted“ at therequirements of the assessment and analysis of the subsequent WP 6. It was de-signed to reveal the advantages and disadvantages, potentials and constraints,benefits and conflicts arising from the various systems under consideration. The da-tabase contains data on systems for individual, collective and freight transport. Thecoverage is world-wide with particular focus on the EU, USA and Japan. The data-base was not designed for public use and dissemination, but only for internal as-sessment use.The database has been structured by general project and system information, de-scription of the technology, environmental issues, service characteristics, economicaspects, the impacts of the new mode of transport, barriers for the introduction andlegal issues. Microsoft Access 97 has been used as the database software. Figure 3summarises the database structure.A 12-page questionnaire was drafted for the collection of data. This was sent to theresponsible contact persons for the specific systems. Due to the fact that the collec-tion of data already focused on pre-selected concepts, a response of nearly 100 %had been the target. This caused a higher effort for the data collection than planned.Only an English version was produced, which was in most cases sufficient. In severalcases the answers were given in the contact person's native language, but this onlycaused additional efforts for the translation. The questionnaires were sent out by e-mail or normal mail with an accompanying letter introducing the RECONNECT proj-ect in general and explaining the purpose of data collection in particular. This wassupplemented by direct telephone contacts with the responsible persons if required.Following reminders in a few cases, most of the questionnaires were filled out.The data collected with the questionnaire differed widely in extent and quality. Theprojects, which are in very different stages of implementation, had to fit into onecommon database. Several "over optimistic" concepts which were highly promotionalhad to be dealt with. Sole information from the Internet has been treated rathercarefully, too. The Internet was merely used to establish a personal contact for fur-ther investigation and not as a basis for the information itself.It should be stressed that site visits conducting face-to-face interviews with the re-sponsible contact persons would have been the best way to collect data to full satis-faction. But due to the restricted resources of the RECONNECT project they wereonly feasible to a rather limited extent.As far as possible independent sources such as studies about the technologies orarticles in topic related journals have been used for plausibility checking. Also, expertopinion and know-how amongst the consortium was used to scrutinise the facts andfigures within the answers. Any doubts about the feasibility of certain concepts orparts of concepts were simply stated as remarks in the database.



Page 16 of 73

Figure 3: Structure of the RECONNECT database on new concepts of transport

➲ D3 "Targeted assessment database"

General project /system information

Name / title of the projectLocationContact addressDate of completion of the RECONNECT questionnaireProject description and aimsProject set up (paper-concept to full scale operation & R&D needs)Stages with datesPartners in projectFunding

Technology descriptionWhich type of transportGeographic levelUsed propulsion systemUsed fuel / energy supplyType of vehicleTransport conceptSpeed

AccelerationWeightCapacityOperating rangeLocal operating conditionsInfrastructure

Environmental issuesUsed fuelEmissionsNoise levelVibrationsLand useOther environmental impacts

System capacityIntegration with other transport modesReliabilityTechnical reliabilityFrequencyTravel time (total, in-vehicle, transfer, access and egress)

Service characteristics

Economic aspectsCurrencyYearCapital costsOperational costsCost indexLifetimeBuilding or installation timeRevenuesTariff systemAdditional financial issues

Impacts of thenew mode of transport

Avoidance of congestionIntermodalityLoad-following capacitySafety of operativesSafety of passengersImpacts on economic developmentImpacts on social aspects

Feasibility /barriers for the introduction

CompatibilityAcceptance by industryAcceptance by societyCompetitiveness with existing technologiesIndustrial lock-inEffect on transport demandRequirement for system-wide change

Legal issuesDefinitionTechnicalRules governing trafficSafetyMobility marketEnvironment

Additionalinformation and remarks



Page 17 of 73

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NEW TRANSPORT CONCEPTS

The evaluation of merits and disadvantages of new means of transport combined animpact assessment framework and methodological issues with information on newtransport concepts, into an assessment of impacts of new transport concepts.This was effectuated by considering the following aspects of transport concepts:• economic, social and environmental impacts;• legal barriers and international standardisation;• socio-economic performance by means of a comparative (cost-benefit) analysis.In general, the selected new transport concepts show a large variation in application,transport market segment and state of development. Consequently, much variationwas found in the quality of gathered data. For many of the new transport concepts,only preliminary data and no empirical information is available. Despite this draw-back, an impact assessment and comparative analysis has been performed for eachof the new means of transport.

5.1 Impact assessmentThe evaluation of economic, social and environmental impacts involved issues suchas efficiency, safety, reliability, public acceptance, financial risk, emissions, land use,and employment. The impact assessment was combined with a mobility analysis andwas performed on the basis of a distinction between different segments of the mobil-ity market. Differences in socio-economic conditions were introduced in the analysisby distinguishing four different scenarios with respect to economic growth,sustainability of the transport system, technical development, etc. From the impactanalysis it becomes clear that most new means of transport may only be able to re-duce congestion on a small scale. In many cases this congestion reduction potentialis based on the provision of new infrastructure and a resulting modal shift.Much better scores were obtained for environmental effects and service level im-provements. Many new means of transport focus on service level improvements toattract passengers and freight, and comply with sustainable mobility policies to createpublic and financial support. This generally comes at the expense of high infrastruc-ture needs and consequently higher costs. Examples of new transport modes thatare promising with respect to mobility, congestion reduction, environment and servicelevel improvements – but for which infrastructure needs and total costs are very high– are the Cable Liner, the Underground Logistics System (ULS) and the WuppertalerSchwebebahn. New transport concepts that offer attractive characteristics withoutexceptionally high costs are Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG), the Bicycle Lift, theCargoLifter, the Fast Ferry, the RAD airship, the ParkShuttle and the Road Train.Total impacts depend on the size of application in the transport market.

5.2 Mobility market analysisThe market potential of new means of transport was assessed by a scenario-basedfuture analysis. Most new means of transport have the best market chances in asituation with sustainable transport policies, such as Praxitèle, the Road Train, theBTS TransGlide 2000 bicycle system, the TWIKE, and RAD's airship. Other new



Page 18 of 73

means of transport require high economic growth to have substantial market poten-tial, for example the Fast Ferry, the Fast Moving Walkway and the Transrapid. Thisshows that the opportunities for new means of transport are crucially embedded insocio-economic developments. New transport concepts that appear to have highmarket potentials in any future scenario are Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG), theCargoLifter freight airship, the H-Bahn, the ParkShuttle and urban vehicles such asNT Systèmes and the TH!NK.The methodological framework set out in the FANTASIE project was utilised to derivefour scenarios that are limited to the analysis of the two main dimensions economicgrowth and sustainability:

BAU – Business As Usual (moderate economic growth);UG – Unrestricted Growth (high economic growth);SB – Sustainable Balance (moderate economic growth);SG – Sustainable Growth (high economic growth).

Assessment work included forecasts of expected growth for new transport conceptsin the time period 1995 (representing a baseline) to 2020 and an estimate of antici-pated market shares – per scenario – for the reference year 2020.

The following section gives an overview of the impact assessment and mobilityanalysis by transport concept. For each of the selected transport concepts, a numberof impacts were described in general terms. This concerned the following aspects:• mobility market impact and congestion reduction;• environmental impacts;• infrastructure needs;• service level improvements;• safety issues;• implementation and exploitation costs;• economic and social impacts.

A number of remarks can be put forward about the impact assessment and mobilityanalysis. First, the fact that the concepts in RECONNECT are in most cases newmeans of transport that have not yet been (widely) introduced in the transport market,makes it very difficult to assess the exact impact of these concepts. The analysis istherefore very general and only tries to give bounds to the expectations one can formabout the new means of transport.Secondly, impacts depend on both the principal effects of individual means of trans-port and the importance of concepts in the market. A small effect in case of a widelyused transport concept may have a larger impact than a large effect of a transportconcept that is only used in a niche market. Therefore, the analysis must distinguishbetween principal effects and total impacts of transport means.Thirdly, the new means of transport treated in RECONNECT have no direct relationwith transport concepts in the FANTASIE project. To assess the impacts of theseconcepts in a scenario context, they have been appointed to a concept that was infact treated and for which quantitative information is available in FANTASIE. This has



Page 19 of 73

to be kept in mind when judging the results of the impact assessment and mobilityanalysis in this chapter.

An overview of the principal effects by all transport concepts is given in Table 2. Thetable does not present total impacts, as these are dependent on the market share ofthe transport concepts as well. Market potentials are discussed by transport concept.Mobility effects are present when the new means of transport expand the mobilitypossibilities for travellers or freight. For congestion reduction, effects on the environ-ment, service level improvements, safety, economic effects and social effects, ascale is used that runs from − − (very negative or very small) via − (negative orsmall), 0 (negligible) and + (positive or moderate) to ++ (very positive or large). Incase both positive and negative effects are present, this is indicated by ±. Infrastruc-ture needs are expressed in terms of negligible (0), moderate (+) or large (++). Im-plementation and exploitation costs are expressed negatively: the higher the costs,the more negative the sign. Costs include infrastructure, vehicle purchase, opera-tional and maintenance costs. Where no information is available, the table shows adot.The principal effects presented in Table 2 are based on judgements by the RECON-NECT project members, after studying data of each of the new transport concept asobtained in previous workpackages.



Page 20 of 73

New means of transport Mobility Congestionreduction

Environment Infrastructureneeds

Service levelimprovements

Safety Costs Economy Socialeffects

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) + + + + + ++ 0 . +Bicycle Lift + + + + ++ 0 − . +Cable Liner + + + ++ ++ + − − + .CargoLifter (CL 160) + + + + + + − + +Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht + + + + ++ 0 − + ±Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) + 0 0 + ++ 0 − − + +H-Bahn Dortmund + + 0 ++ + + − − + .LLNL HyperSoar + 0 − − + − − − − ++ .NT Systèmes 0 0 + 0 + 0 ± + .Praxitèle + 0 + + + 0 − . +Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) + + + + ++ + − ++ +Rivium ParkShuttle + + ++ + ++ 0 − + +Road Train + + ++ ++ + + − + .RUF Dual-Mode 0 + ++ ++ + + − − + +TH!NK + + + 0 0 ± + . +BTS TransGlide 2000 0 + + ++ ++ + − − + +Transrapid 0 0 + ++ + + − − + 0TWIKE + + + 0 0 ± 0 0 +Underground Logistics System (ULS) + ++ ++ ++ ++ + − − + .Wuppertaler Schwebebahn + + + ++ + + − − + +Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) + 0 + + ± + − − + 0

Key: a) Ratings used for mobility, congestion reduction, environment, service level improvements, safety, economic effects and social effects− − very negative or very small ; − negative or small; 0 negligible ; + positive or moderate ; ++ very positive or large ; ± bothpositive and negative effects ; b) Ratings used for infrastructure needs 0 negligible ; + moderate ; ++ largec) Costs are expressed negatively. Where no information was available, the table shows a dot.

Table 2: Overview of principal effects of new means of transport



Page 21 of 73

Below, independent qualitative judgements are given by the RECONNECT partnerswith respect to the market potential of selected new means of transport.

Qualitative judgement of market potentialNew means of transport ClassUG SG BAU SB

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG +++ ++ + 0Bicycle Lift FB + ++ 0 +Cable Liner GPM + + 0 ++CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS 0 + 0 +Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV + + 0 0Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) MW ++ + 0 0H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT ++ ++ + +LLNL HyperSoar HST + 0 + 0NT Systèmes MUV + ++ 0 ++Praxitèle IPT 0 ++ 0 +Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS 0 + 0 +Rivium ParkShuttle RBPM + ++ 0 +Road Train DM 0 + 0 +RUF Dual-Mode DM 0 + 0 0TH!NK SIC + +++ 0 ++BTS TransGlide 2000 FB 0 + 0 +Transrapid HSGS + + 0 0TWIKE MWC 0 +++ + +++Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT + ++ 0 +Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT 0 0 0 +Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS 0 + 0 +

Key: +++ high/important ; ++ moderate/competitive ;+ small/niche ; 0 negligible

Table 3: Overview of scenario-based future analysis – forecast horizon: year 2020

5.3 Legal barriers and standardisation gapsLegal barriers involve laws and regulations that limit the construction or operation ofnew means of transport, or the integration with new or existing transport concepts inother nations. For the analysis of legal barriers and standardisation gaps, no system-atic review of the individual new means of transport was performed, since there is alarge variation in basic aims and stage of development. Instead, the transport con-cepts were treated in classes for which general legal issues were identified. Theanalysis showed that legal issues must not be underestimated. Due to the novelty oftransport concepts, laws and regulations need to be adapted or drafted to clear legalbarriers for market introduction. Differences in legislation between countries may hin-der a European-wide spread of new transport concepts. Harmonisation is necessaryto overcome expected barriers.



Page 22 of 73

5.4 Comparative analysisThe analysis of the economic performance of transport concepts compared the se-lected new means of transport with typical base transport concepts and identifieddifferences in impacts with respect to the mobility market, congestion reduction, envi-ronment, infrastructure needs, service level improvements, safety issues and costs.The analysis gave a very general and illustrative idea of the merits and disadvan-tages of the new means of transport in comparison with selected base transport con-cepts. The positive effect on congestion reduction by most new means of transport isan endogenous relationship that results from the definition and choice of the baseconcepts. Exceptional good scores on congestion reduction were given to the RoadTrain, the Underground Logistics System (ULS) and the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn.These concepts supplement the existing transport system in a very efficient manner.No reduction in congestion is expected for new means that mainly serve very longdistance trips (HyperSoar and Transrapid), for new means that operate in marketswhere congestion is hardly present (RAD's airship and Zeppelin NT), or for newmeans that are very similar in transport service to the base concept (NT Systèmes).Table 4 maps selected new transport concepts to base concepts used for the abovefeatured comparative analysis.

New means of transport Base concept for comparison Other modes affected

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) All-purpose carBicycle Lift All-purpose car Public transport, motorbikeCable Liner Shuttle bus All-purpose carCargoLifter (CL 160) Antonov An-124 aircraft Road, air and ship freightFast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht All-purpose car Public transport, two wheelersFast Moving Walkway (TRAX) All-purpose car Public transportH-Bahn Dortmund All-purpose car Public transportLLNL HyperSoar Airbus A340 aircraftNT Systèmes Heavy goods vehiclePraxitèle All-purpose car Public transportRigid Airship Design (RA-180) Sikorsky CH-53E helicopter Road freightRivium ParkShuttle All-purpose car Public transportRoad Train Heavy goods vehicle Rail freightRUF Dual-Mode All-purpose car Public transportTH!NK All-purpose car Public transport, motorbikeBTS TransGlide 2000 All-purpose car Public transport, motorbikeTransrapid Airbus A320 aircraft Rail transport, all-purpose carTWIKE All-purpose car Public transport, motorbikeUnderground Logistics System (ULS) Heavy goods vehicleWuppertaler Schwebebahn All-purpose car Public transportZeppelin NT (LZ N07) Eurocopter EC155 helicopter

Table 4: Selected new transport concepts and assigned base concepts used forcomparative analysis in RECONNECT



Page 23 of 73

High comparable scores were given for environmental advantages. The use of elec-tric propulsion instead of conventional fuel propulsion is an important reason (e.g.Cable Liner and TH!NK). Other reasons are the substitution of the all-purpose car byhuman propulsion (e.g. Fast Moving Walkway and BTS TransGlide 2000) and indi-vidual transport by collective transport (e.g. H-Bahn and Road Train). The highestscores on service level improvements were given to new means of transport that of-fer individual and continuous transport services. Since infrastructure is often the mostexpensive part of new transport concepts, scores on infrastructure needs and costshave been mostly contrasting. The largest infrastructure projects are the Cable Liner,the H-Bahn, the Transrapid, the Underground Logistics System (ULS) and the Wup-pertaler Schwebebahn. Consequently, these systems have the highest costs. Rela-tively low infrastructure needs are foreseen for the CargoLifter and the Fast MovingWalkway. Both scored relatively positive on total costs.

One of the most important conclusions that can be drawn is, that a more in-depthanalysis is needed to assess specific merits, drawbacks and market opportunities fornew transport concepts when a decision needs to be taken with respect to invest-ments in a particular new means of transport.

➲ D4 "Impact assessment of new transport concepts"



Page 24 of 73

6. MARKET POTENTIAL AND KEY POLICY ISSUES

The following sections outline the potential of new transport concepts with respect toboundary conditions prevailing in the European context and prominent policy objec-tives. Offering an integrative perspective for priority themes of transport, statementsare clustered to allow for easier usage by policy makers, traffic and regional plan-ners, or more generally, stakeholders involved in the transport business. Only thosesystems understood to offer enhanced efficiency, congestion reduction and environ-mental friendliness – thus promoting a sustainable future in European transport – arecovered.Reflecting on analyses and assessment work undertaken in RECONNECT it shouldbe mentioned that answers provided here do not necessarily constitute an ultimatejudgement on the capability or market potential of new transport concepts. Hence invarious fields new ideas may emerge during the next years – sometimes based onthe experience in application of current concepts – that could significantly fostersustainability. Other vehicles or transport concepts may in contrast not deliver prom-ised advantages under real life conditions, so the pool of "new means of transport" isperceived to be in an on-going evolution process that is likely to bring up even somecompletely new approaches, encouraged by the urge to dramatically improve Euro-pean transport networks.

6.1 Identification of congestion areasThe study RECONNECT raised the question as to which areas of congestion – interms of geographical, infrastructure or organisational level – do exist, how they canbe classified and which of the here investigated concepts have a significant potentialto ease congestion.Hence a definition of "congestion areas" was introduced that allows for clustering ofnew means of transport, independent of the principal vehicle, mode or transport con-cept.



Page 25 of 73

Congestion area(passenger & freight service)

Geographical level Principle suitable &available transport modes

Priority; over-all importance

Urban congestioninner cityurban/sub-urban linkage,semi-urban agglomerations,sub-urban arteries

0-15 km APC, city cars, PT(subway, tram, bus)people mover, bicycle,walking, van (LGV),truck (HGV)

very high

Intercity highwaysbetween neighbouring city centres,at traffic junctions between highways,at industrial zones located on highways

15-80 km APC, PT (commutertrain, bus), inland ferry,van (LGV), truck (HGV)

high

Intra-rural 0-80 km APC, PT (bus, train),van (LGV), truck (HGV)

medium

Long distanceregional & national,between distant cities and distant industrial centres,European-wide

80-500 km APC, (high speed) rail,MagLev, airplane, air-ship, truck (HGV)

medium

Very long distanceEuropean-wide/international,global/intercontinental

>500 km high speed rail, MagLev,ship, airplane, airship,truck (HGV)

low

Natural bottlenecks & barriersmountainous regions,river crossings,islands,locations with extreme climatic conditions

0-15(-80) km APC, bus, ship, airplane(helicopter), airship, van(LGV), truck (HGV)

medium

Traffic nodesmain railway & bus terminals,inland & sea ports,airports,freight distribution centres

very high

industrial areas,business parks,shopping malls,exhibition sites & fair grounds,sports arenas (in- & out-door),recreation zones

0-15(-80) km APC, PT (commutertrain, subway, tram,bus), rail, ship, airplane,van (LGV), truck (HGV)

high

Table 5: Definition of congestion areas



Page 26 of 73

The following Tables 6 and 7 depict the mapping of selected transport concepts inRECONNECT to congestion areas to indicate perceived fields of application for therespective system.Congestion area(passenger & freight service)

Most promising RECONNECT concepts Class Congestion re-duction potential

Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) MW +Praxitèle IPT +Inner city

Rivium ParkShuttle RBPM ++Bicycle Lift FB ++Cable Liner GPM ++Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV ++H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT ++NT Systèmes MUV +Road Train DM ++RUF Dual-Mode DM ++TH!NK SIC ++BTS TransGlide 2000 FB ++TWIKE MWC ++Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT +++

Urban congestionUrban/sub-urban link-age, semi-urban ag-glomera-tions andsub-urbanarteries

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT ++Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG ++NT Systèmes MUV +Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV ++H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT ++Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++Road Train DM ++RUF Dual-Mode DM ++TH!NK SIC ++BTS TransGlide 2000 FB ++TWIKE MWC ++Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT +++Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT ++

Intercity highways

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS +Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG ++Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++TH!NK SIC ++TWIKE MWC ++

Intra-rural

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS +Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG ++CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS ++Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++Transrapid HSGS ++

Long distance

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS +CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS ++LLNL HyperSoar HST +Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++Transrapid HSGS ++

Very long distance

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS +Key: +++ very high ; ++ high ; + small

Table 6: Congestion reduction potential per identified area (1)



Page 27 of 73

Congestion area(passenger & freight service)

Most promising RECONNECT concepts Class Congestion re-duction potential

Bicycle Lift FB ++CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS ++Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV ++Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++Transrapid HSGS ++

Natural bottlenecks & barriers

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS +CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS ++Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) MW +H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT ++NT Systèmes MUV +Praxitèle IPT +Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++Rivium ParkShuttle RBPM ++Road Train DM ++RUF Dual-Mode DM ++TH!NK SIC ++BTS TransGlide 2000 FB ++TWIKE MWC ++Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT +++Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT ++

Traffic nodes

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS +Key: +++ very high ; ++ high ; + small

Table 7: Congestion reduction potential per identified area (2)

The following sections deal with specific potentials of selected new transport con-cepts for a set of problem or congestion areas that (partly) mirror current policy keyactions to be pursued in the course of the current CTP Action Programme of theEuropean Commission. To put statements into context with respect to already com-municated policy papers and supporting material, introductory sections draw onframeworks developed in the FP 4 dissemination project EXTRA ("Exploitation ofTransport Research").Only worthwhile potentials have been described in detail whereas tables for eachchapter summarise findings and allow for relative comparison of applicable concepts.Not all congestion areas as defined above have been treated separately becauseconcise statements would have been impossible due to a variety of involved pa-rameters, or because outlined features of a transport technology would apply to mostcategories hence provoking inevitable repetition in the presentation.For future research work on congestion reduction, the methodology chosen here cancertainly be expanded to case studies where pre-conditions e.g. in terms of geo-graphical level, population structure, existing infrastructure, topography and climate,forecasted economic growth or specific societal behaviours can be fed into morecomplex checklists to ultimately allow for the right choice of system(s) in a givensituation.



Page 28 of 73

6.2 Compatibility with Common Transport Policy objectivesA simple check of the potential deployment of new transport concepts against ge-neric themes as articulated in the European Union's Common Transport Policy (CTP)has been performed. This basically involved an evaluation of the potential of newmeans of transport against the theme of "sustainable development", which includesminimising environmental impacts, and making the best and most equitable use ofresources.This implication is two-sided. On the one hand, new technologies need policy actionssuch as R&D investments to support their development or the adaptation of theregulatory framework to facilitate their market introduction and uptake. On the otherhand, once in the market place, new transport technologies may contribute directly toreach or to enable the CTP objectives by improving the performance of the transportsystem. This section covers the analysis of the second implication, which attempts todescribe the potential role and contribution of technologies to achieve the goals ofthe CTP. The cross checking of technologies and CTP was carried out in two ways.First, the CTP was broken down to a number of single policy actions that requiretechnology innovation for their implementation and thereby the link with new trans-port concepts is deduced. Finally, the analysis was complemented by an overview ofthe role of the new transport concepts on the three pillars of sustainable develop-ment: economic, environment and social dimensions.In order to deduce the potential impact of technology innovation, it was necessary toreview the main elements of the CTP and sustainability3.The fundamental objective of the CTP is to move the Community forward towards asustainable mobility system in Europe whilst maintaining the key contribution of thetransport system to European competitiveness, growth and employment. Therefore,the central subject is the promotion of sustainable development for which sustainablemobility is a prerequisite. In this context, the main challenge for policy-makers is toreconcile three major issues:• securing higher standards of living through economic development;• protecting and enhancing the environment; and• ensuring an equitable distribution of the benefits between present and future

generations.

Based on these objectives, sustainable mobility can be defined in practical terms as:

A transport system and transport patterns that can provide the means and op-portunities to meet economic, environmental and social needs efficiently andequitably, while minimising avoidable or unnecessary adverse impacts and theirassociated costs, over relevant space and time scales.

By way of conclusion, an overview of the potential contribution of the new transportconcepts to sustainable mobility is included. Here, the main characteristics of sus-tainable mobility have been aggregated into the three main themes that reflect aswell the main CTP goals: economic, environmental and social aspects.Table 8 matches the 21 new transport concepts against the three main themes of theCommon Transport Policy. Qualitative ratings in the table imply whether a system is 3 This section is mainly based on projects FANTASIE (D18 and D23) and EXTRA, thematic paper "Sustainable mobility – inte-

grated perspective". [7, 8]



Page 29 of 73

compatible ( ), neutral but not inconsistent (0) or non-compliant (–) with CTP objec-tives. A "–" rating in any of the columns automatically results in a negative overallvaluation of the transport system.

Economicdevelop-

ment

Environ-mental

protection

Socialaspects

New means of transport Class

economic activ-ity and competi-tiveness, em-

ployment, inno-vation, exports,land-use pat-terns, regional

linking, comple-tion of Single

Market

environmentalsustainability(energy re-source use,global warm-ing, destruc-tion of habi-

tats, bio-diversity), lo-

cal/regional airquality, nui-

sance, waste

equity, publicacceptance,accessibility,working con-ditions, carefor marginal/underprivi-

leged groups

Overall CTPcompatibilityassured ?

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG 0Bicycle Lift FB 0Cable Liner GPMCargoLifter (CL 160) AIRSFast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV 0Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) MWH-Bahn Dortmund DGPTLLNL HyperSoar HST – – –NT Systèmes MUV 0Praxitèle IPT 0Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRSRivium ParkShuttle RBPMRoad Train DMRUF Dual-Mode DM 0TH!NK SIC 0BTS TransGlide 2000 FBTransrapid HSGS 0TWIKE MWC 0Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT 0Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPTZeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS 0

Key: compatible ; 0 neutral ; – non-compliant

Table 8: Qualitative check of new transport concepts against main CTP themes

Concluding remarksNot surprisingly the only investigated new concept to fail this review was the pro-posed hypersonic transport "HyperSoar". Environmental impacts of negative charac-ter are inevitable as related to the considered propulsion system and the missionprofile requiring operation on the outer rim of the Earth's atmosphere. Noise fromrocket engines at take-off and landing, the sonic boom and the release of green-house gases in sensitive parts of the upper atmosphere may be major showstoppersfor such a vehicle. The rather vague and theoretical effects on enhanced mobility or



Page 30 of 73

economic competitiveness do not appear to compensate for the disadvantages ofsuper fast aircraft, let alone can any congestion reduction be expected.Consequently the idea of new generation supersonic or even hypersonic transportswas not further treated in detail. As long as spectacular improvements in enginetechnology do not emerge, there seems to be no basis for this niche market applica-tion, with principal breakthroughs not likely to occur in the next ten years. Currentconcept evaluations around ideas of supersonic business jets (SSBJs) by such com-panies as Dassault, Lockheed Martin, Gulfstream and Sukhoi do reveal the need toundertake a lot of development work concerning engine technology and aerodynamicdesigns that would minimise the sonic boom phenomenon.Apart from the "HyperSoar" concept, most of the concepts studied in RECONNECTare compatible with the achievement of CTP goals and actions. They may facilitatethese actions and in many cases these policy actions explicitly look for the imple-mentation of these concepts, e.g. those contributing to reduce transport problems inurban areas, lower car dependency or support intermodality.Only the impact of single transport concepts has been considered here, but they mayplay an important role in the CTP context also by influencing the transport system asa whole. This will include indirect effects such as the potential to improve the attrac-tiveness of the public transport system, through the public perception of new con-cepts in terms of safety, comfort and convenience.Finally, another issue, that has little explicit consideration in the CTP, is the economiceffect on the suppliers of transport equipment. It is worthwhile mentioning that mostof the new transport concepts studied here offer a significant export potential andcompetitiveness effect for EU industry. This multiplier effect is not only important ineconomic terms but also because the resulting economies of scale may enable ex-pensive technologies to reach critical mass and market viability also for the EU mar-ket.

6.3 Urban transport and the "City of Tomorrow"The promotion of sustainable development involves enabling competitiveness andemployment, while de-coupling economic growth from environmental degradation.Out of six key actions under this theme in FP 5, key action 4 deals with the "City ofTomorrow and Cultural Heritage". The general objective addresses the commonchallenge to improve the quality of life in urban communities and associated urbanregions, and to ensure the competitiveness of European cities while promoting sus-tainable development in terms of differing aspects among cities such as:• economic development;• architecture;• environment;• social and cultural conditions.

Cities all over Europe face common challenges related to:• air quality;• noise;• traffic congestion;• waste;



Page 31 of 73

• economic competitiveness;• employment;• security; and• the deterioration of infrastructure and grown environments.The innovative transport concepts covered in RECONNECT certainly address itemssuch as air quality, noise and most prominently traffic congestion. Possible impactson economic competitiveness and employment were treated as secondary effects.With respect to the aforementioned key action, one out of four inter-related prioritythemes targets the "Comparative assessment and cost effective implementation ofstrategies for sustainable transport systems in an urban environment"4. Distinct aimsare to radically reduce urban pollution and congestion, while ensuring accessibilityand mobility. Means to achieve this are seen in strategic approaches towards landuse patterns favourable to the development of alternatives to the individual all-purpose car and towards the introduction of new urban transport technologies com-patible with the overall transport system. RTD priorities in the course of the launchedFifth Framework Programme will comprise pilot and demonstration projects that in-tend to validate the applicability and usability of new systems under real life condi-tions in urban environments.Table 9 matches the selected new transport concepts against the three major cate-gories of the "City of Tomorrow" theme.

Potential to positively influenceNew means of transport ClassPollution andcongestion

Accessibilityand mobility

Economiccompetitivenessand employment

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG ++ + +Bicycle Lift FB + ++ 0Cable Liner GPM + ++ ++Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV + ++ ++Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) MW ++ +++ ++H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT ++ + ++Praxitèle IPT + ++ +NT Systèmes MUV + ++ +Rivium ParkShuttle RBPM ++ ++ ++Road Train DM ++ ++ +RUF Dual-Mode DM ++ ++ ++TH!NK SIC + ++ ++BTS TransGlide 2000 FB +++ ++ +TWIKE MWC + ++ +Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT +++ ++ +Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT ++ + ++

Key: +++ high ; ++ good ; + small ; 0 none

Table 9: Potential of urban and sub-urban systems to contribute to the "City ofTomorrow" objectives

4 "Energy, environment and sustainable development. Programme for research, technology development and demonstration

under the Fifth Framework Programme – Work programme." [2]



Page 32 of 73

Potential applications of new transport systems• The Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) provides quick movement of considerable

groups of pedestrians over short distances from a few hundred metres to a fewkilometres. Attractive system features include improved access, egress and in-terchange transport capability. Potential applications are seen at large terminals(railway stations, airports), transport junctions, city centres, shopping centres andlarge parking lots (e.g. park-and-ride facilities at the municipal perimeter).

• A demand-responsive car-rental concept such as Praxitèle offers high flexibilityfor choice of routes and destinations in urban areas and may be best linked topublic transport interchange points to allow for complementary service. As a partreplacement for public transport, advantages are likely to diminish because theresulting modal shift will quickly trigger typical problems related to the use of theall-purpose car. Praxitèle may potentially be of interest to local authorities andmunicipalities with severe parking problems.

• Demand-responsive service combined with the option to do without dedicated in-frastructure predestine the Rivium ParkShuttle for feeder service, intercon-nected with more traditional rail or road based supply. However, the small vehiclecapacity will limit application to situations where, for example, flexible workinghours of employees or generally low occupancy rates are expected. High peak-hour usage is certainly critical because the number of vehicles on one connectioncannot be extended endlessly, but a dedicated role in an inter-modal ”hub-and–spoke” scheme will be valuable.

• Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) for passenger cars aims at improving theroad capacity, measured in number of vehicles per lane. The distance betweenvehicles in congested areas can (theoretically) be optimised to around two orthree metres. The best use of existing road space (often already critical) could beassured with a custom-made reduction of lane widths in municipal areas. Such astrategy would indeed mean a ban of the conventional all-purpose car withouttelematics features from inner city traffic. This would need to be thoroughly trialedand tested to increase user confidence and acceptance.

• The Bicycle Lift can overcome bottlenecks in the sense of hilly locations in anotherwise suitable environment for cycling. This can improve the acceptance andactual use of human-powered transport. However, the foreseen modal shift willprimarily be from walking to cycling and only to some extent the substitution ofindividual motorised transport. The bicycle lift will not be a remedy if precondi-tions are bad due to significant air pollution or generally poor bicycle infrastruc-ture in the urban/suburban areas.

• The Cable Liner, utilising cable propulsion, can best be implemented where thelimited operational capability is sufficient for feeder transport and integration intotransport chains. Higher vehicle capacity, yet limitations in flexibility related to therequired dedicated track, will allow for a small change in modal shift from road torail where concepts such as the aforementioned ParkShuttle are not applicable.Better peak hour availability may for example be suited to connect businessparks or shopping centres to commuter or metro stations, with service timesadapted to the larger systems.

• Inland or sea port cities with existing local waterway infrastructure should cer-tainly look at the Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht concept to complimentpublic transport. While offering point-to-point connections, the integration of fastinland vessels with park-and-ride facilities may be considered, thus contributingto a local modal shift. Connecting previously unattractive residential commuter or



Page 33 of 73

generally water-isolated areas to urban centres could even change the lifestyle ofcommuters.

• The H-Bahn Dortmund as an automatically operated and elevated metro systemhas the potential to supplement road transport on major (congested) municipalroutes, where its higher speed, appropriate capacity and excellent reliability of-fers a valuable alternative. The H-Bahn complements smaller systems such asthe Cable Liner and may allow for access of urban areas where at-grade rail-systems cannot find the required free space for installations. The H-Bahn can bean integral part of an urban metro system with interchange points fed by smallerbut more flexible concepts (e.g. ParkShuttle) serving routes with a lower transportflow.

• Multifunctional vehicles such as the NT Systèmes potentially show a positive im-pact on reducing secondary congestion related to shortage of parking space incities. As a versatile alternative to the conventional all-purpose car, the most no-ticeable benefit is reduced emissions. However, this is unlikely to successfullycompete with other electrically-powered vehicles that provide inter-modal trans-port options such as Praxitèle.

• In urban centres, the potential of the Road Train concept lies in the substitutionof conventionally-powered vans and trucks. As the concept requires moderateinfrastructure development (dedicated lanes; road or rail), its application will cer-tainly be limited to a few urban arteries. In this way, however, it may ensure anefficient connection to sub-urban areas.

• The RUF Dual-Mode system can serve high capacity corridors in larger citieswith the flexibility of an individual car for access and egress transport to and fromthe corridor. Compared to regular road and rail systems, the capacity for a fewmajor urban arteries can be increased and the required lane width can be de-creased. Thus the system shows considerable congestion reduction potential formajor urban transport corridors. However, the required infrastructure adaptations(dedicated lanes and high capacity on- and off-ramps) do certainly limit applica-tion in inner-city areas where additional space for access and egress points willbe hard to find.

• Small vehicles such as the TH!NK are designed for clean urban transport withminor benefits derived from their limited size. Their main attractions lie in reducedemissions at point of use and the positive impact on reducing secondary conges-tion related to shortage of parking space in inner cities. The potential to reducelane width is unlikely to be implemented because urban traffic is anticipated tocomprise a variety of compact cars that rely rather on telematics features than onreduced vehicle dimensions. Therefore, their biggest application potential is inovercrowded, access-restricted city centres.

• The bicycle transit system BTS TransGlide 2000 supports bicycle and potentiallymoped and scooter transport. Along city arteries (e.g. commuting) its applicationcan have considerable (peak hour) effects on easing congestion. The innovativesystem may therefore gain market share from the all-purpose car and publictransport users. However, substantial infrastructure requirements and relatedconcerns about visual intrusion will limit the system to use at locations where itcan be built elevated over existing roads. The BTS TransGlide 2000 will not havea big impact on intermodality as the system deliberately supports two-wheelers.However, (localised) gains in car parking space will occur due to the modal shiftfrom all-purpose cars.

• Designed as a hybrid (electrically/human powered) three-wheeler, the TWIKEspecifically targets urban transport. It basically belongs to the class of small city



Page 34 of 73

vehicles such as the TH!NK with similar benefits and constraints (see textabove). In addition, the TWIKE shows significant health benefits (exercise!) whenused in human-powered mode. It may also attract a small modal shift away fromthe all-purpose car and the conventional bicycle as weather-weary and speed-conscious people may use it for urban trips (e.g. commuting, shopping).

• The Underground Logistics System (ULS) with its independent undergroundinfrastructure has the potential to replace short distance road freight transport,achieving a considerable reduction of urban congestion. Employing telematicsfeatures to ensure a reliable and flexible service, the system will justify the initialinfrastructure investment particularly in those situations where ground level roadscannot be further extended at reasonable costs. Intermodal transfer terminalswith road, rail and water transport services will allow for integration of the ULSinto a grown urban environment. Fully automated transfer procedures have thepotential to establish a new quality for just-in-time delivery in municipal areas.Therefore, the biggest potential is for larger metropolitan areas and cities such asLondon, Amsterdam and Tokyo.

• Another elevated and well proven system, the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn hasalready proven to significantly reduce ground level congestion. The elevated in-frastructure has mainly been built over the local river and now constitutes a majortraffic artery of the city of Wuppertal. This configuration may in fact be applicablefor other cities with compact waterways not interfering with roads, and is seen asan alternative to underground systems in the case of critical tunnelling pre-conditions. With a station distance comparable to underground systems (typically750m), there are good opportunities for interconnecting with public transport(bus, tram) or park-and-ride facilities. Given the proven reliability, environmentalfriendliness and long lifetime of the capital-intensive infrastructure, the nearly onehundred year old concept is still considered to be competitive. In the future, state-of-the-art upgrades such as AVG and driverless operation can be incorporated toincrease capacity and reduce operating costs.

6.4 Interurban transport within networksInterurban transport within networks covers the geographical level of 15 to 80 kilo-metres. Examples for huge interurban agglomerations include the Ruhr area in Ger-many, several heavily populated areas of the Netherlands and industrial zones inEngland. Table 10 gives an overview of the expected potentials of new transportconcepts to integrate with these interurban networks.



Page 35 of 73

Potential to integrate withNew means of transport ClassPassenger/com-muter transport

Freightdistribution

Multi-modaltransport chains

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG)5 AVG ++ 0 +NT Systèmes MUV + 0 0Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV ++ + ++Praxitèle IPT ++ 0 0Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++ ++ ++Road Train DM 0 +++ +RUF Dual-Mode DM ++ 0 +TH!NK SIC + 0 0BTS TransGlide 2000 FB + 0 0TWIKE MWC + 0 0Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT 0 +++ ++Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS ++ + +


Table 10: Integration of new transport concepts with interurban networks

Potential applications of new transport systems• Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) for passenger cars is not limited to a geo-

graphical level. Hence seamless connection of several urban centres will maxi-mise the impact of this telematics application. The more sophisticated an AVG-based network is, the bigger becomes the effect on available capacity, reliabilityand positive influence on congestion areas.

• Providing a regional waterway infrastructure exists, a fast ferry system such asthe Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht can serve destinations that otherwisewould be prone to road congestion. A considerable impact on interoperability canbe achieved by linking sub-urban commuter parking lots into the vessels' route.

• The car-rental concept Praxitèle can be adapted for inter-urban trips betweencities, provided organisational matters are set accordingly. For example, a com-muter rents the small car in her/his hometown and gives it back to any station atthe destination (one way trip), or alternatively returns it at the end of the workingweek to the original rental location.

• Multi-purpose airships such as the Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) or ZeppelinNT (LZ N07) may be used for shuttle services between urban agglomerationswhere mass transport systems are difficult to establish. The provision of suitableinterchange points will ensure interoperability and intermodality with other freightmodes. In addition, the higher capacity airship RA-180 may have potential for in-terurban freight distribution, in particular for shipping oversized goods.

• The most desirable application for the Road Train concept is to use it on maininterurban corridors. Its flexibility in terms of the number of linked vehicles and/orthe introduction of dedicated lanes makes the system adaptable to local circum-stances. In interurban areas, where a capable passenger transport system (e.g.commuter rail trains) already exists, this intermediate concept can focus on sup-plementing freight distribution between cities.

5 Only AVG for passenger cars is covered; however, telematics applications are not limited to be utilised in a single principal

transport mode.



Page 36 of 73

• The RUF Dual-Mode system can be designed as the backbone of high capacityinterurban arteries combining the flexibility of an individual car with mass trans-port capacity. For example, the typical commuter will benefit from integrating thesystem in regional motorway networks, thus promoting a significant modal shiftfrom all-individual car use. To be successful and acceptable by the public, theRUF vehicles have to offer comparable standards to compact city cars in terms ofcomfort and safety.

• In dense and highly industrialised regions a whole new network of an Under-ground Logistics System (ULS) could mean a new quality for just-in-time deliv-ery of cargo. If surface congestion is already critical and possibilities to enhanceroad and rail infrastructure are scarce, the investments for an all new under-ground system will pay off, because options to connect to conventional roadfreight traffic can be planned from the beginning. Considering the tendency todecentralise freight distribution centres for goods or mail, an ULS network couldserve several assigned cities.

6.5 Long-range transportNot primarily prone to congestion, long-distance transport does impose significant lo-cal or regional problems when it comes to integration with other modes, in particularfeeder services. As an example for traffic generators serving the interface betweensurface and air traffic, airports often cause severe strains for the surrounding road orrailroad infrastructure. City airports are rare and will be even harder to establish inthe future. Air transport is in fact a major building block of modern long haul transportchains. In terms of the congestion areas introduced earlier in the document, long-range transport is defined as covering distances between 80 and 500 km on regionalor national levels or even longer distances in the European context.Existing long-range transport systems – both for passenger and cargo service – allface congestion and related environmental problems, and suffer from at times insuffi-cient inter-connection with other modes. Conventional rail systems require consider-able investments in capable infrastructure but will always be confined to moderatetopographic pre-conditions. European-wide air traffic increasingly contributes to criti-cal emissions at lower layers of the atmosphere and increasingly faces congestion("slot") problems on the ground. Finally, long distance road transport has a poor rec-ord in the relation between moved individuals or goods and resulting environmentalimpacts. In particular heavy goods vehicles, as the de facto core of "just-in-time de-livery" schemes, prompt steadily increasing maintenance and economic costs. Forinstance, stresses put on a road surface by a single lorry has been reported to equalthat of more than 25000 all-purpose cars6!Table 11 gives an overview of the principal potential of four new transport concepts inthe long haul sector to supplement or even substitute the aforementioned conven-tional transport modes.

6 Heavy goods vehicle with 11 t axle load (EU limit) compared to APC (e.g. VW Golf) with 0.85 t axle load (ref: the "fourth power

rule" from the AASHO Road Test, USA, 1958-60).



Page 37 of 73

Potential to supplement ( ) or substitute ( ) existingNew means of transport ClassRegular pas-

senger serviceFreight

shipmentsMulti-modal

transport chains

CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS + ++ +++Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++ ++ ++Transrapid HSGS ++ ++ ++ / Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS ++ + +


Table 11: Long range transport potential of new concepts

Potential applications of new transport systems• The CargoLifter (CL 160) semi-rigid airship aims to replace a whole freight

transport chain when it comes to oversized and heavy payloads. This is achievedby allowing for real point-to-point delivery of cargo by means of crane functional-ity integrated into the vehicle with small extra infrastructure requirements at loadhandling sites. The driving force behind the development of the CargoLifter hasoriginally been the desire to dramatically enhance efficiency and speed of longdistance shipments, where current transhipment processes, the involvement ofseveral modes and infrastructure obstacles (too much or on the other hand noinfrastructure at all) are the most noticeable issues. Being in a payload class withtoday's largest cargo airplanes such as the Ukrainian Antonov An-124, the hugeairship always adds the benefit of carrying bulky (already assembled) machinesor components without dependency upon airports. However, the flying crane'sability to handle heavily oversized loads, does open an additional field of applica-tions e.g. in the car or aerospace manufacturing industries. In this case, payloadsthat even will not fit into the craft's large container system can be picked up at(almost) any location and attached to the vehicle's belly. Though not pursued bycurrent market studies, a dedicated passenger version of the CargoLifter is prin-cipally not ruled out, with a stunning "cabin" volume of certainly more than 2000m³ that would challenge Airbus Industrie's A3XX megaliner design in terms ofcapacity. Of course the logical application for such a gigantic cruiser would beleisure travel. Other usage is foreseen in the possibility to transfer e.g. fullyequipped hospitals to remote regions in the course of disaster relief or humani-tarian aid.

• The versatile Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) vehicle belongs to the class ofmedium-sized aircraft. It is anticipated to offer additional service options for pas-senger transport over typical distances of up to 1500 km. Internal accommoda-tion of travellers, or alternatively bulky freight, will allow for reasonable averagecruise speeds that can be compared to those of multi-purpose helicopters. Themajor advantage over rotorcraft vehicles will be the long endurance capability (anissue in offshore operations for example) combined with a better environmentalperformance. Apart from long-range leisure-travel, which is not a focus of RE-CONNECT, one could foresee potential application in scheduled passenger and/or cargo services, once the integration with other ground based modes is en-sured. One possible application may involve a feeder service of airships on thin-ner or remote routes with connection to mass transport at, say, railway terminals.Modern trains and airships supplement each other in terms of higher capacityand frequency (trains) or better flexibility (airships). In the future, the highlighted



Page 38 of 73

flexibility could be extended, provided that mobile mooring masts and increas-ingly automated landing procedures prove to be feasible.

• Magnetic levitation (MagLev) train systems such as the Transrapid certainly dobest when they can show their high standards in travel speed, comfort and com-parably good environmental performance over medium to long distances (250-500 km, or above). Typical cruising speeds of 400 or 450 km/h and impressiveacceleration result in high average speeds. Therefore, the main competition isforeseen with regional or national air traffic. The Transrapid is not limited toscheduled passenger service but may also offer dedicated freight transport. Forexample, the Swissmetro MagLev train can be applied in both freight and pas-senger transport7. Integration with railway terminals or airports is possible in asimilar way to conventional rail, hence the Transrapid could become an embed-ded part of regional or European-wide networks. Also, the Transrapid systemshould be considered in situations where conventional high-speed rail connec-tions are not feasible due to difficult topography, and should not seek competitionwith flat land railway arteries.

• Relatively small but highly manoeuvrable airships such as the Zeppelin NT (LZN07) can play a role in scheduled feeder services on thin routes, that are inter-connected with higher capacity transport modes such as rail. In principle, theaforementioned considerations for the larger RA-180 airship also apply to thiscommuter-class vehicle. It should be stressed that scaled-up Zeppelin NT mod-els8 accommodating at least 100 passengers may extend the range of applica-tions. Larger designs would in fact unveil limited freight transport capability, whichwould foster versatility and operational flexibility.

6.6 Intermodality and interoperabilityIn general, intermodal transport can be defined as the movement of people andgoods involving at least two different modes in a door-to-door transport chain. TheEuropean Commission’s understanding of intermodality and intermodal transportgoes beyond earlier definitions that have been put forward by several institutionssuch as the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT)9.In order to create a common understanding of the concept of intermodality the fol-lowing definition has been proposed:

Intermodality is a characteristic of a transport system that allows at least twodifferent modes to be used in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transportchain.

The policies and actions most relevant to the theme can be outlined as:• new technologies, concepts and applications have to be developed, in particular

telematics applications for intermodality;• the EC has recognised the need for a network approach to transport infrastruc-

ture planning and has consequently adopted the guidelines for Trans-EuropeanTransport Infrastructure Networks (TEN-T), and;

7 For more information, refer to RECONNECT Deliverable 1. [1]8 Proposed concepts include LZ N30 for around 15 t of payload (see RECONNECT Deliverable 1). [1]9 EXTRA, thematic paper "Freight intermodality". [7]



Page 39 of 73

• intermodal transport provides a new opportunity to choose between modes, e.g.taking into account the peripheral status of many cohesion countries, intermodaltransport can contribute to their better integration into the European Union.

More recently the European Commission has defined a new policy area called "trav-eller intermodality" as a part of its Citizens Network development strategy:

What is needed is integration of transport services, facilitating efficient and ef-fective door-to-door travel whatever the number of transfers or the distances in-volved. One of the key principles here is intermodality. This allows differentmodes of transport to be used as part of seamless transport chains.10

Among the selected new transport concepts, the MagLev technology and multi-purpose airships target both freight and traveller intermodality. The Road Train andUnderground Logistics System concepts are dedicated solutions for freight intermo-dality, while the remaining public or individual passenger transport systems apply tothe theme of traveller intermodality.Interoperability and economic efficiency of the European transport system have beensubject to a variety of strategic initiatives that helped to understand the complexity ofinfluencing factors, national deviations, and included verification in case studies forall relevant modes. A common understanding of interoperability in practical terms hasbeen articulated in the course of the project MINIMISE11 as follows:

Interoperability is the ability of two or more given systems to operate effectivelytogether in accordance with a prescribed method. In a narrower sense this isthe ability of national transport systems (or sub-systems) to co-operate acrossnational borders and across their socio-economic, legislative, organisational,technical, geographical and physical barriers. Interoperability is a multi-facetedaspect, which can be distinguished by different levels, dimensions and scales.

Limited to vehicle and transport concepts, a set of technical and organisational as-pects underpinning interoperability in passenger and freight transport can be out-lined, that have been considered to assess related benefits of new transport con-cepts in RECONNECT.

Promoting interoperability in urban public transport:• provision of park-and-ride sites with sound interconnection of modes;• implementation of real time traveller information, accessible for individual or col-

lective transport systems;• infrastructure links between heavy rail and tram, or light rail networks;• harmonisation of tariff systems.Supporting freight interoperability:• extended use of rail and road telematics applications;• efficiency improvements in combined or intermodal freight terminals;• harmonisation of heavy duty vehicle parameters (axle loads, tyres, etc.) for road

and rail.

10 EXTRA, thematic paper "Traveller intermodality". [7]11 "Managing Interoperability by Improvements in Transport System Organisation in Europe". [10]



Page 40 of 73

Table 12 summarises the concepts’ application potentials for intermodality andinteroperability.

Potential to enhanceIntermodality Interoperability

New means of transport Class

passenger service freight distribution

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG ++ 0 +Cable Liner GPM ++ 0 +Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV ++ + +H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT ++ 0 +Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++ ++ +Rivium ParkShuttle RBPM ++ 0 +Road Train DM 0 ++ ++RUF Dual-Mode DM ++ 0 +Transrapid HSGS ++ ++ +Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT 0 ++ ++Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT ++ 0 +Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS + + 0


Table 12: Potential of new concepts to enhance intermodality and interoperability

Potential applications of new transport systems for freight intermodality• The Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) vehicle offers additional freight distribution

possibilities for bulky freight on thin or remote routes, where conventional road orrail shipments are not suitable or adequate infrastructure is lacking. Mooring sta-tions for the airship could be designed as multi-modal or dedicated cargo termi-nals that would allow for convenient transhipment procedures.

• Since the Road Train is an intermediate freight system between trucks and rail, itwill compete with both modes. Its main features include higher (lane) capacitythan normal trucks and less operational restrictions than conventional rail. Thelarger corridors that will be typically served by the Road Train can have inter-change points with road and rail, which would make it an important part of amulti-modal logistics chain.

• The Transrapid system generally has similar potential to support intermodalityas conventional rail networks at, for example, freight distribution centres, airportcargo terminals or ports. Most likely these inter-modal freight stations will inte-grate rail, road and the cargo variant of the Transrapid. Moreover, related tech-nologies such as the Swissmetro concept would establish a backbone systemthat would require and allow for new intermodal transfer points.

• In the urban or interurban area, the Underground Logistics System (ULS) of-fers new opportunities for intermodal freight exchange with road or rail vehiclesthat may in some situations allow for just-in-time delivery for the first time. TheULS is not expected to become the sole solution for local traffic corridors but ahighly reliable and environmental friendly backbone with dedicated distributionpoints.



Page 41 of 73

Potential applications of new transport systems for traveller intermodality• Individual cars equipped with Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) will foster

multi-modal trips due to the improved information and communication technology.In particular, the available information on connecting public transport options willallow for better trip planning thus avoiding congestion when individual cars will beleft at park-and-ride facilities on the urban perimeter.

• A medium capacity feeder system such as the Cable Liner needs careful inte-gration with public mass transport modes such as rail and must provide seamlesstransition to enhance intermodality in passenger service. A high level of opera-tional availability and reliability combined with the system's low environmentalimpacts at point of use should attract all-purpose car users who so far rejectedpublic transport for lack of door-to-door connections.

• One of the foreseeable options of the Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht con-cept is the link to park-and-ride facilities, offering a new variant for intermodalpassenger service. The envisaged small modal shift from all-purpose car usewould certainly lead to efficiency and environmental benefits. In addition, adopt-ing a common tariff system for smooth transition to other modes could enhanceacceptance of rapid inland vessels considerably.

• Integrated into a local network of tram, bus and even underground services, theH-Bahn Dortmund system will encourage travel intermodality, with potential toprompt shifts from all-purpose car use. Given the system's good capacity andelevated infrastructure, the interconnection with park-and-ride lots at the borderof congestion areas may offer service level and environmental benefits.

• The Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) concept could be interconnected with largerrailway terminals, where remote destinations would see first time access to re-gional public transport systems. The attractiveness of the system as a wholecould therefore encourage traveller intermodality on a small scale.

• As a classic feeder service to metro and underground systems, the Rivium Park-Shuttle offers additional service in an intermodal transport chain. This could leadto a small modal shift away from the all-purpose car. In places where low capac-ity but demand-responsive service is sufficient enough, the ParkShuttle may evenattract pedestrians to use the quiet and environmental friendly service. However,limitations will remain due to the moderate travel speed of vehicles.

• The RUF Dual-Mode system is, by definition, targeting traveller intermodality. Itcombines the flexibility of individual car use at suitable locations (i.e. outsidecongestion prone city areas) with collective moving of passengers on arteries,achieving considerable environmental and safety benefits from electric propulsionand mechanical guidance of vehicles.

• The Transrapid system should be carefully integrated with existing modes to al-low for maximum impact in its operational sector between (regional) air traffic andconventional high-speed rail. The result may be a shift away from an intermodaltransport chain, local public transport and/or air travel.

• The integration of the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn with other services such astram, bus and/or park-and-ride facilities is a key essential to the preferred designas a backbone system of an urban area where the special elevated infrastructureprovides advantages. In fact, the effects on congestion reduction by encouragingtraveller intermodality can be significant, as proven in Wuppertal with a share inpublic transport service of about 30%.

• The Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) shows small potential for commuter services on thinroutes, provided the integration with regional public transport networks in terms of



Page 42 of 73

attractive terminals and a common tariff system is ensured. The use of an airshipon these connections will then relieve regional roads from congestion imposedmainly by the all-purpose car.

Possible role in the future European transport logistic systemCurrent efforts to establish a Trans-European Transport-Network (TEN-T) for trans-port and logistics comprise a set of measures and projects, including:• enhancements in interoperability of railways with priority on developing and or-

ganising a European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS);• initiatives to improve the interoperability of and deploy intelligent transport sys-

tems, including a satellite positioning and navigation network (Galileo, GNSS II);• a framework for harmonised technical standards for railways and other guided

systems, including both infrastructure and rolling stock;• review of the need for further harmonisation to promote system integration, in-

cluding standards for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN), standards forloading units, limits for weights and axle loads of road vehicles and standards forelectronic data interchange;

• creation of a single electronic transport document for goods and passengers;• proposals on intermodal liability;• proposals on the development of intermodal transport statistics;• initiatives to promote the interoperability of the different forms of location and

navigation technologies deployed in intermodal transport chains;• revision of the regulatory and support framework for combined transport;• evaluation of the effectiveness of measures to promote short sea shipping and

possible new initiatives; and• the implementation of a European Air Traffic Management System (EATMS).

Improving interoperability by means ofNew means of transport ClassIntelligent trans-

port systemsSystems

integrationCombinedtransport

Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++ + +Road Train DM ++ +++ ++Transrapid FB ++ ++ +Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT ++ +++ ++


Table 13: Contributions to the European transport logistic system

6.7 Niche applicationsAmong the selected 21 concepts from representative classes, investigated in thisstudy, 16 concepts aim at substituting or supplementing road transport means. Baseconcepts here comprise:• the all-purpose car (12 times);• the heavy goods vehicle (3 times); and• the shuttle bus (once).



Page 43 of 73

In contrast the remaining five concepts can be seen predominantly in a market withconventional air transport options such as:• subsonic aircraft of different size (3 times); or• helicopters (twice).

The Transrapid concept – constituting one of two principal magnetic levitation tech-nologies – can be seen as covering a relatively broad range from all-purpose carsubstitution to competition with conventional high speed rail systems and short tomedium range aviation. Hence it is, despite high initial investment costs, not consid-ered primarily a niche application but a high-end alternative to mainstream groundand air transportation.The lighter-than-air technology of the airship developments is certainly targeted atspecific niche applications that are not satisfied by single existing modes or intermo-dal transport chains.Depending on the dedicated service mode – passenger transport and services for thegeneral public (Zeppelin NT LZ N07), freight shipments (CargoLifter CL 160) orboth (Rigid Airship Design RA-180) – the RECONNECT partners see the followingapplications for these vehicles:

Congestion-avoiding applications• scheduled or unscheduled passenger transport (including city access);• point-to-point delivery of bulky and/or heavy cargo;• machinery and plant manufacturing industry;• automobile and aerospace industry.

Other CTP relevant applications• observation and surveillance (e.g. border control; environmental monitoring);• research (e.g. meteorology, atmospheric physics, exploration of mineral resour-

ces);• airborne communication, data-link or broadcasting platforms;• search and rescue / disaster relief / humanitarian aid;• special supply (e.g. to remote offshore oil platforms);• modular construction in civil engineering;• developing (third world) economies.

As already stressed for the pre-selection and data gathering phase of RECONNECT,the variety of foreseeable markets generally improves with extended payload andrange performance of an airship. A versatile design based on a classic Zeppelin lay-out as with the Dutch RA-180 rigid airship, or a concept with unique load handlingcapability by means of integrating a crane into a flying object (CargoLifter) seem tooffer new opportunities in small markets that actually may have a considerable im-pact in terms of efficiency and environmental friendliness. "The bigger – the better" isa simple statement that applies to aircraft of all sorts, indeed.Limited to relatively small payload and range, as with the current Zeppelin NT proto-type, airship advantages such as moderate infrastructure requirements, point-to-pointtransport capability or environmental benefits do not deliver significantly, becauseother existing modes such as rotorcraft vehicles offer comparable features.



Page 44 of 73

Despite typical suitability for long distance connections the Transrapid is principallyapplicable for short haul but high capacity links to traffic generators such as airports.This acknowledges the fact that large all new airports can only be built far away fromcity centres with associated problems for landside access. A typical track distancefrom city centre to airport terminal will likely amount to some 50 km which can justifyoperational speeds in the range of at least 300 km/h, thus significantly reducing triptimes compared to conventional rail. Examples of young international airports withunsatisfying landside connection are Milan Malpensa, Munich FJS or the plannedBerlin-Brandenburg International hub. Indeed, a realistic potential for the Transrapiddue to high required infrastructure investments is only seen where negligible othertransport systems exist or where early integration in wider transport policy schemescan be ensured.

6.8 Options to eliminate barriersIn continuation of previous workpackages, this section assesses options to eliminatelegal (e.g. certification regulations for new vehicles and operational requirements)and financial barriers (e.g. subsidies, fees, new financing models) and identifies pos-sibilities to improve the market penetration of a new means of transport.In the preceding WP 5, data on legal issues regarding the various new modes oftransportation was collected and accumulated in the targeted assessment database,and in continuation analysed in WP 6. Due to different new modes of transportationand the varying levels of elaboration of concepts (from paper concepts at an earlystage to projects which have already been successfully in operation for severalyears) it was decided not to make the analysis for legal barriers on a transport modelevel, but to use a more general approach.

Two principal but generally applicable ways to overcome the barriers were found:• the new technology has to fulfil existing rules without any deduction. This will be

the case e.g. for topics such as safety, environmental protection and similarfields;

• the legal framework is adapted to the needs of a new technology. An example isthe fully automatic operation of a system, which could not be covered by lawsand rules which considered operation with a driver only before.

Such statements sound rather simple on the first glance, but to give more explicit op-tions for a single new means of transportation to overcome legal barriers and stan-dardisation gaps each means has to be researched in a much more detailed way,which would rather require a study of its own.It was therefore decided to lay the focus on the elaboration and organisation of barri-ers itself and to give an overview, which types of barriers have to be taken into ac-count. The scope was enlarged beyond legalisation and standardisation issues. Inaddition the results of the work of the so called "High level group on innovation in thefield of transport" in 1999 were taken as an additional checklist and incorporated intothe findings of RECONNECT.Table 14 gives an overview of identified barriers for pre-selected transport concepts.Later in this section, recommendations on how to overcome perceived "high" (+++) or"considerable" (++) barriers are presented.



Page 45 of 73

Key Information Regulatory& legal

Technical Financial &commercial

Societal Decision-making

+++ a lot of wronginformation;vague/theoreti-cal concept inan early stage

new meansopposes ex-isting laws

paper conceptonly; severalprincipal tech-nical solutionsstill pending

very costly; nodefined targetmarket; “pro-grammed loss”

bad publicopinion

many involvedparties; standsagainst thecurrent policydirectives

++ low informationleveluncertain in-formation

legal frame-work, or thenew meanshas to beadapted

in prototypestage; basesystem works,only improve-ments on detaillevel

relatively un-competitive;change in fi-nancial frame-work required

neutral publicopinion

fragmenteddecision mak-ing

+ informationlevel is ok

mainly fulfilsthe existingregulations

technical workmainly fin-ished; fieldtested

needs (public)funding (atleast for thestarting phase)

good accep-tance

clear defineddecision find-ing

0 proper infor-mation isavailable andwidespread

fulfils the ex-isting regula-tions

market readyproduct, al-ready availablefor application

product hasvery goodchances to besuccessful

very good ac-ceptance; pub-lic opinion isgood

no problem

Existing barriers for implementationNew means of transport Class

Info

rmat

ion

Reg

ulat

ory

&le

gal

Tech

nica

l

Fina

ncia

l &co

mm

erci

al

Soci

etal

Dec

isio

n-m

akin

g

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG + ++ ++ + + ++Bicycle Lift FB + + 0 + + +Cable Liner GPM + + 0 + + +CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS + ++ + + + +Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV ++ + 0 ++ + +Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) MW + + + +++ 0 +H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT 0 +12 0 + + +LLNL HyperSoar HST ++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +++NT Systèmes MUV + + + ++ 0 +Praxitèle IPT + + / ++13 + ++ + +Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS + ++ + ++ + +Rivium ParkShuttle RBPM + ++ + + ++ +Road Train DM ++ ++ +++ ++ + ++RUF Dual-Mode DM ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++TH!NK SIC + + 0 ++ + +BTS TransGlide 2000 FB ++ + ++ ++ + ++Transrapid HSGS + + + +++ ++ ++TWIKE MWC + + 0 ++ + +Underground Logistics System (ULS) AFT ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT 0 0 0 + 0 +Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS + ++ + ++ + +

Key: +++ high ; ++ considerable ; + moderate ; 0 none

Table 14: Impediments for introduction of new transport concepts 12 System is in operation. The legal framework was changed to allow the automated/driverless operation of this metro-system.13 Rating is ++ if the feature 'automatic redistribution of vehicles' is implemented.



Page 46 of 73

Recommended actions to overcome barriersTo overcome the barriers for market penetration, the necessary measures and ac-tions need to involve all stakeholders. The recommended actions are (by barrier andin order of concern):• Financial and commercial barriers: initial “seed” funding (e.g. government, pri-

vate sector with vested interests); wide-spread introduction of public-private part-nerships (PPP); better commercial marketing of new systems (refer to );

• Regulatory and legal barriers: early involvement of all possible stakeholders;improved co-operation between different modes of transport; properly addressingthe quality aspect in transport service; speeding up of legal procedures by install-ing a special government agency for legal aspects of new transport concepts (e.g.strategic rail authority); creation of low emission zones in sensitive areas;

• Decision-making barriers: co-operation and exchange of information; activeparticipation of all decision-makers in pilot or demonstration projects to show thepotential of a new system;

• Information barrier: using new media such as the Internet and utilising existingEuropean information channels to enhance dissemination; involving potential us-ers in pilot and demonstration projects involving new transport concepts;

• Technical barriers: continued research, development and demonstration of in-novations; consensus-building amongst industry and technical certification bodiesin terms standardisation;

• Societal barriers: better marketing by showing the benefits (service level im-provements, comfort, safety); fair and open-minded assessment of effects, earlyinvolvement of transport users (in particular fleet operators, passengers).

The following set of Tables 15 to 20 specify recommended actions and measures toovercome perceived barriers for affected new transport concepts. The tables are aswell presented in order of concern (compare above).



Page 47 of 73

Transport concept Potential barrier Recommendations

Fast Ferry Rotterdam –Dordrecht

• Small market as a result of limitednumber of waterways

• Use of technologies from othermarkets to reach economies ofscale

Fast Moving Walkway(TRAX)

• High initial investment costs for theinfrastructure

• Difficult to get revenues (who willpay for the use of a moving walk-way)

• Governmental capital provision

LLNL HyperSoar • High technology developmentcosts

• High operation and maintenancecosts

• Low potential passenger volume

• Use of other technology sources(space technology)

• Advanced vehicle design

• MarketingNT Systèmes • The vehicles are more expensive

than conventional vehicles• Low potential market share – niche

market only

• Purpose build solutions for specialapplications

• Early involvement of the potentialusers

Praxitèle • Initial investment costs – vehicles,smart-card equipment and installa-tion, recharging facilities etc.

• Initial (governmental) fundingneeded

• Public private partnership (auto-motive industry)

Rigid Airship Design(RA-180)

• High investment costs in technicaldesign and legal certification is-sues

• Just for a niche market


• Public private partnership• Marketing of the system

Road Train • Higher cost compared to the con-ventional vehicles (trucks or con-ventional railroad)

• Only applicable in environmentallysensitive areas

RUF Dual-Mode • The vehicle is more expensivethan a comparable conventionalvehicle (due to two propulsionsystems)

• High infrastructure costs – unclearfinancing

• Funding or change in taxation infavour of less polluting vehicles

• Financial incentives – public pri-vate partnership

TH!NK • The vehicle is more expensivethan a comparable conventionalvehicle


BTS TransGlide 2000 • Expensive infrastructure • Initial (governmental) fundingneeded

• Public private partnershipTransrapid • Very high costs

• Too low potential passenger vol-ume

• Financial incentives through gov-ernmental capital provision

• Market research in advance (noparallel implementation to existinghigh speed rails)

TWIKE • The vehicle is more expensivethan a comparable conventionalvehicle


Underground LogisticsSystem (ULS)

• Huge investment costs with longterm benefits

• Many of the benefits may be non-monetary, i.e. operational costsmay not be too high

• Financial incentives through gov-ernmental capital provision

• Internalisation of external costs

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) • High investment costs in technicaldesign and legal certification is-sues

• Just for a niche market


• Public private partnership• Marketing of the system

Table 15: Overcoming financial and commercial barriers



Page 48 of 73

Transport concept Potential barrier RecommendationsAutomated Vehicle Guid-ance (AVG)

• Unclear legal framework for AVoperation

• Unclear liability for damage whendriver is not in charge

• Protection of innovations of individ-ual car manufacturers

• Lack of organisational structuresfor integration with general infra-structure system

• Changes costs between differentstakeholders and users

• New legislation

• New legislation

• Patenting; allow industry-wide ap-plication (pay developers)

• European platform for the devel-opment and standardisation of thistechnology

• Fair compensation of shifts incosts and responsibilities

CargoLifter (CL 160) • Long endurance capability – crewworking time restrictions

• No allowance of free load handling• No applicable standards regarding

design and certification

• Change in legislation (according tofreight/passenger navigation)

• Change in legislation• New legislation (see section tech-

nical barriers)Fast Ferry Rotterdam –Dordrecht

• Ticketing system deviates frompublic transport

• new means of transport introducesnew external costs (i.e. washing)

• Standardisation of ticketing system

• Compensation for external costs

LLNL HyperSoar • High emissions at high altitudes• Not allowed to use hypersonic

speed over the continent

• It is questionable if the environ-mental laws should be changed

Praxitèle • Unclear legal framework for auto-matic operation (redistribution!)

• New legislation


• Not certified for passenger opera-tion in most countries

• Long endurance capability – crewworking time restrictions

• No applicable standards regardingdesign and certification

• Change in legislation


• New legislation (see section tech-nical barriers)

Rivium Park Shuttle • No legal framework for automatedvehicle operation

• Not clear who is liable for damagein case of accidents when driver isnot in charge

• No legislation for combined use ofautomated and other vehicles onsame track

• New legislation

• New legislation

• New legislation

Road Train • Total vehicle length (towing vehicleplus trailers) higher than allowed(for mechanical coupling)

• Liability issues (electrical couplingand vehicle spacing!)



RUF Dual-Mode • Unclear liability for auto operation• Standardisation of vehicles for op-

eration on special infrastructure

• New legislation (low risk!)• Standardisation and certification of

the vehicles/infrastructureUnderground LogisticsSystem (ULS)

• No legal framework for automatedvehicle operation

• Unclear liability for damage whendriver is not in charge

• Unclear who is owner and operatorof infrastructure (Private PublicPartnerships)

• New legislation

• New legislation

• Special attention for organisation

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) • Not certified for passenger opera-tion in most countries

• Long endurance capability – crewworking time restrictions

• No applicable standards regardingdesign and certification



• New legislation (see section tech-nical barriers)

Table 16: Overcoming regulatory and legal barriers



Page 49 of 73


Automated Vehicle Guid-ance (AVG)

• Automotive Industry and govern-ment can decide on different as-pect and have different objectives

• Separate decision making can in-troduce sub-optimal decisions

• Co-operation and exchange of in-formation

• Active participation of all decisionmakers

LLNL HyperSoar • Low driving factors for implemen-tation – partly for environmentalreasons. The system is not seenas a possible option for passengertransport

• Redesign of the system, co-operation with other fields of trans-portation (e.g. satellite launch in-stead of passenger transportation).

Road Train • Lack of incentives for the system• Not seen as an option for the gen-

eral road transport

• Application only in environmentallysensitive areas

RUF Dual-Mode • Lack of incentives for the system –no political will

• Demonstration project to show thepossibilities of the system

BTS TransGlide 2000 • Lack of incentives for the system –no political will

• Demonstration project to show thepossibilities of the system

Transrapid • Many parties involved, delays anduncertainties

• Demonstration projects to showthe possibilities – maybe on asmaller geographical level


• Lack of scale due to fragmentationof levels of decision and conserva-tive approach of decision makers

• Demonstration projects to showthe possibilities and central gov-ernmental initiatives for co-operation and development

Table 17: Overcoming decision-making barriers



• Not known to potential users

• Development too much focussedon technical innovation due to non-involvement of users

• Ease to solve barriers may hinderthe use

• Marketing among users of com-peting modes

• Marketing of the system.

• Flexible set-up and quick responseto observed problems

LLNL HyperSoar • Development very much focusedon technical innovation

• Information mainly focused onraising funds for further develop-ment (and therefor maybe too op-timistic)

• Definition of a user group

• Providing of clear and reliable in-formation

Road Train • Uncertain (early) concept - vagueinformation

• Further development of the system

RUF Dual-Mode • Information focused on marketingissues.

• Providing of clear and reliable in-formation


• System concept too complicatedand modern for potential (small)user

• Users are unaware of possibilitiesand restrictions for use

• Involve (small) businesses in de-velopment of system

• Marketing among potential users

Table 18: Overcoming the information barrier



Page 50 of 73



• Accuracy of system at individualuser level

• Individual car manufacturers de-velop different systems that do notmatch

• Different systems in Europe andworld-wide

• Technical development and tests

• Co-operation incentives for re-search and standardisation direc-tive

• European co-operation and stan-dardisation of infrastructure

LLNL HyperSoar • Development in an early stage,missing components, new materi-als needed

• Some problems very hard to over-come (e.g. thermal management –the re-entry from the stratosphereheats the hull, such as for space-craft, which leads to a certain “chillout time” after touchdown)

• Further technical development andtests

Road Train • Comfort and reliability of system• Potential of combined traffic on

track technically too difficult

• Technical development and tests• Technical development and tests

RUF Dual-Mode • Standardisation issues are criticalfor both vehicles and infrastructure

• Co-operation with the automotivemanufacturing industry – stan-dardisation directives

BTS TransGlide 2000 • Bicycles have to be adapted to thehigher speeds reached in the sys-tem

• New vehicle design


• Reliability in complex logistic situa-tions

• Different sizes of tunnels and vehi-cles limit the logistic operation inlarger areas

• System requires transhipment ofgoods and co-ordination of under-ground traffic

• Technical development and tests

• European co-operation and stan-dardisation of infrastructure

• Efficient overall transport chain de-sign to overcome problems withtranshipment and co-ordination

Table 19: Overcoming technical barriers



• Acceptance of new technology thatreduces the influence of the user

• Introduction of new problems (AVGmay stimulate congestion driving)

• Marketing by showing the benefits(comfort and safety)

• Fair and open-minded assessmentof effects

LLNL HyperSoar • Low comfort due to flight charac-teristics (hypersonic speed and re-entry of the atmosphere)

• Problems with the time zone travel(arrival at night hours)

• Advanced pilot training and per-sonnel for the maintenanceneeded

• Design of the crafts, further techni-cal development

• Involvement of the users

• Training of the personnel

Rivium ParkShuttle • Acceptance of new technology thatis very impersonal

• Provision of acoustic and interac-tive information

RUF Dual-Mode • Acceptance of new technology thatreduces the influence of the user

• General problem of dual modesystems (does not only combinethe advantages but also the disad-vantages of public and individualtransportation – e.g. fixed routes,vehicle equipment, car-occupancy,need for parking space etc.)

• Marketing by showing the benefits(comfort and safety)

• Choosing an integrated approach,not only technological develop-ment

Table 20: Overcoming societal barriers



Page 51 of 73

6.9 Service level improvements to the transport marketBelow, an overview is given of service level improvements of the new transport con-cepts that are treated in detail in RECONNECT.The transport concepts are very different in characteristics with which they competein the transport market. Most concepts try to attract passengers by an increasedcomfort level and offering demand responsive services. Both are needed to competewith the all-purpose car. Improvement in speed is not explicitly aimed at, except inthe case of the HyperSoar, the TransGlide 2000 and the Transrapid. More importantis reliability in travel time, the interconnectivity with other modes and flexibility in ca-pacity. Most airships offer the advantage of enabling new transport connections to re-place a whole transport chain. Other less important improvements include an efficientuse of travel time, the avoidance of parking problems and a certain tourist value.However, new transport concepts do not always offer improvements in transportservices. A number of disadvantages may act as barriers for the introduction of newtransport means or keep potential travellers from using these modes. Although somenew concepts may be very good in reducing congestion or burden to the environ-ment, as a result they may also be less comfortable because of a reduced size, theymay be less powerful, or less flexible in route en capacity. Collective means of trans-port often have dedicated tracks, which reduces problems with congestion, but alsoincreases the risk of obstruction in case of an accident of technical failure.It must be concluded that new means of transport use many service level character-istics to make them more attractive to potential users. But also the main aim of thesetransport concepts, which is the reduction of negative environmental effects or thereduction of congestion, in many cases leads to at least some service level disad-vantages compared to conventional means of transport.Table 21 gives an overview of the impact assessment results with ratings for theprincipal service level effects of the new transport concepts, as well as the compara-tive advantage over selected base concepts.



Page 52 of 73

Transport concept Principaleffect

Comparativeadvantages

Main reason


++ +++ More comfortable driving, efficient use of travel timeand more possibilities for efficient trip planning

Bicycle Lift +++ 0 Improves bicycle services in comfort and routechoice, but bicycles remain less comfortable than al-ternative modes

Cable Liner +++ + High quality demand responsive services co-exitswith low flexibility in route choice and a relatively lowspeed

CargoLifter (CL 160) ++ ++ Introduction of transport possibilities that previouslynot exist


+++ + Comfortable transport services on existing infra-structure, but discontinuity of services and need forfeeder transport


+++ +++ Fast and easy access without the need to park, in-cluding public transport

H-Bahn Dortmund ++ + Specific track enables fast and congestion free trans-port, but not demand responsive

LLNL HyperSoar 0 + Comfort level is relatively low, but compensated byhigh speed

NT Systèmes ++ ++ Flexibility in capacity

Praxitèle ++ ++ Flexible combination of comfortable public transportwithout parking problems and individual (demand re-sponsive) feeder transport


+++ ++ Relatively high capacity and comfort level, but alsorelatively slow

Rivium ParkShuttle +++ ++ Demand responsive feeder service for public trans-port system, but with relatively low capacity

Road Train ++ ++ Flexibility in capacity with a reduction of operators

RUF Dual-Mode ++ +++ The combination of high capacity comfortable railtravel with individual and flexible travel services

TH!NK + + Small vehicles provides limited comfort, but is easy tooperate

BTS TransGlide 2000 +++ + Increase in speed and comfort of bicycle transportdoes not compensate for the service level of the allpurpose car

Transrapid ++ +++ The combination of rail boarding procedures andcomfort with airplane travel speeds

TWIKE + + Small vehicles provides limited comfort, but is easy tooperate


+++ +++ Capacity is comparable with heavy goods vehicles,but service is more flexible and better linked to othermodes through automated logistics

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn ++ ++ High level public transport service with good accessi-bility into urban centres with parking problems

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) + + Offers solutions to specific transport problems, butalso has limited applicability


Table 21: Overview of service level improvements of new concepts of transport

6.10 Major benefitsTable 22 gives an overview of the environmental, safety, reliability, efficiency andpublic acceptance benefits of the new means of transportation, which representssummary findings for the following sections.



Page 53 of 73

New means of transport Benefits forClass

Envi

ronm

ent

Safe

ty

Rel

iabi

lity

Effic

ienc

y

Publ

icac

cept

ance

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) AVG ++ +++ + ++ +Bicycle Lift FB ++ + +++ ++ +++Cable Liner GPM ++ ++ +++ ++ ++CargoLifter (CL 160) AIRS ++ ++ ++ ++ +Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht FWV ++ + ++ ++ ++Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) MW + + +++ ++ +++H-Bahn Dortmund DGPT + ++ ++ ++ ++LLNL HyperSoar HST 0 0 0 ++ 0NT Systèmes MUV ++ + ++ + ++Praxitèle IPT ++ + ++ ++ ++Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) AIRS ++ ++ ++ ++ +Rivium ParkShuttle RBPM +++ ++ ++ ++ ++Road Train DM +++ ++ + ++ ++RUF Dual-Mode DM +++ ++ ++ + ++TH!NK SIC ++ + ++ ++ ++BTS TransGlide 2000 FB ++ ++ ++ + +++Transrapid HSGS ++ ++ ++ + ++TWIKE MWC ++ + ++ ++ ++Underground Logistic System (ULS) AFT +++ ++ ++ ++ ++Wuppertaler Schwebebahn EPT ++ ++ ++ ++ ++Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) AIRS ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


Table 22: Major benefits of new transport concepts

Environmental improvementsEnvironmental improvements are realised by new transport concepts if the followingissues are better avoided than in case of conventional transport concepts:• emissions;• noise;• non-renewable energy use;• land-use; and• visual intrusion.Table 23 gives an overview of the principal and comparable environmental advan-tages of the new transport concepts, and the main reasons for these ratings.



Page 54 of 73



Main reason


++ ++ Smoothing of traffic flow leads to lower energy use,emissions and noise levels

Bicycle Lift ++ +++ No local emissions and extended use of bicycles in-stead of APCs reduces energy use, emissions andnoise

Cable Liner ++ +++ Low energy consumption, no local emissions and lowlocal noise levels , elevated infrastructure uses lessland but causes visual intrusion

CargoLifter (CL 160) ++ ++ Lower energy consumption and emissions than forconventional cargo aircraft


++ ++ Lower per passenger emission levels and noise im-pacts than APC, but noise and wash are local disad-vantages


+ +++ Compared to APC, low energy use, noise level andland use; no local emissions

H-Bahn Dortmund + +++ Insignificant emissions, low energy use and noiselevels; visual intrusion from elevated infrastructure

LLNL HyperSoar 0 0 Large emissions with poorly understood effects, highnoise levels

NT Systèmes ++ ++ Reduction in emission level and resource use for ve-hicle production

Praxitèle ++ ++ No local emissions, lower land use in urban areasthan privately owned APC


++ ++ Lower energy use, emission levels and noise levels,but higher land use and visual intrusion than formodern helicopters

Rivium ParkShuttle +++ +++ Low energy use, noise levels and land use (par-kingspace, infrastructure), no local emissions

Road Train +++ +++ High energy efficiency with lower noise en emissionlevels than for conventional heavy goods vehicles

RUF Dual-Mode +++ +++ Lower energy use, emissions and noise levels com-pared to APC; hardly any extra land use

TH!NK ++ +++ No local emissions, low energy use and noise levels

BTS TransGlide 2000 ++ +++ No local emissions and extended use of bicycles in-stead of APCs reduces energy use, emissions andnoise

Transrapid ++ + Lower energy use, emission levels and noise levels,higher land use and visual intrusion

TWIKE ++ +++ No local emissions, low energy use and noise levels


+++ +++ Virtually no local emissions and noise, energy useand general emission smaller than for HGV, lowerland use and visual intrusion

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn ++ +++ Insignificant emissions, low energy use, low noiselevels, and land use requirements, but visual intru-sion from elevated infrastructure

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) ++ ++ Lower energy use, emission levels and noise levels,but higher land use and visual intrusion than formodern helicopters


Table 23: Overview of environmental improvements attained with new means oftransport



Page 55 of 73

Safety level improvementsSafety levels of the new transport concepts include the probability of accidents, theseverity of accidents, as well as the social safety level (protection against criminalacts). Table 24 shows whether new concepts have improved safety effects, a com-parative advantages with selected base means of transport, and the main reason forthese ratings.



Main reason


+++ +++ Application has aim of improving active and passivesafety of present all-purpose cars. Accidents by hu-man errors must not be replaced by technical failure.

Bicycle Lift + 0 No special safety issues, and bicycle riders remainrelatively vulnerable

Cable Liner ++ +++ Dedicated track, low speed and high technical reli-ability

CargoLifter (CL 160) ++ + Technical safety and removing cargo from the road,but similar to modern cargo aircraft


+ + No special safety improvements or risks


+ ++ No special safety issues, but slow transport is rela-tively safe

H-Bahn Dortmund ++ ++ Dedicated track and avoidance of human errors byautomated operation

LLNL HyperSoar 0 0 High speed, new technology and out of earth’s at-mosphere operating area

NT Systèmes + + Comparable to standard (heavy) goods vehicles

Praxitèle + + Comparable to standard all-purpose car


++ + Safest form of lighter-than-air craft, but comparable tohelicopters

Rivium ParkShuttle ++ ++ Low speed and automated operation, but lack of hu-man control and combination with other traffic reducesafety

Road Train ++ ++ Dedicated track with automated operation and ap-propriate automated safety measures

RUF Dual-Mode ++ ++ Guided vehicles on dedicated track

TH!NK + + Reduced safety for passengers, increased safety forother road users

BTS TransGlide 2000 ++ 0 Harmonised traffic on dedicated lane, but higherspeeds make bicycle riders more vulnerable

Transrapid ++ + No derailing, no at-grade crossings and automatedoperation on dedicated tracks, compensated by highcruising speed and strong decelerations

TWIKE + + Reduced safety for passengers, increased safety forother road users


++ ++ Hardly any humans involved in operation, dedicatedtrack and automated guidance

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn ++ ++ Dedicated track and proven technology

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) ++ + Technical safety and removing transport from theroad, similar to modern helicopters


Table 24: Overview of service safety improvements of new means of transport



Page 56 of 73

Reliability improvementsReliability benefits mean the reliability of service, the reliability in terms of fulfilling thetimetables and being able to overcome certain impediments which are encounteredin the operation of the system. The improvements of the technical reliability aremainly part of safety improvements, and only taken into account as far as they con-cern the service characteristics.



Main reason


+ ++ Cars equipped with AVG still have to rely on normalroads and are impeded by congestion but make bet-ter use of existing infrastructure.

Bicycle Lift +++ +++ The system is, from the technical point of view, verysimple, is not impeded by other traffic and operateson demand.

Cable Liner +++ +++ The system relies on long term proven technology(from ski-lifts), operates continuously and is not im-peded by other traffic.

CargoLifter (CL 160) ++ +++ It heavily increases the reliability because it replacesa rather complex transport chain.


++ +++ It relies on non-congested waterways.


+++ +++ The system relies on long term proven technologyand operates continuously.

H-Bahn Dortmund ++ +++ Dedicated tracks.

LLNL HyperSoar 0 0 Reduced compared to subsonic aircraft due to com-plexity and operational characteristics.

NT Systèmes ++ ++ Consists of proven technology.

Praxitèle ++ + Good reliability, but no dedicated track.


++ 0 Airships have a higher weather dependency thanhelicopters.

Rivium ParkShuttle ++ ++ The vehicles have dedicated tracks such that no sig-nificant delay will take place.

Road Train + ++ Increased reliability when operating on an dedicatedtrack.

RUF Dual-Mode ++ +++ Congested highways replaced by dedicated tracks.

TH!NK ++ + Relying on the same infrastructure than the APC butreduced space needed for parking.

BTS TransGlide 2000 ++ +++ Dedicated infrastructure.

Transrapid ++ +++ Rail based magnetic levitation systems are very reli-able compared to aircraft and have less (de)boardingtime.

TWIKE ++ ++ Still relying on the same infrastructure than the APCbut possibility to pass by congestion (because of thenarrow shape) and reduced need for parking space).

Underground Logistic Sys-tem (ULS)

++ +++ Dedicated infrastructure.

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn ++ +++ Dedicated track.

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) ++ 0 Airships have a higher weather dependency thanhelicopters.


Table 25: Reliability improvements of new concepts of transport



Page 57 of 73

The reliability of the base concept – in most cases the all-purpose car – is mainly im-peded by congestion, which was taken as a pre-condition for the comparison. Thereliability of new means of transportation is often improved by the usage of dedicateddriveways.

Efficiency benefitsEfficiency of a transport service is determined by a number of issues:• reduction of congestion of existing modes;• reduction of costs to the user;• facilitating fair and efficient pricing;• improvement of mobility performance; and• increase of capacity.For the efficiency of new transport services, RECONNECT mainly looked at mobilityimprovements that new transport concepts provide, while congestion reduction wastreated separately. See overleaf Table 26 for details.

Public acceptancePublic acceptance is the attitude of the general public towards the system, which in-cludes the users and the non users. The acceptance includes the readiness to usethe system and also the acceptance of the non users, which may experience the ex-ternal effects of the system.The acceptance of the base concepts is ambiguous sometimes. For example the ac-ceptance of an all purpose car (and therefore the usage) is very good in general butthe negative side effects (congestion, environmental pollution, decrease of livingconditions, etc.) are seen negative. Table 27 summarises the anticipated acceptanceof new concepts.



Page 58 of 73



Main reason


++ ++ High mobility performance by communication tech-nology (e.g. route information) and optimal use ofavailable infrastructure

Bicycle Lift ++ 0 Potential for using bicycles in hilly areas, increasingperformance and capacity of bicycles; no improve-ment compared to efficiency of APC

Cable Liner ++ 0 Improved performance and capacity of the full PTsystem; but also attained by shuttle bus

CargoLifter (CL 160) ++ ++ High efficiency by avoidance of transhipment; multi-modal transport chains can be replaced


++ ++ Direct and fast link over water in urban areas, possi-bility of bringing bicycles on board improve opportu-nity for feeder transport


++ ++ Structuring large flows of people in a fast manner,especially in crowded places, easy transfers betweentransport modes

H-Bahn Dortmund ++ 0 High quality PT in terms of speed, frequency and re-liability, but in general not better than the APC

LLNL HyperSoar ++ + High speed and therefore high performance, but notvery different from subsonic aircraft

NT Systèmes + 0 Vehicles used more efficiently than conventionalones, but transport service not improved

Praxitèle ++ 0 Improvement of transport chains that include PTservices by the provision of high performance feederservice, but APC remains better


++ + High performance and capacity can be combinedwith direct connections, especially when natural bot-tlenecks are present, but same service can alreadybe provided by helicopter

Rivium ParkShuttle ++ ++ Improved public transport services by the provision ofhigh quality feeder services (demand responsive),without parking problems

Road Train ++ ++ High flexibility and optimal use of available infra-structure, improvement of capacity compared toregular road or rail freight transport

RUF Dual-Mode + + Capacity increased on corridors, while individualtransport services remain available in urban areas,but dependent on new infrastructure and no realservice level improvement

TH!NK ++ + Small size of vehicle allows for high capacity roadtransport (including parking), but performance re-duced compared to APC

BTS TransGlide 2000 + + The performance of bicycle transport on longer dis-tances is improved, but special infrastructure isneeded and still not comparable to the APC

Transrapid + + High speed, but no improvement in overall transportcapacity compared to regional aircraft

TWIKE ++ + Small size of vehicle allows for high capacity roadtransport (including parking), but performance re-duced compared to APC


++ ++ High performance and capacity transport service,very efficient as a result of AVG and logistic proce-dures; good connections with other modes

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn ++ + High quality public transport system does not inter-fere with road transport, low land use, small im-provement in efficiency in congested areas

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) ++ + Multi-purpose vehicle for direct connections, but onlyminor improvements in performance or capacitycompared to helicopter


Table 26: Efficiency improvements of new concepts of transport



Page 59 of 73



Main reason


+ 0 Market tests say that customers are willing to acceptand pay for these systems but the general opinion isstill ambiguous. Problems may arise with the reducedpersonal influence of the driver.

Bicycle Lift +++ + Acceptance is very good because it eases the way ofbicycle usage. The general acceptance of bicycling isstill lower than car usage (mainly a problem of thetraffic frame conditions tailored to car usage).

Cable Liner ++ ++ Good acceptance because of the high service level.

CargoLifter (CL 160) + +++ The transportation of oversized goods always hasnegative impacts on the other modes, which lead tolow acceptance, but the CargoLifter highly reducesthe impacts to the start and landing sites only.


++ ++ A marketing research indicated a positive attitude bypossible users.


+++ +++ Very good acceptance, ease of walking.

H-Bahn Dortmund ++ ++ The attitude towards driverless operation of transportsystems is conflicting but can be overcome throughmarketing measures.

LLNL HyperSoar 0 0 Low acceptance due to high noise and emissions.

NT Systèmes ++ ++ Good acceptance due to low noise and other emis-sions. No particular public interest.

Praxitèle ++ ++ Good acceptance by users and no consequences fornon users. Still people prefer private car ownership.


+ ++ Less negative side effects than the conventionalmode.

Rivium ParkShuttle ++ + Good acceptance but still conflicting attitude towardsdriverless operation.

Road Train ++ + Good acceptance by non-users due to less negativeside effects than the conventional mode but it offersno door-to-door service and needs therefore time andmeans for modal change.

RUF Dual-Mode ++ + Good acceptance due to high service level and lessnegative effects than the conventional mode. But thesystem needs to be quite developed in a matter ofsize to be competitive against the APC.

TH!NK ++ + In general good acceptance because of the reducedemissions. But still safety concerns (small vehicle isthought to be unsafe) and the lower operating rangewhen compared with the conventional mode (APC).

BTS TransGlide 2000 +++ + Good acceptance mainly among cyclist, because itheavily eases their ride but it takes more than a standalone infrastructure for a mode switch.

Transrapid ++ ++ Usage itself is very convenient. But the high accep-tance is lowered due to the high infrastructure costs.

TWIKE ++ + In general good acceptance because of the reducedemissions. But still safety concerns (small vehicleconsidered unsafe). Ambiguous opinions about hu-man powered vehicles.


++ +++ The system reduces the negatives effects of heavygoods vehicles to a minimum.

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn ++ ++ Seen as a backbone of the transportation system.

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) ++ +++ Application mainly for leisure travel. Good accep-tance. Much more convenient flight characteristicsthan a helicopter.


Table 27: Public acceptance of new concepts of transport



Page 60 of 73

6.11 Identification of further RTD needsRECONNECT covered a number of new modes of transport that can be character-ised by a variety of aspects each of them in a wide range of nuances:• status of development from more or less vague ideas over paper concepts to re-

alised installations which have already shown a successful operation;• kind and extent of "new technology" from using well known elements in a new

way or a new combination to really new approaches in technology or logistics;• fields of application from urban to very long distance;• service area: passenger, freight or both of them, from mass transit to (quasi-) in-

dividual transport;• field of transportation: air-borne, road-based, rail-based, dual-mode, water-borne

and use of underground space;• operator/ownership: from public transport to private bicycle;• investment costs for vehicles and/or infrastructure from small to very high;• congestion reduction potential from negligible to high/important; and• judgement of market potential from negligible to high/important.Taking this background with its multiple facets into account, it is obvious that the po-tential of the different systems to contribute to a reduction of congestion varieswidely. The potential of a specific system is mainly owed to its capacity and attrac-tiveness on the one hand, because this determines the share of users which can beshifted to a new mode, and to the costs of vehicles, infrastructure and operation onthe other.In general, further research can contribute to improve the potential of new modes oftransport.However, it should not be disregarded that "conventional" modes of urban publictransport such as bus, tramway, light railway, or metro have also shown a large po-tential for improvements. To mention only some of the achievements, low emissiondrives, low floor technology to ease boarding and alighting, driverless operation, anddual-voltage vehicles which can operate on urban light rail routes as well as on mainline tracks have been brought up.

To understand the origin of perceived barriers which are understood to demand addi-tional research and development efforts, Table 28 gives an overview of the currentdevelopment status of the 21 new concepts pre-selected in RECONNECT.



Page 61 of 73

New means of transport Phase of concept development (as by early 2000)

Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG) ��Bicycle Lift ��

Cable Liner ��

CargoLifter (CL 160) ��

Fast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht ��

Fast Moving Walkway (TRAX) ��

H-Bahn Dortmund ��

LLNL HyperSoar ��

NT Systèmes ��

Praxitèle ��

Rigid Airship Design (RA-180) ��

Rivium ParkShuttle ��

Road Train ��

RUF Dual-Mode ��

TH!NK ��

BTS TransGlide 2000 ��

Transrapid ��

TWIKE ��

Underground Logistics System (ULS) ��

Wuppertaler Schwebebahn ��

Zeppelin NT (LZ N07) ��Concept idea Pre-design Demonstrator Prototype Pilot application Fully operational

Table 28: Development status of pre-selected new concepts

* TH!NK and TWIKE are produced in small numbers



Page 62 of 73

Key RTD needsA principal field for European RTD is to advance the market introduction of the mostpromising concepts by increasing certainty and reducing production costs. The rele-vant areas of research are:• vehicle drive-lines (electric propulsion, hybrid propulsion, person-powered pro-

pulsion);• lateral and longitudinal vehicle guidance;• construction of vehicle bodies of new concepts to current and future legislative

standards (e.g. recycling);• vehicle equipment (e.g. Information Technology and Communication);• operations control and Telematics;• automated road and rail infrastructure;• environmental costs and benefits of new concepts;• noise and safety effects of new concepts.In addition, further research work is necessary for underground infrastructure tech-nologies, namely:• ground exploration;• tunnel driving;• mucking;• tunnel lining;• standardisation of dimensions.On a more generic level, note that RTD work is mainly necessary to overcome tech-nical barriers, especially for concepts, which are up to now in an early stage of de-velopment. Furthermore, research work can help to spread the application of prom-ising concepts that are fairly well developed or even fully operational by cutting downtheir high investment costs and ensuring proper marketing.

New conceptual and design approaches for vehicles and infrastructureThe quality checklist for the citizens' network from the Green Paper on Transport forCitizens14 includes the criteria which can influence the choice between the automo-bile and public transport in favour of the latter. Many of them cover aspects of com-fort and attractiveness, which can be influenced by the conceptual approach and thedesign of vehicles and stations or stops.New vehicles for "conventional" systems such as buses, tramways, light railways,metros have shown a tremendous development aiming at more convenience andcomfort:• low floor technology, in combination with an appropriate design of the stops,

make boarding and alighting very much easier than it was with former vehicleswhich could be entered and left only by climbing over several steps. Multilevelstations are equipped with escalators and elevators so that mobility impairedpassengers can use the system without difficulties too15. New modes of transportmust take account of the relevant guidelines;

14 Refer also to the QUATTRO project. [12]15 The principles have been laid down for example in the reports COST 322 "Low Floor Buses" and COST 335 "Passengers'

Accessibility of Heavy Rail System".



Page 63 of 73

• the vehicles should be equipped with an appropriate heating and ventilation sys-tem. Due to conditions of climate, air conditioning may be necessary;

• to improve the actual safety and the feeling of safety by the passenger in vehi-cles and stations, broad spaces without "hidden areas", bright lighting and com-munication systems to the driver or a central control station are necessary. Thesedemands are known in general.But further research could help to develop criteria for concrete design tasks.

• The vehicles must be tailored to the specific market for a new mode of transport(overall size, share of seats and space for passengers who prefer to stand duringthe trip). The dialogue with the customer/user can be helpful.

Organisational and conceptual frameworksThe attractiveness of a transport mode is not only influenced by technical attributesbut – perhaps even more – by service characteristics. This starts with frequency,punctuality and reliability and ends with the cleanliness and availability of staff.Although these demands are known in general, there arise problems in daily opera-tion of defining limits for a certain aspect (how can "cleanliness" be described in factsand figures?).Research work could help to fill out certain topics of the quality checklist with data,which can be used for design and daily operation. The involvement of (potential) us-ers is essential.

Further RTD needs for new means of transportAs already stressed, a variety of barriers can be defined which may hinder the intro-duction of new transport concepts. The categories of barriers are:• information;• regulatory and legal;• technical;• financial and commercial;• societal; and• decision-making.There do exist different ways to overcome barriers:• information barriers can be overcome by "selling" a product (marketing, influenc-

ing the public opinion, involvement of potential users).To enhance public awareness of new concepts – in particular for public transportalternatives – marketing efforts are strongly recommended. Taking a look at mar-keting expenditures of major car manufacturers, it becomes clear that success inthe market place and the reflected modal split is not fixed as a matter of fact. Av-erage marketing expenditures for public transport are typically below 10% of alltransport related spending in information and advertising. A change in opinionregarding marketing research has already taken place, fostered by several EUstrategic initiatives such as the TAPESTRY16 project;

• regulatory and legal barriers can be overcome by changing existing or develop-ing new legislation. This is usually not a topic of research work;

16 "Travel awareness publicity and education supporting a sustainable transport strategy in Europe".



Page 64 of 73

• to overcome technical barriers can be a typical task of RTD work. The need ofresearch work is mainly due to the development status of a concept. Conceptswhich are in the status of a prototype, a pilot application of fully operational onlyface moderate or no technical barriers;

• the other concepts for which "considerable" or "high" technical barriers can beidentified are in the status of concept idea, pre-design or demonstrator:• Automated Vehicle Guidance (AVG): This concept is in the pre-design phase.

Its further development needs additional research work to be carried out in aco-ordinated way of co-operation to avoid the implementation of different sys-tems.

• The LLNL HyperSoar would need a lot of RTD work to leave the status of aconcept idea. Due to the negative impacts of the concept a support by RTDfunds is not recommended.

• There exists only a concept idea for the Road Train. A funding of step-by-stepRTD work should show the potential of the concept.

• The RUF Dual-Mode concept has already reached the status of a demonstra-tor. It should be clarified, if RTD funding is necessary for further development,or if this can be left to industry.

• A pre-design exists for the BTS TransGlide 2000. A demonstrator or prototypefacility needs investment costs but not necessarily research funds.

• The Underground Logistics System (ULS) is in the pre-design phase. RTDfunding seems to be justified regarding logistics of operation, technical devel-opment of vehicles and infrastructure (especially tunnelling technology), andintermodal aspects (inclusion in an overall transport chain).

• Financial and commercial barriers may arise for several reasons: insufficiency offinancial mechanisms for innovation, lacks regarding cost coverage and funding,the size of the market as well as lack of competition.Usually these barriers cannot be overcome by RTD activities. But there existsome approaches where research can help to lower investment costs, such asfor all concepts that are dedicated to use underground space. It was alreadyshown above, that research activities can help to build tunnels for transport sys-tems faster or cheaper. This would be of benefit for the Underground LogisticsSystem (ULS) but also for other modes covered in RECONNECT which have theuse of underground space not explicitly in their concept. Furthermore, it shouldbe reminded that the pre-selected systems are representatives for classes ofconcepts. For example, the H-Bahn Dortmund is the representative for the class"Driverless guided public transport", covering several systems which run com-pletely underground such as Meteor in Paris, Metro Lyon and VAL in Lille. It isobvious, that the benefits of these systems are higher and financial barriers areeasier to overcome, when infrastructure costs can be lowered.

• For some concepts societal barriers have been identified which may hinder thesuccess of an innovation. Barriers can be expected in the field of manpower aswell as in problems of acceptance by the staff of the transport or by the users ofthe system. To overcome such barriers is a matter of staff training and user in-volvement during the development process.

• Decision-making barriers exist for some concepts. They consist of a conservativeapproach of decision-makers, a fragmentation of levels of decision, and a lack ofincentives. They can mainly be overcome by an active participation of all deci-sion-makers in the development process and especially by demonstration proj-ects to show the possibilities of a system. It is a task of researchers and develop-



Page 65 of 73

ers to convince decision-making authorities of the benefits of their concepts. Re-search funds are not really necessary to fulfil this task.

To summarise it can be stated that RTD work is necessary mainly to overcome tech-nical barriers, in particular for concepts that are up to now in an early stage of devel-opment. Furthermore, research work can help to spread the application of promisingconcepts, which are fairly developed or are even fully operational by cutting downhigh investment costs and ensuring proper marketing.

➲ D4 "Impact assessment of new transport concepts"➲ D5 "Policy and market synthesis"



Page 66 of 73

7. OUTLOOK: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The RECONNECT project has provided a first comprehensive survey of new meansof transport, focusing on vehicle and infrastructure innovations. In-depth investigationof selected "most promising" new concepts and the structured assessment of impactsand potentials have been drawing on the FANTASIE methodology.This appraisal of state-of-the-art transport concepts shall be the basis for furtherstrategic research work, with the following brief sections intended to outline possiblefields of future actions.

New approachesThe majority of new vehicle or transport concepts appraised in this project can bejudged as derived from existing systems, implementing new components, materials,propulsion units, information technology or computerised controls. They are heavilydrawing on conventional wisdom when it comes to the overall design or conceptualframe of a new proposal. Radically innovative approaches are rare, indeed.New principal solutions are seen in the field of telematics applications (e.g. AVG) thataim at extending the capabilities of road transport means by offering information in-frastructure, driver guidance, anti-collision features, etc. Telematics are expected tooffer considerable advantages for rail based systems as well, because expendituresavings in track and vehicle infrastructure are foreseen that may consequently be atthe core of organisational schemes such as the European Rail Traffic ManagementSystem (ERTMS) currently under development.Small individual and city cars, man-wide vehicles or automated, driverless but roadbased systems are generally derived from the all-purpose car – still being the base-line of the much favoured individual transport. Alternatives to conventional rail suchas several suspended and mono-rail systems, or a high-tech solution such as Mag-Lev, have been around for several decades without achieving remarkable marketpenetration. The renaissance of lighter-than-air craft as well adopts long known con-struction principles that have not dramatically changed since Count Zeppelin's firstairship took to the skies over Lake Constanze on 2nd July 1900.Rather innovative ideas will most likely comprise all kinds of hybrid designs forground transportation or waterborne systems such as:• all electric and guided road or rail vehicles;• railroad telematics applications;• light rail or people mover systems utilising linear motors to reduce noise and al-

lowing for construction of less intrusive, terrain following guideways;• rubber-tyre electric public rapid transport systems significantly reducing noise;• advanced conventional technologies in all design aspects for fast inland ferries in

the short term;• all-electric ships, once system integration problems are overcome (possible inte-

gration with fuel-cell production);• whale-tail (i.e. basic drag reducing) designs for inland ships likely to become a

key link to intermodality, especially in environmentally sensitive waterways.

In many congested and primarily urban areas, a lot of innovative small-scale trans-port solutions are planned, mainly for feeder and multimodal transport. Demonstra-tion projects are undertaken to investigate the best solutions and configurations.



Page 67 of 73

Thus, a European approach will increase the learning effects and economies of scaleof these demonstration projects. The high-speed rail system is another example of asuccessful and high-quality Trans-European transport system, which also shows thattransport solutions need much time and governmental support for development be-fore becoming widely accepted standards.

More spectacular visions have already been articulated for next generation airbornevehicles. Among popular proposals are hybrid designs merging fixed/rotary wingheavier-than-air craft or lifting bodies with lighter-than-air technology.The desired benefits would be a combination of dynamic and aerostatic lift, hencelarger payload capacity, increased cruise speed due to smart aerodynamic setups orimproved safety aspects due to more operational flexibility (ceiling, speed).Examples of such futuristic concepts in the widest sense are:• the US "Para-Airship";• the "Stingray" from Swiss company Prospective Concepts;• the "SkyCat" from Airship Technologies in the UK; or• the "Aerocraft", an advanced aeronautical design study from NASA's Revolution-

ary Concepts (REVCON) project, with involvement of Lockheed Martin's secret"Skunk Works".

Other technological concepts as e.g. backed by the European Space Agency (ESA)and DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (Dasa) comprise dedicated stratospheric airshipplatforms operating at altitudes of approximately 20 kilometres. Those systems wouldcomplement satellite based telecommunication networks, once total mission times ofbetween two and five years – comparable to life time expectations for satellites – canbe achieved. Dasa's High Altitude Long Endurance platform (HALE) designed as anon-rigid blimp may face competition from the semi-rigid Japanese StratosphericPlatform Airship (SPA), or the American SkyStation project. Solar technology and theuse of regenerative fuel cells would most likely ensure long endurance capability ofthese vessels.However, it has to be stated that most of these sophisticated ideas are in the earlystage of proposals, hence not comparable to state-of-the-art concepts in the shortterm, which RECONNECT has been putting the focus on.

Highlights among selected new transport conceptsInevitable restrictions at the time of pre-selecting innovative concepts for RECON-NECT have repeatedly been stressed. Hence, picking ultimate "winners" from the va-riety of systems is not unambiguously possible.Nevertheless, the project team would like to emphasise that some of the 21 investi-gated concepts have performed remarkably well throughout the stages of assess-ment and analysis; and that of course with respect to congestion reduction as thestudy's main theme.(For a detailed analysis of market potential, pre-conditions and the appropriate fieldsof application for those highlighted concepts, refer to ➲ D5 "Policy and market syn-thesis".)



Page 68 of 73

Once more referring to defined congestion areas, the RECONNECT partners high-light the following representatives that utilise three principal modes – elevated, un-derground and air transport – to ease ground level congestion:

Solutions for urban congestion, intercity highways and traffic nodesPassenger service Freight distributionThe H-Bahn Dortmund, in operation ona university campus, stands for publictransport concepts that build on dedi-cated elevated infrastructures to over-come congestion. Very reliable and en-vironmental friendly service combinedwith good options to foster intermodality,the system justifies acceptable infra-structure investments.A second full scale application at theDuesseldorf airport is currently underconstruction.

A high degree of independence fromground level congestion is achieved bythe Underground Logistics System(ULS) that allows for a new quality inintermodal freight transport. The poten-tial to serve as a backbone for municipaldistribution networks comes at the ex-pense of acceptable investment costsowed to the microtunnel concept.The ULS is likely to be realised for aconnection from Amsterdam's airport tothe Aalsmeer Flower Auction.

Solutions for natural bottlenecks or (very) long haulPoint-to-point freight deliveryThe CargoLifter airship will replace acomplex transport chain for heavy andbulky freight that currently leads to slowshipment processes. To become inde-pendent of costly ground infrastructure,the vehicle integrates crane functionalityand will provide sound manoeuvrabilityin demanding weather conditions.A proof-of-concept demonstrator is al-ready flying, with construction of a firstfull scale prototype to commence laterthis year.

This appraisal of most promising new transport concepts may always be aggregatedto generic classes as presented in Table 1 of this document. For example, if thereare deviating circumstances in a given case, some of the other systems from thesame class might equally or better suit the needs of a considered application.



Page 69 of 73

Recommendations for future EC research studies and other activitiesThe "new means of transport" task was initiated at the end of the transport pro-gramme within Framework Programme 4 with very limited resources. It was intendedas a first step to give an overview of the variety of existing ideas, concepts or alreadyoperating new systems and to highlight the most promising new means of transportin order to reduce congestion while fulfilling the other aims of the CTP.Today, a second step should be a series of more detailed, not only technologydriven, studies and activities to focus on the concepts with the highest benefits andpotentials. There was a great variety of different systems not easily comparable dueto attributes, stage of development in the innovation cycle, and lack of experienceand data. Hence the RECONNECT consortium developed classes of transport con-cepts as a generalised characterisation to maintain the full potential of a specificclass even if the pre-selected concept is not fully sophisticated yet.

The specific recommendations in addition to the technology driven RTD recommen-dations of chapter 6 are17:• A detailed research study on new means of transport with focus on refinement of

the class characterisation, detailed assessment and cost benefit analysis for themost promising classes following the sophisticated framework of RECONNECT(based on FANTASIE);

• Combined (exploratory) assessment studies and thematic networks around:• small underground tubes for freight transport;• elevated automated guided passenger transport of different cabin size;• airship technology based concepts with new and unique transport capabilities

for people and goods.

• Targeted pilot and demonstration projects of the most promising ground levelconcepts ready for market introduction in the near future:• road based people movers;• individual public transport;• automated vehicle guidance;• man wide cars.

It is obvious that drastic improvements require significant investments. The singularapplication of new means of transport further increases costs. The aim must be todefine early standards to allow frequent application of the same system to reduce riskand cost simultaneously. Stakeholders of competing systems without significant mar-ket penetration should join to a European industry (such as the Airbus story) andagree on one most promising concept or transport concept family. Then concepts re-quiring new infrastructure could be offered much cheaper and much more competi-tive on a global basis. Recommended actions are:• a research study dealing with the political and economic aspects of that dimen-

sion; and• demonstration projects, applying the MAESTRO Guidelines18, to early involve the

end user (passengers, freight distributors) and all other actors to remove barriersand to create awareness of the benefits of the new complementary means oftransport. The integration aspect with existing rather conventional transportshould be envisaged.

17 Interaction and co-ordination with key action 'City of Tomorrow' will be necessary.18 MAESTRO ("Monitoring, Assessment and Evaluation Scheme for Transport Policy Options in Europe") [9]



Page 70 of 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Strategic research study RECONNECT ("Reducing Congestion by IntroducingNew Concepts of Transport"): Deliverables 1, 2, 3 and 4 (all public); CEC (ed.,1999-2000), Brussels

[2] "Energy, environment and sustainable development. Programme for research,technology development and demonstration under the Fifth Framework Pro-gramme – Work programme"; CEC (ed., 1999), Brussels

[3] "The Common Transport Policy. Sustainable Mobility: Perspectives for the Fu-ture"; COM(98)716, 1998, Brussels

[4] "Proposals for council decisions concerning the specific programmes imple-menting the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for re-search, technological development and demonstration activities"; CEC (ed.,1998), Brussels

[5] "High level group on innovation in the field of transport"; CEC (June/August1999), Brussels

[6] "The Citizens' Network." Green Paper from the European Commission;COM(95)601, 1995, Brussels

[7] Strategic dissemination project EXTRA ("Exploitation of Transport Research"):Thematic papers on "Sustainable mobility – integrated perspective", "Freightintermodality" and "Traveller intermodality" (restricted); CEC (ed., 1999-2000),Brussels

[8] Strategic research study FANTASIE ("Forecasting and Assessment of NewTechnologies and Transport Systems and their Impacts on the Environment"):Deliverables 2, 20 and 23 (restricted), 9, 12, 13 and 22 (public); CEC (ed.,1997-2000), Brussels

[9] "The MAESTRO Guidelines [for transport pilot project evaluation]". Strategic re-search study MAESTRO ("Monitoring, Assessment and Evaluation Scheme forTransport Policy Options in Europe"): Deliverable 6; CEC (ed., 2000), Brussels

[10] Strategic initiative MINIMISE ("Managing Interoperability by Improvements inTransport System Organisation in Europe"): Final report for publication; CEC(ed., 1996-1999), Brussels

[11] Research project MOTIF ("Market Oriented Transport in Focus"): Final reportfor publication; CEC (ed., 1998), Brussels

[12] Research study QUATTRO ("Quality Approach in Tendering Urban PublicTransport Options"): Final Report; CEC (ed. 1998), Brussels

[13] Research study UTOPIA ("Urban Transport: Options for Propulsion Systemsand Instruments for Analysis"): Deliverable 2 (public); CEC (ed. 1998), Brussels

[14] Research study BEST ("Steigerung des Kundennutzens von betrieblichen Sys-temen und Technologien im öffentlichen Personenverkehr"); FGM/AMOR (ed.,1999), Graz



Page 71 of 73

ANNEX A: RECONNECT CONTACT LIST

Title First name Family name Role Partner Address Zip code City CountryCode

Telephone Fax E-mail

Mr. Uwe Fischer Scientific officer DG Energy andTransport – B4(DG TREN)

Rue de Mot 28(DM 28 6/21)

B-1040 Brussels BE +32 2 29 55001 +32 2 29 68350 [email protected]

Mr. Ulrich Leiss Projectco-ordinator

IABG Einsteinstrasse 20 D-85521 Ottobrunn DE +49 89 6088 2219 +49 89 6088 2088 [email protected]

Dr. Dieter Hayn Quality manager IABG Einsteinstrasse 20 D-85521 Ottobrunn DE +49 89 6088 3527 +49 89 6088 2088 [email protected]. Wolfgang Helmreich Team member IABG Einsteinstrasse 20 D-85521 Ottobrunn DE +49 89 6088 2006 +49 89 6088 2088 [email protected]

Mr. Christian Brand Disseminationmanager

AEAT(ETSU)

E6 Culham OxonOX 14 3ED

Abingdon UK +44 1235 463 617 ++44 1235 463 001 [email protected]

Mr. Paul Watkiss Team member AEAT(ETSU)

E6 Culham OxonOX 14 3ED

Abingdon UK +44 1235 463 948 ++44 1235 463 001 [email protected]

Mr. Wolfgang Red Project manager FGM-AMOR Schoenaugasse 8a A-8010 Graz AT +43 316 810451 25 +43 316 810451 75 [email protected]. Karl Reiter Team member FGM-AMOR Schoenaugasse 8a A-8010 Graz AT +43 316 810451 27 +43 316 810451 75 [email protected]

Mr. Hector Hernández Project manager IPTS(JRC)

World Trade Centre,Isla de la Cartuja s/n

E-41092 Sevilla ES +34 95 4488 292 +34 95 4488 339 [email protected]

Mr. Matthias Weber Team member IPTS(JRC)



Ms. Laura Lonza Ricci Team member IPTS(JRC)



Dr. Friedhelm Blennemann Project manager STUVA Mathias-Brueggen-Strasse 41

D-50827 Cologne DE +49 221 59795 0 +49 221 59795 50 [email protected]

Mr. Arjan Heyma Project manager TNO Inro P.O. Box 6041 NL-2600 JA Delft NL +31 15 269 6860 +31 15 269 6050 [email protected]. Wim Korver Team member TNO Inro P.O. Box 6041 NL-2600 JA Delft NL +31 15 269 7250 +31 15 269 6050 [email protected]. Peter Zwaneveld Team member TNO Inro P.O. Box 6041 NL-2600 JA Delft NL +31 15 269 6873 +31 15 269 6050 [email protected]

Status of this information: May 2000



Page 72 of 73

ANNEX B: LIST OF PROJECT DELIVERABLES

The RECONNECT project has produced the following documents:

Number and title of deliverable Status/availability

Workpackagereference

Responsiblepartner

D1 New means of transport – survey and pre-selection

public 2 & 3 IPTS

D2 Assessment framework and methodologyguidelines

public 4 ETSU

D3 Targeted assessment database public 5 FGM-AMORD4 Impact assessment of new transport con-

ceptspublic 6 TNO

D5 Policy and market synthesis public 7 IABG

Progress report 1 confidential 1 IABGFinal report (for publication) public 1 IABGFinal consolidated progress report confidential 1 IABGSummary report (CORDIS) public 1 IABGDissemination report confidential 1 ETSU

Newsletter, June 1999 public 1 ETSUProject brief, May 2000 public 1 ETSU



Page 73 of 73

ANNEX C: LINKS TO WEBSITES OF INTEREST

A (non-comprehensive) compilation of valuable links to web pages of concept pro-posers and various other information sources is provided below.

Transport concept / information source Web address/URL (http://...)

Bicycle Lift www.novit.no/dahls/Trampe/index.htmlCable Liner www.dcc.atCargoLifter (CL 160) www.cargolifter.comFast Ferry Rotterdam – Dordrecht www.fastferry.nl/indexff.htmlH-Bahn Dortmund www.h-bahn.deLLNL HyperSoar www.llnl.gov/PAO/NewsReleases/1998/NR-98-09-04.htmlPraxitèle www-rocq.inria.fr/Praxitele/welcome-angl.htmlRigid Airship Design (RA-180) members.tripod.com/rigid/air.htmlRivium ParkShuttle www.ant-peoplemover.nlRUF Dual-Mode www.ruf.dkTH!NK www.think.noBTS TransGlide 2000 www.biketrans.comTransrapid www.maglev.com ;

www.mvp.deTWIKE www.twike.chUnderground Logistics System (ULS) www.haskoning.nlWuppertaler Schwebebahn www.wsw.deZeppelin NT (LZ N07) www.zeppelin-nt.com

Innovative Transportation Technolo-gies; University of Washington, Seattle

faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/

US Transportation Research Board www.nas.edu/trb/index.htmlDirectory of Transportation Resources,Princeton University

dragon.Princeton.edu:80/~dhb/

The ESTO network esto.jrc.es/welcome/

Airship information sources (general) spot.colorado.edu/~dziadeck/airship.html ;www.hotairship.com

Documents

RECONNECT - Final Report · Long distance 80-500 km medium priority Very long distance >500 km low priority Natural bottlenecks & barriers 0-15(-80) km medium priority ... • lighter-than-air