International Railway Journal (IRJ): Your recent study suggests automated metro has reached a turning point globally. How would you describe where the industry stands today?
Mehdi Sinaceur: What we’re seeing now is a real shift from innovation to maturity. Automated metro is no longer a niche technology. It has become the reference for high-capacity urban rail, built on more than 40 years of operational experience. The global network now exceeds 2300km and is expected to double by 2030, which shows just how strong the consensus has become across the sector. Authorities, operators and manufacturers all recognise the same thing: not only cost-savings by cutting both drivers and energy, but optimal security, very high reliability levels, and the flexibility to change the transport offer by injecting extra trains in the network within minutes.
At the same time, passenger expectations have evolved. People don’t really think about the technology anymore - they judge the system on everyday performance: frequency, regularity, reliability. Automated systems perform particularly well here, with reliability rates of more than 99% typical, and shorter intervals between trains.
Another good example is Riyadh. More than 200 million passengers have been carried on the 176km fully automated metro in just over a year of service. In a city that has long been dominated by the car, this demonstrates just how quickly behaviour can change when public transport delivers a high-quality service.
IRJ: Your study also explores what makes projects succeed. What are the main misconceptions?
MS: The most common misconception is that performance comes mainly from the technology. In reality, the challenge of delivering these highly reliable networks is to make sure everything works together. This happens at two levels. First, operationally. Without strong coordination, the inherent “entropy” of the network can quickly jeopardise the equilibrium, spiralling into delays. That’s why management routines, training and testing is critical. All of the teams working on automated lines must be experienced and used to working together. But this does not happen by accident. It may take more than 10 years to train an exemplary operations control centre chief for an automated line and even longer for a systems engineer capable of properly assessing the design of a system that operates at Grade of Automation 4 (GoA4). This knowledge is often only learned firsthand by personally launching, studying, operating or maintaining such a system. In addition, the same team must negotiate contracts, resolve disputes and participate in technology evolutions with OEMs in order to maintain high levels of performance.
Ultimately projects that are successful are those where all stakeholders interests align early. Starting with the procurement model and the assessment criteria, but also with establishing the cross-industry team that will deliver the project. This includes the rail systems designers and manufacturers, civil engineers, operations and maintenance personnel and, of course, infrastructure funds and authorities. Consideration must also be paid to the eco system’s stakeholders, including unions along with vocational education schools or civil society organisations.
Adopting collaborative working models are preferred to enforcing shared objectives. However, it must be said, that all of our clients are skilled at navigating these specific procurement and delivery challenges, and in the end, performance doesn’t come from any single component - it comes from the coherence of the system as a whole, and from how well technology, operations and governance are integrated over time.
IRJ: You interviewed more than 30 stakeholders for the survey. Was there a single point on which everyone agreed?
MS: Very clearly, yes: the importance of involving the operator as early as possible. There’s a strong consensus that systems tend to underperform when operational realities aren’t fully taken into account during the design phase. The operator brings a very practical, long-term perspective of how the system will actually run day-to-day, how incidents will be handled, and how maintenance will be organised. This is based on accumulated experience of thousands of "flight hours" across multiple networks and technology choices. These aspects are often underestimated early on, but they are essential to performance, to life cycle cost, to durability and to scalability.
At RATP Dev, we apply this systematically. On projects like the Belgrade metro or Sepulveda Transit Corridor in California, we are providing early operator support - in one case to the transport authority, in the other to a design and delivery consortium. This approach is helping to ensure that design choices translate into something that works in real life, reduces interface risks and performs over the long term. Ultimately, it’s quite simple: involving the operator early ensures the system works properly from day one, lasts longer, optimises its costs and is able to grow.
IRJ: The report highlights that automation is also a human transformation. What does that mean in practice?
MS: It means that automation transforms organisations as much as it transforms operations. It changes the nature of work, but it doesn’t remove the human dimension. If anything, it makes it even more important. Roles evolve towards supervision, system control, customer support and advanced maintenance. These are more skilled roles, and they are essential to maintaining performance and passenger confidence. Bringing together an experienced and expert management and technical team, which is able to quickly embed itself in the local environment and deploy skillsets acquired over decades investing in human capital, is an RATP hallmark. The ability to transfer those skills and build on them all around the world also calls for specific experience.
Beyond that, automation has to be managed as a broader human and societal transformation. In brownfield contexts, you’re implementing it on a live network and in a bustling city. That means it affects passengers, staff and local stakeholders all at once. Disruption, changing job profiles, and visible constraints on the ground are all things you need to be mindful of. Here too, the experience of managing such constraints through reengineering, rebuilding and conducting testing and commissioning activities with only minimal disruption to traffic is critical. In public transport, it is easy to lose passengers when service levels drop, and it can be hard to regain them.
This is why the study emphasises the importance of building “360° acceptability” as a core part of the delivery strategy. This is not just a communications layer. It’s about maintaining trust by offering clear public information, credible and multiple alternatives during works and a strong presence on the ground.
Paris Metro Line 4 is a good illustration. Automation was delivered while keeping the line in service. Long periods of works and testing was followed by mixed fleet operations, all of which required important change management. The result was not just a technical success, but a real operational improvement, with peak-hour performance rising from 91% to 102%.
On Line 14, the migration to GoA4 went hand in hand with a major extension and fleet renewal. The challenge was different but again clear preparation and coordination were key. The results speak for themselves, with very high punctuality and strong ridership growth on this line.
IRJ: You also highlight obsolescence as a challenge. Why is this becoming so critical?
MS: Because these systems are increasingly digital and software-driven, which contrasts with the infrastructure and rolling stock which is designed to last decades. That creates a structural gap between fast technology cycles and very long asset lifecycles. If you don’t anticipate this and prepare appropriately, you can end up with rising maintenance costs or declining network performance, creating further complexity to manage. Hands-on experience across a broad range of automated metro systems is a real asset in this respect.
