So, this article is about that GoA 4 is not reachable and thus you should not call it "driverless tube"? Is that right or I am missing something? When he writ

So, this article is about that GoA 4 is not reachable and thus you should not call it "driverless tube"? Is that right or I am missing something? When he writes that they looked at the system that Siemens provides, then I think I know the system, which is considered. The very same trains system is actually running here in my town for more than 10 years now. I think it should be deployed originally by 2006. But as any project in Germany, this was late to and as such was deployed in 2008. Yes, it is not GoA4 but GoA3. Yes, it was a technically challenging. I personally know people who where involved in the project and specifically in the functional safety aspects. The first sensors were installed somewhere around the end of the last century on the lines that are run by the drivers to get experiences and to improve the safety system. At that time the system was somehow unique, because it was specifically design for retrofitting existing tubes. It is also designed from the beginning that driverless trains and trains with drivers can run in parallel on the very same rail, if needed, because some lines may share some parts of the rail system. Yes, it is (only) GoA3, that means there is a central control room. There are actual people sitting monitoring and "supporting" the automated decisions. They are supporting in a sense, that if some situation occurs the system does not have an automated decision to, the operator can view a sequence and decide what to do. If the operator decides, that he is unable to decide remotely, he can sent an onsite operator. That means there are no (operating) people on the trains itself, they are only required at the platform. This gives the benefit, that the number of trains currently running can be decreased or increased depending on demand without having the need for having drivers on standby. That makes personnel planing much more easier and can save costs. This is paid for with increased costs to run the technical system. This is actually not cheap as well. Here in Nuremberg there are currently 3 lines. Line 1 is the oldest and still run by a driver. Line 2, the second oldest, was originally run by a driver but converted to be driverless. Line 3, the newest, started completely driverless. Line 2 and 3 largely share the same rails. Line 1 runs on their own rails. Only when maintenance is happening, then all lines share in some parts the very same rails. Because of Line 2, the system is mostly retrofit. The city decided a few years ago not to go driverless for line 1, because of the costs involved for retrofitting the complete line. Besides the costs, there is also a benefit for the drivers to be driverless. I have some friends who used to be drivers. They say, this job is very very challenging when you are the whole time underground and basically most of the stations looking almost the same. After the second round you loose your mind and concentration, so that sometimes they announced the wrong way they where going. For the safety aspects that is even worse. So going driverless or not is not a myth as such, only if you consider GoA4 as the only possible driverless. But the decision for or against is very complex and even can increase safety for the passengers, because the automation does no get tired.