GoA 0–4 Comparison Chart
“Driverless” is not a specification. A GoA level is. This sheet puts the IEC 62290-1 responsibility matrix next to the staffing model and the systems actually running at each grade, so a stakeholder conversation about automation can end in a number instead of an adjective.
Free to use and share with attribution. No email required.
What's inside
- The IEC 62290-1 responsibility matrix across all six critical functions and all five grades.
- What each grade means in plain terms — who is on the train, and what they are responsible for.
- Real deployments at each level, including the US exceptions to the GoA 2 norm.
- The legend that makes the matrix readable: D, A, Auto, C, ATP.
Why the matrix matters more than the label
When an agency writes “GoA 2” into a specification, the responsibility matrix immediately settles the expected behavior across all six critical functions — who sets the train in motion, who closes the doors, who handles a disruption, who runs an evacuation. That is the whole point of the framework: it converts a business requirement into a system specification without an argument about what “automatic” means.
The US picture
Most US CBTC deployments are GoA 2 — automation drives, a driver stays in the cab and keeps responsibility for doors and disruption. That balance reflects labor agreements, risk-averse procurement, and established engineering practice rather than any technical ceiling. The exceptions are instructive and mostly airport or greenfield systems: JFK AirTrain opened at GoA 4 in 2003, and Honolulu Skyline at GoA 4 in 2023. Paris Métro Line 14 — the first modern metro to run GoA 4, in October 1998 — is still the reference the rest of the world argues from.
Sources & method
Responsibility matrix adapted from Communications-Based Train Control, Volume 1, Chapter 8 (Table 8.1), by Chunjun (Francisco) Wang, after IEC 62290-1. Deployment examples are drawn from the same chapter; grades reflect normal revenue operation, not degraded modes.