Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we slowed the subway down

homesignalblog.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 99 posts

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#21

Post by ErikVandeWater »

vosper wrote: post #11
gruturo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If OP's subway carried 80k people per day (and I guess this could be conservative), and they are all delayed 15 minutes, the overall wasted time equals 1 lifetime per month. I'm all for improving the technology, but in the meantime the math should absolutely be done, at least to ensure the temporary fix isn't worse than the problem.

Is it necessarily wasted, though? If the subway is tedious and unpleasant, then sure. But if I get a seat and I get 15 more minutes reading or staring out the window, then I’m probably not calling that a complete waste.

If you told New Yorkers they had the option to live 15 minutes longer, but that is added time on the NYC subway, I think most would turn it down.

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#22

Post by ErikVandeWater »

jraph wrote: post #9
maria2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many lifetimes of time are being wasted every day to save < 10 lives every century.

Life can't be reduced to (productive) time like this. At least I find this take very sad.

The time they spend on the metro isn't necessarily productive time. Many people would be enjoying leisure with that time.

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#23

Post by kccqzy »

hristov wrote: post #5
dzdt wrote: post #3

After an operator-error derailment on the commuter rail line I frequently ride, the response of the NTSB was to require the railroad de-prioritize on-time performance and increase schedule times. As a frequent rider on the route I would much rather have my 15 minutes per day back and risk a once-per-century fatal accident. But the risk-averse bureaucracy we've built doesn't make such calculations with a balance like…

"Sure you save some lives but how many will be late!" I do not like this math. For example the accident may not be once per century. And it is good for the bureaucracy to be risk adverse if it comes to my life. The answer is that they should improve the technology so that the system is safe and faster.

When the train is often late, it simply pushes people to drive more, and depending on the specifics driving on the highway could very well be less safe. Ergo, it results in a net loss of lives. This is pointed out near the end of the article.

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#24

Post by brutusborn »

hristov wrote: post #12

It is actually bonkers that in this day and age the NYC subway cannot install accurate speed gauges on their trains. You can get an accurate bike speedometer for $20 on amazon, but the NYC subway cannot provide an accurate speedometer for train carrying a couple of hundred people. It is true that trains require more rigorous standards, but it is not a difficult problem. For example you can put a sensor on the electri…

My guesses: - Lack of incentives for executives to improve performance -Lack of people with good ideas to plan improvements -Lack of skills to execute an improvement plan (due to relatively low salaries) -Pointless regulation -Deferred maintenance to ‘save money’

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#25

Post by rayiner »

vosper wrote: post #11
gruturo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If OP's subway carried 80k people per day (and I guess this could be conservative), and they are all delayed 15 minutes, the overall wasted time equals 1 lifetime per month. I'm all for improving the technology, but in the meantime the math should absolutely be done, at least to ensure the temporary fix isn't worse than the problem.

Is it necessarily wasted, though? If the subway is tedious and unpleasant, then sure. But if I get a seat and I get 15 more minutes reading or staring out the window, then I’m probably not calling that a complete waste.

Getting a seat on the NYC subway? Lol.

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#26

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hristov wrote: post #5
dzdt wrote: post #3

After an operator-error derailment on the commuter rail line I frequently ride, the response of the NTSB was to require the railroad de-prioritize on-time performance and increase schedule times. As a frequent rider on the route I would much rather have my 15 minutes per day back and risk a once-per-century fatal accident. But the risk-averse bureaucracy we've built doesn't make such calculations with a balance like…

"Sure you save some lives but how many will be late!" I do not like this math. For example the accident may not be once per century. And it is good for the bureaucracy to be risk adverse if it comes to my life. The answer is that they should improve the technology so that the system is safe and faster.

> the accident may not be once per century. And it is good for the bureaucracy to be risk adverse if it comes to my life

People stop taking the subway when it takes too long. That not only increases traffic, it also saps the system of funding.

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#27

Post by ehnto »

brutusborn wrote: post #24
hristov wrote: post #12

It is actually bonkers that in this day and age the NYC subway cannot install accurate speed gauges on their trains. You can get an accurate bike speedometer for $20 on amazon, but the NYC subway cannot provide an accurate speedometer for train carrying a couple of hundred people. It is true that trains require more rigorous standards, but it is not a difficult problem. For example you can put a sensor on the electri…

My guesses: - Lack of incentives for executives to improve performance -Lack of people with good ideas to plan improvements -Lack of skills to execute an improvement plan (due to relatively low salaries) -Pointless regulation -Deferred maintenance to ‘save money’

Indeed, I can see this being a bureaucractic challenge more than a technical one.

There are quite clear paths forward and no shortage of prior art for the engineering portion, unless there is something we aren't privvy to it must be lack of incentives and bureaucracy.

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#28

Post by mildchalupa »

One of the things that I find interesting in terms of long lasting standard or infrastructure development is that small variations in design choices early in a system result in radically different performance down the line. For instance the width or guage of a train track will greatly influence the carrying capacity and the size of objects transportable via rail. Same for the size of lane of road. Infrastructure, and standards tend to have an inertia like quality as changeover to a slightly improved system takes significant capital.

In general it seems absolutely insane to me that we rely on an antique control strategy for the Subway while in other industries outside of rail such as aviation or automotive such a system would be easily automated.

Re: How we slowed the subway down

#29

Post by closeparen »

jraph wrote: post #9
maria2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many lifetimes of time are being wasted every day to save < 10 lives every century.

Life can't be reduced to (productive) time like this. At least I find this take very sad.

You’re right, it’s even worse than that. When public transit is constantly decelerating, crawling, and hesitating it (correctly) communicates to the riders society’s judgment that they and their destinations don’t matter. That if your trip mattered you would have your own car. It sets a waiting room atmosphere. Public transit is a purgatory for those with nowhere else to be to while away the hours. And pretty soon that’s who your ridership is and what they’re doing there.
Post reply on HN