Live data from Hacker News

Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

techcrunch.com

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#31

BART is already automated. The "drivers" just make announcements, check that the doors don't close on someone's leg, and press the emergency stop button if the computer goes badly awry.

This is the same kind of "automation" that is in place at most mass transit systems in the US (sans DC, which still uses human operators). The requirement of having that human operator is typically born strictly of labor requirements first, and not necessarily the need of having someone's hand over the "Oh shit" button.

Sans New York also -- with one exception, all of the MTA's trains have human operators, and the majority have two-man crews. It has been possible for a single person to operate the MTA's subway trains for decades, but attempts to do so on "full length" trains (most lines; shuttles and the G are the main exceptions) have generally resulted in failures to meet safety requirements e.g. evacuating passengers quickly enough during a fire. It is overly simplistic to claim that this is strictly about labor requirements; while the TWU certainly works to keep its members employed, there are many other factors, at least in NYC. Also notable are the various attempts to increase automation, which have failed not because of the union, nor because of technology not being up to the task, but because the MTA does not know how to hire competent engineers for its projects (despite having billions of dollars available to pay them).

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#32
Tangential point: I once got speaking to a taxi driver who used to be a tube driver. He said if you ever want to commit suicide, do it on the Victoria line. Although the traines have a driver in the cab, they are automated so the driver will be paying less attention and less likely to stop in time.

I'm not sure how this came up in conversation.

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the problem with Caltrain, exactly?

Caltrain seems to operate on the principle "users are the enemy". I wanted to travel between San Francisco and Santa Cruz, where my family is. Driving, that takes about 2.5 hours depending on traffic. In theory, the mass transit way of doing things is to take Caltrain from SF to San Jose and then a bus over highway 17. Here are some of the problems I encountered. - Caltrain leaves once an hour. This is forgivable, bu…

The frequency of the trains will be increased once the trains are moved from diesel to electricity (will take 2 more yrs?), since the operating costs will decrease.

Whether the Caltrain schedule matches the highway 17 bus's schedule is not solely the fault of Caltrain -- it's either a 2 way street, or else they're both neglecting it, unless you have proof otherwise.

I have ridden MTA (NYC) and BART when they have stopped the trains in unpredictable locations for various reasons. For short stoppages, they don't say anything, but for stoppages more than 30 secs, they typically say something.

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#34
post #8

They should be. Artificially keeping jobs alive that are better, safer and cheaper performed by machines is bad for everyone in the long run, even the train drivers.

On the other hand, it's as close to a minimum basic income as the US (and probably the world) will get this decade :-)

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#35

BART is already automated. The "drivers" just make announcements, check that the doors don't close on someone's leg, and press the emergency stop button if the computer goes badly awry.

Interesting comment, but it would be a lot intererestinger with a citation attached.

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#36

I wonder if TechCrunch articles could be automated. Have the TC editors ever bothered to ask, or are they too afraid of the interests of the contributors to explore the question?

TechCrunch has explored the topic of automated journalism numerous times; here's one example:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/12/automated-news-sports-stats...

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#37
This could be answered as yes and also no.

Since 1985, Vancouver has had a 100% automated metro system ("SkyTrain") which has expanded to three lines (soon 4) and about 65 KM in track (soon to be closer to 80).

Almost any metro system could be converted to be automated but SkyTrain was built to be 100% computer-controlled from the get go. To switch from manual to electronic control would likely lead to enormous interruptions and it is unlikely that the unions in charge would accept it. It also isn't a matter of just updating the trains but it also means building sensors at all stations to detect intrusions and it also means changing signal controls. Needless to say it would be a bad idea and likely would just cost money.

In 2001, we suffered a prolonged transit strike that stopped all local bus and ferry service. However, the SkyTrain system continued to operate as normal albeit without any staff at any of the stations.

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#38
post #8

They should be. Artificially keeping jobs alive that are better, safer and cheaper performed by machines is bad for everyone in the long run, even the train drivers.

you want to explain why its better for train drivers to be out of a job?

creative destruction might be better for the system as a whole,

that's different than saying there aren't winners and losers, only winners

the further we go down the wormhole of automating away work, that's a question we shouldn't just blow off

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#39
post #2

This is a rhetorical question. Of course it could. I've ridden driverless trains in at least three countries - the technology is unquestionably available, proven, and safe. Is it possible politically? That is the real question. Perhaps not, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with technology.

My train was halted this morning due to a man waving a gun around. Between that and other previous incidents involving other riders, I am quite grateful there was a person operating the train.

Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

#40
post #2

This is a rhetorical question. Of course it could. I've ridden driverless trains in at least three countries - the technology is unquestionably available, proven, and safe. Is it possible politically? That is the real question. Perhaps not, but let's not pretend it has anything to do with technology.

I cannot speak for BART, but in NYC the MTA has been trying to automate its trains for many years (since the early 90s for the latest effort) and has only barely been able to keep everything working on the one line chosen for the pilot program -- and that is one of the simpler routes in the system. While I am sure that automation is possible and that the technology is available , the MTA seems to be making all the wr…

So ... lots of people have a financial stake in automated trains not working, and for some reason MTA is moving in a direction that consistently doesn't work. Quite a coincidence there.
Post reply on HN