Live data from Hacker News

Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

techcrunch.com

41–50 of 52 posts

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

#41
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

Same reason for anyone in that situation: The sooner they learn/do something else, the sooner they can acquire a new useful skillset, instead of dragging on their now useless one. It's not like this is an intermediate problem and if we just subsidize them long enough, there'll suddenly be a need for train drivers again.

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

#42
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'm just guessing but I think the main difference is between building a system from scratch vs working with an existing system. While the cost of strikes is high, so is the fixed cost embedded in the current system.

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

#43

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.

Same for London's DLR (Docklands Light Railway). I remember whe the drivers went on strike, the trains simply ran without the babysitters. Nobody died or lost any limbs that day.

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

#44
post #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.

  "BART was one of the first U.S. systems of any size to have substantial automated 
  operations. The trains are computer-controlled via BART's Operations Control Center 
  (OCC) and headquarters at Lake Merritt and generally arrive with regular punctuality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Bay_Area_Rapid_...

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a coincidence only. The MTA has been engaged in various labor-reduction initiatives and has been steadily reducing the size of its workforce for years. Beyond automated trains, the MTA has been building "master towers" (with a long term goal of having a single control center for the whole system), repeatedly trying to remove the need for conductors (and then being told by the fire department that one man is not enough to evacuate a train quickly enough), removing token booths, etc. The real pattern with the MTA is hiring incompetent engineers, particularly software engineers -- their payroll system is in a miserable state, they have yet to computerize their system for recording when trains arrive in stations, bus stops still lack information about when the next bus will arrive or even where that bus is, and the attempt to modernize their communications system went bust in just one day, leaving everyone running back to their older office (across the city) just to handle the radio traffic. You might say that there are financial interests in holding back some of these projects, but for the most part the MTA's M.O. is to hire contractors who fail to deliver, then pay them more to continue to fail to deliver, and then abandon the project and hire the same contractors to fail elsewhere.

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

#46

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.

The 'Oh shit' button is not something we can reasonably expect the driver of a 'partially' automated train to be able to press: humans just aren't good at maintaining attention for these sorts of tasks with half-second reaction times once every fifty years of service. They can occasionally make useful decisions about edge-cases that represent small chances of failure (like wet-rail operation), that it is possibly for the automated operators to fail to account for.

The human driver instead serves as a sort of last-ditch assurance that the transit company values human life sufficient that a jury wouldn't destroy them in the event of an accident. He performs a sacrificial function by being the first one to die in the event of a crash, at which point it becomes a tragedy for the operator company, milliseconds before the people behind him die, at which point it becomes a tragedy for the passengers. There is no point, therefore, at which a disaster can be seen as a tragedy for the passengers but not the operating company, a position which is fraught with political-legal consequences in the US corporate and municipal environment, ever obsessed with liability. The driver's failure to respond adequately is implied to be at least partially the fault of the late driver, sufficient to draw fire until the panic dies down.

Absent liability issues, we would all be riding perfectly safe labor-less cars and trains, which were perfectly safe because we insisted on using them once they were mature enough to be safer than individual automobile drivers, and learned from each crash that happened afterwards, and improved our algorithms iteratively. Instead, every time we have a crash we blame the algorithm's existence rather than tweak it, switch to using a more human-intensive mode, let the automated infrastructure rot, add weight to our trains, and decry the tragic no-fault coincidence of driver inattention and algorithm failure that doomed the driver and the passengers.

The DC Metro was designed for full automation. Rather than implement the automation and improve on it over time, the predictable initial failures resulted in scaling back the automation partially and later fully and now it's not even a realistic capability, the infrastructure has degraded.

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

#47
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sto…

> 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.

You're talking about a bus route with two stops. The only thing it does is travel between Diridon station and downtown Santa Cruz. I'm assigning responsibility for the station's scheduling to the station, which is Caltrain.

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

#48

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.

I don't know of many other heavy-rail systems where the control system has full authority over the control of the train. Most systems can stop the train if the operator exceeds the safety limits, but it's up to the operator to do routine things like stop at a station, open the doors, and accelerate away from the station.

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

#49
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Same reason for anyone in that situation: The sooner they learn/do something else, the sooner they can acquire a new useful skillset, instead of dragging on their now useless one. It's not like this is an intermediate problem and if we just subsidize them long enough, there'll suddenly be a need for train drivers again.

there is no guarentee that whatever replacement level work any paticular driver will do will be better than their current situation

so how are they better off?

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

#50

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?

If everyone could just email their PR pieces to a common techcrunch email address, someone could write a bit of code to check any links and then bung the text and pictures into an article template on the homepage.

Just to start (I call it BotoCrunch)

Mailgun In -> TextTeaser API [1] -> Mailgun Out to reader mailing list/Deploy to S3 site.

https://www.mashape.com/mojojolo/textteaser [1]

Post reply on HN