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.
Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
31–40 of 52 posts
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#32I'm not sure how this came up in conversation.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#33Earlier 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…
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?
#34They 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.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#35BART 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.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#36I 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?
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/12/automated-news-sports-stats...
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#37Since 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?
#38They 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.
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?
#39This 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.
Re: Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?
#40This 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…