
Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers? - theplaz
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/17/could-bart-automate-train-drivers/
======
enko
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.

~~~
betterunix
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 wrong choices, and I would prefer to have
human operators until some minimum technical competency can be established (we
can start with this: trains that can reliably announce their position on the
line, without needing a human being to set things up -- one would think this
is a bare minimum for automated service).

~~~
BrandonMarc
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.

~~~
betterunix
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.

------
icebraining
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?

~~~
thedrbrian
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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
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](https://www.mashape.com/mojojolo/textteaser)
[1]

------
jrockway
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.

~~~
thrillgore
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.

~~~
mapt
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.

------
sdfjkl
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.

~~~
parasight
So let's train the train drivers to be train automation experts.

~~~
ProblemFactory
BART is already almost automated: the train drives itself. The "drivers" only
close the door, and stop the train if something unexpected happens. Some other
light rail systems around the world run with no drivers on board at all.

The progress of automation will certainly result in complex social issues, and
the entire concept of employment may have to be rethought.

But keeping _a small number_ of people pointlessly in their old jobs is not
the right solution. Why should a few people receive $66-92k per year in
welfare just because they used to drive a train, while other unemployed people
and the homeless do not? It would be more fair to share the tax funds between
all unemployed, regardless of whether it was due to a new automated train
system or not.

------
afreak
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.

------
rpedela
I would like to see all forms of transportation automated as long as it is
proven safe. Trains have to be one of the easiest to automate since it runs on
a track. If Google can automate a car which needs to avoid potholes, idiot
drivers, construction, snow, rain, etc, I think we should be able to automate
trains.

~~~
Anechoic
_If Google can automate a car which needs to avoid potholes, idiot drivers,
construction, snow, rain, etc_

Google hasn't done that (yet). [http://googleblog.blogspot.hu/2012/08/the-
self-driving-car-l...](http://googleblog.blogspot.hu/2012/08/the-self-driving-
car-logs-more-miles-on.html)

~~~
rpedela
Thanks for the link. I stand corrected.

------
melling
The technology already exists. Take the money that's saved and invest it back
into the system. Run trains more frequently and have them run 24 hours.

[http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight.aspx](http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight.aspx)

------
waylandsmithers
I'm not from the bay area-- do the train operators seem to have any public
support? I feel like it's hard to sympathize with striking workers who are
already among the highest paid in the country for this line of work.

~~~
tsuru
I'm not from the bay area either, but have you see the rent prices out there?
Just seeing how much rent prices over the last 20 or so years have increased,
mostly because of the tech industry, it's easier for me to sympathize with
them.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Speaking as someone who tried to use the godawful abomination that is
Caltrain, I have no sympathy for any Caltrain employees, and never will.

You could replace the entire staff with San Francisco homeless and it couldn't
get any worse.

~~~
jrockway
What's the problem with Caltrain, exactly?

~~~
thaumasiotes
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, but incredibly
inconvenient, and the express train (same distance, half the time) leaves much
less often. It would matter less than it does, except...

\- I once arrived at the station on time, saw people being let through the
gate, bought a ticket, and was turned away from the gate by the guard. The
people I had just seen were clearly visible on the platform, walking to the
train. But hey, why not make me sit in the station for another hour.

\- Multiple times I experienced indefinite delays as the train just sat on the
track in the middle of nowhere, unmoving. No explanation was given.

\- Caltrain arrives at (and leaves from) Diridon roughly once per hour. The
highway 17 bus leaves from (and arrives at) Diridon roughly once per hour.
They've been anti-synced: the bus leaves about ten minutes before the train
arrives, and the train leaves about ten minutes before the bus arrives. The
only explanation I can even imagine for this is that whoever set the schedule
specifically hated the passengers.

The upshot is that you spend the better part of your day on what would have
been a 2-2.5 hour drive. It's not even feasible to make the trip both ways in
a single day.

~~~
elangoc
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.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 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.

------
gadders
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.

------
theplaz
If BART became automated they could afford to run more trains, especially
later at night, as they do in Vancouver:
[http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-
transit...](http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-transit-why-
it-matters.html)

------
dllthomas
My understanding has been that the a significant role of a BART driver is
crowd control as people get on and off. Some of that seems less automatable
than the travel itself. I could easily be wrong about that, though, or
automating the rest might be worth doing anyway.

------
theplaz
Plus there is the zoom and whoosh factor, which BART already has:
[http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/transits-zoomwhoosh-
prob...](http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/transits-zoomwhoosh-problem.html)

------
al2o3cr
Shorter TC: "Hey, that crab is near the top of the bucket! PULL HIM DOWN!"

