4 ms·

> It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. We still have drivers on subway trains. When those drivers lose jobs to aut

> It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. We still have drivers on subway trains. When those drivers lose jobs to autonomy, maybe we can think about being on the cusp. Until then, I see it as a fantastic story that can be used to milk VCs for cash. At <$4/hour, it's a better investment to automate a fast food restaurant like McDonald's or Burger King. They pay twice as much for labor. Pouring a coke and cooking burgers and fries should be a pretty straightforward challenge. They've already done Pizzas.

raducu 9y ago
I think Paris subway is driverless (at least some lines I traveled on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...
MarkMc 9y ago
Subway trains carry hundreds of people, so the cost of the driver for each passenger is low. Also, subway systems are monopolies with strong drivers' unions. Subway managers have no strong financial incentive to reduce costs because the taxpayer foots the bill. In contrast, if Uber doesn't produce a driverless taxi service soon its management will be fired and will miss out on billions of dollars in bonuses. I think we'll see driverless public taxis in Phoenix before we see driverless subway trains in New York. Self-driving trains are technically easier to develop, but self-driving cars will win thanks to the efficiencies of the free market.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Automation on subway trains is almost never about saving costs - even well paid drivers make up a very small percentage of the operational costs of a subway. The vast majority goes on maintenance. In most cases the costs imposed by a wave of city-crippling strikes will far outstrip the minor cost gains from automating the rail line, so it only makes sense to actually automate and fire the drivers if the goal is actually political. Subway drivers comprise a strong component of a country's labor power (because of their power to shut down critical infrastructure) and the alliances they typically hold with other unions and their political donations cement that. They don't just offset the power of the government they work under, they offset the power of executive/shareholder power in general. Since labor and union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s, the political goal behind crushing them is pretty clearly about increasing the wealth and income inequality chasm still further.
  - grandmczeb 9y ago
    > union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s Would love to see actual evidence that this is true.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      Here it is https://voxeu.org/article/union-power-and-inequality https://voxeu.org/article/union-power-and-inequality
      - grandmczeb 9y ago
        The link you posted only analyzes the relationship after 1980. It also doesn't compare multiple sources of inequality. That's not evidence for "union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s" Here's another study (that actually cites the one you linked) covering the same time period and shows multiple other factors having greater impact. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf
        crdoconnor 9y ago
        No it absolutely doesn't. "Technological progress and the resulting rise in the skill premium (positives for growth and productivity) and the decline of some labor market institutions have contributed to inequality in both advanced economies and EMDCs." Emphasis mine. That ^^^ was literally the first reason given in the article. The second point it makes is about the role policy-making plays, which of course is probably as important, but is intimately connected to the presence or absence of union power because who the hell do you think lobbies for those policies? Institutional support (donations, political support, control of voting blocs, policy research, etc.) behind those policies (e.g. raise minimum wage) comes from unions whereas the policies do the opposite (e.g. lower minimum wage) come from business lobbies and high net worth individuals - who have opposing interests.
        9y ago
DanielDent 9y ago
The SkyTrain in Vancouver, Canada does not have drivers. It has been in service since it was built for the 1986 World Expo. Autonomous trains are not nearly as widespread as they could be, but this is not for technical reasons - it is for political reasons.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Pretty sure one of the Boston subway lines is autonomous (from the airport?), along with a smattering of subway lines around the world.
  - hanklazard 9y ago
    Blue line? Nope, it has a driver.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  Paris' metro # 14 is driverless. The new lines under construction (15, 16, 17 & 18, which will serve the greater Paris area) will also be fully automated.
- johannes1234321 9y ago
  One of the reasons is that the driver also doubles as emergency person. With autonomous systems one has to have staff ready to reach each section of the tracks quickly to lead evacuation from a tunnel in case of fire etc. A driver is trained to do so.
- astrodust 9y ago
  If that had to drive down a busy street it wouldn't be driverless. The way it's configured it's basically an elevator.

raducu 9y ago

I think Paris subway is driverless (at least some lines I traveled on). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_...

MarkMc 9y ago

Subway trains carry hundreds of people, so the cost of the driver for each passenger is low. Also, subway systems are monopolies with strong drivers' unions. Subway managers have no strong financial incentive to reduce costs because the taxpayer foots the bill. In contrast, if Uber doesn't produce a driverless taxi service soon its management will be fired and will miss out on billions of dollars in bonuses. I think we'll see driverless public taxis in Phoenix before we see driverless subway trains in New York. Self-driving trains are technically easier to develop, but self-driving cars will win thanks to the efficiencies of the free market.

crdoconnor 9y ago
Automation on subway trains is almost never about saving costs - even well paid drivers make up a very small percentage of the operational costs of a subway. The vast majority goes on maintenance. In most cases the costs imposed by a wave of city-crippling strikes will far outstrip the minor cost gains from automating the rail line, so it only makes sense to actually automate and fire the drivers if the goal is actually political. Subway drivers comprise a strong component of a country's labor power (because of their power to shut down critical infrastructure) and the alliances they typically hold with other unions and their political donations cement that. They don't just offset the power of the government they work under, they offset the power of executive/shareholder power in general. Since labor and union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s, the political goal behind crushing them is pretty clearly about increasing the wealth and income inequality chasm still further.
- grandmczeb 9y ago
  > union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s Would love to see actual evidence that this is true.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    Here it is https://voxeu.org/article/union-power-and-inequality https://voxeu.org/article/union-power-and-inequality
    - grandmczeb 9y ago
      The link you posted only analyzes the relationship after 1980. It also doesn't compare multiple sources of inequality. That's not evidence for "union power is largely what held income inequality in check until the 80s" Here's another study (that actually cites the one you linked) covering the same time period and shows multiple other factors having greater impact. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        No it absolutely doesn't. "Technological progress and the resulting rise in the skill premium (positives for growth and productivity) and the decline of some labor market institutions have contributed to inequality in both advanced economies and EMDCs." Emphasis mine. That ^^^ was literally the first reason given in the article. The second point it makes is about the role policy-making plays, which of course is probably as important, but is intimately connected to the presence or absence of union power because who the hell do you think lobbies for those policies? Institutional support (donations, political support, control of voting blocs, policy research, etc.) behind those policies (e.g. raise minimum wage) comes from unions whereas the policies do the opposite (e.g. lower minimum wage) come from business lobbies and high net worth individuals - who have opposing interests.
        9y ago

DanielDent 9y ago

The SkyTrain in Vancouver, Canada does not have drivers. It has been in service since it was built for the 1986 World Expo. Autonomous trains are not nearly as widespread as they could be, but this is not for technical reasons - it is for political reasons.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Pretty sure one of the Boston subway lines is autonomous (from the airport?), along with a smattering of subway lines around the world.
- hanklazard 9y ago
  Blue line? Nope, it has a driver.
CaptainZapp 9y ago
Paris' metro # 14 is driverless. The new lines under construction (15, 16, 17 & 18, which will serve the greater Paris area) will also be fully automated.
johannes1234321 9y ago
One of the reasons is that the driver also doubles as emergency person. With autonomous systems one has to have staff ready to reach each section of the tracks quickly to lead evacuation from a tunnel in case of fire etc. A driver is trained to do so.
astrodust 9y ago
If that had to drive down a busy street it wouldn't be driverless. The way it's configured it's basically an elevator.