9 ms·
New York’s bill banning One-Person Train Operation
- protocolture 1y agoIf people want one or two people in the loop on board commuter trains its fine by me. Really it should be a local/democratic decision. Long haul freight trains however, should absolutely be exempt.
- Ericson2314 1y agoIt seems due to the way NY machine politics works, this was passed as a "freebee" to the union without considering the broader societal impact. There are plenty of ways to improve productivity without firing train operators — simplest way is running more service in the existing network, and also expanding the network. This evidently wasn't disgussed — and indeed the bill lies saying there is no fiscal impact. Hopefully Governor Hochul refuses to sign it.
- protocolture 1y ago>It seems due to the way NY machine politics works, this was passed as a "freebee" to the union without considering the broader societal impact. Yeah absolutely.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago> Long haul freight trains however, should absolutely be exempt. We will see automated long haul freight trains eventually, as long as their is pressure to up safety requirements (human operators being the weakest link in that).
- protocolture 1y agoIIRC we had a train get loose without operators in Western Australia and they just remotely derailed it, like it was nothing. Remote control would have been preferable, the incident demonstrated to me that the remote operators have the steel in their spine to destroy the companies money rather than risk human life.
- AnotherGoodName 1y agoThe article does state it only applies to the mta fwiw.
- Terr_ 1y agoThe site's headline is ambiguous. At first I wondered if it was some weirdly premature bill against individualized automated travel-pods. Instead, it's about requiring at least one "conductor" (separate from a driver) to be on every train. I feel the reasonableness of this varies depending on the route and how easily the driver can summon assistance without abandoning their post.
- Ericson2314 1y agoI editted it to clarify. (I had started with the piece's original subtitle.) Hope that helps!
- steveBK123 1y agoAfter 20 years of riding, I can assure you that no conductor on an MTA subway train is coming to save you if anything goes down, whether there are 0, 1, 2 or 10 of them on every train.
- benatkin 1y agoThe "conductor" could be in a compartment completely separate from the passengers right? This doesn't sound anything like a NJ Transit or a Caltrain conductor.
- o11c 1y agoImportant note: this applies to city trains, which operate in a much more predictable environment than trains that cross large areas of the country.
- Stevvo 1y agoAre you claiming that trains running outside cities are less suitable for one person operation? There is no evidence of that, plenty of trains around the world run both inside and outside cities with a single operator. There is also no evidence of a city being a "more predictable environment". Deaths are roughly equivalent; in the city it's people jumping on tracks intentionally, outside its drivers getting stuck on crossings.
- o11c 1y agoI mean things like: beyond city scale, you can't assume all the technology has been tested together, you can't assume you actually know where other trains are, etc.
- IAmBroom 1y agoI work in rail. In any automated system, you don't assume anything; you either know it absolutely (fail-safe systems), or you revert to pure manual control at line-of-sight of the operator, which is far slower. And yes, all the technology has been tested together. Before a train can enter a new region of authority, it must have permission from that authority, which means they must prove that the train can work with the local tech.
- TylerE 1y agoYou can't assume those things in a subway, either. GPS doesn't work underground.
- LeafItAlone 1y agoThe trains ride on a track. The tracks have sensors. The sensor positions are known. Now you know where all of the trains are. GPS satellites could drop out of the sky and you’d still know where the trains are.
- mcny 1y agoI am ABSOLUTELY sick and tired of upstate folks making decisions for New York.
- pclmulqdq 1y agoThis isn't "upstate being out of touch," this is "the MTA union is corrupt."
- shitlord 1y agoI don't think the union is corrupt. The union's job is to advocate for its members. The legislators' job is to say "no, you're asking for too much".
- pclmulqdq 1y agoYou're right. The real problem is that the MTA union is a big voting and donation bloc that selects the people they negotiate against. The real solution is to do away with the MTA union. An organization founded on corruption doing its intended purpose isn't any less corrupt.
- gruez 1y agoNow try this with corporations: "I don't think the company[1] is corrupt. The company's job is to advocate for its shareholders. The legislators' job is to say "no, you're asking for too much"." [1] take your pick of Comcast, Boeing, or United Health
- Ericson2314 1y agoIt would be nice if the union found ways to advocate for its members that were less hostile to the well functioning of the MTA. Unfortunately, I think the hostility here is very much part of the point. It's an expression of power. Other countries' unions are much more open minded about automation.
- const_cast 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- benatkin 1y agoIf it's for employment or that's part of why this is being considered, I'm not sure guaranteed jobs should be rejected in this case. I'm willing to listen to arguments either way. https://theconversation.com/why-a-universal-job-guarantee-beats-the-basic-income-pipe-dream-186793 https://theconversation.com/why-a-universal-job-guarantee-be... Edit: thanks for the replies, I understand the situation a bit better now
- Ericson2314 1y agoThe job guarantee is supposed to be federal macroeconomic policy undertaken with ample fiscal space (by the highest level government also in control in the currency). Saddling the heavily budget-constrained MTA with unnecessary labor costs, that ain't dynamic with the state of the economy, isn't it. The MTA is supposed to deliver transit, a narrow task, not do that and manage the economy writ large in unrelated ways Indeed, many job guarantee advocates are careful to distinguish JG jobs from regular government jobs, since they don't want to end up degrading public sector institutional capacity even further.
- toast0 1y agoI don't think this is a job guarantee. If running a train requires two people for regulatory reasons only, and the labor cost is significant, I would expect train service to be less frequent.
- gruez 1y ago>I'm not sure guaranteed jobs should be rejected in this case. 1. as an actual jobs policy it's terrible. It brings an absolute minuscule amount of jobs, and puts the burden on the part of the economy that can least afford it (ie. underfunded transit system). If you want to legislate some jobs into existence, do something like forcing social media companies to hire local content moderators, or hiring elevator attendants. 2. "universal jobs" policy is terrible in general. For one, it doesn't help the disabled or their caretakers. UBI doesn't do a perfect job here either (eg. a special needs kid probably would need way more money than the standard UBI), but at least the disabled person/caretaker doesn't need to waste time on job. For the able-bodied, a "universal jobs" policy isn't great either. If their labor is actually worth something, then they can probably find gainful employment in the private sector. If they can't (eg. they're mentally disabled), then making them to make-work like digging ditches and filling them back again as a condition of getting financial assistance is humiliating and cruel.
- AnotherGoodName 1y agoOnly applies to trains with more than 2 carriages though. So it seems to apply to the busier routes. Is it for accessibility? Seems reasonable.
- gruez 1y ago>Only applies to trains with more than 2 carriages though. So it seems to apply to the busier routes. Are you thinking of locomotives? When was the last time you saw a train with 2 carriages?
- AnotherGoodName 1y ago“Now, S4091 will require that A CONDUCTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED ON ANY SUBWAY OR TRAIN OPERATED BY THE AUTHORITY WHENEVER THE SUBWAY OR TRAIN HAS MORE THAN TWO CARS ATTACHED TO THE ENGINE THEREOF” Some subway trains have exactly 2 cars.
- kkysen 1y agoOnly the Franklin Shuttle has 2-car trains, and it'll soon be switched to 3 cars since they're replacing the 75 ft cars with 60 ft cars.
- djankauskas 1y agoCould you elaborate on accessibility? NYC conductors and operators on the subway don't help passengers get onto and off of the train. (Platforms are roughly level with trains.)
- AnotherGoodName 1y agoThinking more in terms of emergencies. Helpful to have someone there in those cases.
- djankauskas 1y agoFor longer trains you could make that case, though it should be the agency that makes that call, not politicians that don't have the information to make technical safety calls. Systems across the world don't seem to have issues here though. In any case, there's no world where one employee is enough for emergencies in two cars, but not enough in three, while two employees are sufficient in a train with ten cars.
- cperciva 1y agoMeanwhile in more civilized places we have trains with zero staff on board, just remote monitoring (and trains which emergency stop if they lose contact with the control centre).
- ghostofdang 1y agoBART
- stuaxo 1y agoThe DLR in London was like this, but reverted to being staffed for safety. At some point kids chased another kid onto the tracks, was one incident.
- fredoralive 1y agoAFAIK the DLR has always been staffed, there’s never been a period where it was truely driverless. However, as it was designed for automatic train operation from the start, it is effectively “guard (US: conductor) only operation” instead of “driver only operation”, and doesn’t have a traditional drivers cab.
- hdgvhicv 1y agoDLR has a passenger assistant who can “drive” the train in some circumstances if required (reports of trespassing on track) but is not for driving and certainly doesn’t always happen. Only completely unstaffed vehicles in the U.K. that I can think of are short people movers like the ones at airports. Many tube lines can be driven completely automated, the drivers job on lines like the central is basically “push go, hold deadman’s switch, push door close” and repeat, but they aren’t In other countries on lines which are staffers vehicles there are typically far more platform based staff.
- kimos 1y agoThe REM in Montréal is driverless.
- mikhailfranco 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_train_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_train_syste... The length ranking seems to be something like: Riyadh - 176 km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Metro Dubai - 90km, first operation 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Metro London DLR - 38 km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway Shanghai is probably in the running as it upgrades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Metro#Infrastructure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Metro#Infrastructure
- jksflkjl3jk3 1y agoTrains are the easiest form of transportation for full automation. There shouldn't need to be any required staff on board.
- bhhaskin 1y agoExactly. How can we have self driving cars before we have self driving trains?
- Aurornis 1y agoThe headline is vague, but this is about increasing the requirements to two operators per train. It’s a make-work bill designed to maximize the number of operators on the payroll. As the article explains, the justifications don’t really add up. > This is revealed in the last sentence, claiming that OTPO would cause “further loss of jobs to NYC.” This bill is not about safety, but rather an unfunded program designed to protect one single job type from eventual obsolescence. Single operator has proven to be completely fine around the world. Some are starting to move to zero operator. Bills like this are designed to keep the number of jobs high. Given the expense, it inevitably comes at a cost of reductions in service elsewhere. There is no free money.
- xcrunner529 1y agoYep I can’t stand this disingenuous behavior. Really the trains should even be automated at this point. Chicago constantly has staffing issues so their service gets worse and worse and yet they insist on staying in the past.
- jordanb 1y agoWhen Chicago got rid of the conductors, trains got slower and less reliable. If you've ever had to wait on the train while the operator has to come out of the cab to help a disabled person, respond to a door fault or call button, you've been delayed by one man train operation. In fact every time the train stops and there's a noticable pause before the door opens, that is caused by the operator having to move from the driving controls to the door controls.
- dmix 1y agoDoes any of that have to do with the conductor?
- xcrunner529 1y agoNope. Seems more like symptoms of not automating things. As if I’m calling for immediate switch to no conductors with no work.
- Apreche 1y agoCrazy idea here. Why don’t we just have the best of both worlds? We want trains to operate more reliably, and be computer operated with just one or zero humans on board. OK, let’s do that. MTA employees don’t want to lose their livelihoods. That’s reasonable. I’m perfectly happy to pay them their existing salary and benefits to sit at home and do nothing. We won’t hire anyone new, and the job will eventually disappear. In the meantime, anyone who already has that job, congrats. Early retirement, paid in full. Enjoy the beach. We were going to spend that money on your salary anyway, so what does it matter? There are worse things to spend taxpayer money on.
- martin-t 1y agoThat could even be a way to phase in UBI gradually.
- gruez 1y agoYou're not taking into account two factors: union bosses don't like it because it means their fiefs shrink. Politicians/parties don't like it because it denies them a captive voting bloc. They'd actually have to do stuff like walking the length of Manhattan to get elected, rather than securing the major voting blocs by making a few backroom deals with the top unions/business leaders.
- TylerE 1y agoThis is ridiculous conspiracy. A few thousand people in a city of millions is not a dominant voting bloc.
- djankauskas 1y agoWhat matters is who votes in the Democratic primary, a pool that is usually much smaller than the total number of eligible voters.
- LeifCarrotson 1y agoDo union members reliably vote in primary elections?
- AngryData 1y agoCompared to the budget of running the trains themselves this seems like a drop in the bucket even if it is unnecessary so not really a big deal and people gotta eat. That said I think the more obvious solution to wanting or needing "busy work" with no actual purpose is instead UBI rather than requiring someone to stand around doing nothing 99.9% of the day to survive.
- kkysen 1y agoLabor is by far the largest share of transit operating costs.
- easeout 1y agoTwo operators? Where I live it's zero
- tzs 1y ago> Labor costs are by far the single greatest expense in transit operations. This bill unnecessarily inflates these costs, ultimately shifting the burden onto riders through potential fare hikes or reducing the capacity for much-needed service improvements. Couldn't they go ahead and put in automation for all the skilled work that the required second person would do if there were no automation, but make it so at each stop someone has to press a button to tell the automation to start? They could then use minimum wage employees for the second person position. Would that be cheap enough to not be a significant burden?
- kkysen 1y agoThey already do this on lines with upgraded CBTC signaling. The train runs in ATO (Automatic Train Operation) in which the driver just pushes the start button at each station. So they tried to combine the driver and conductor into one position, but the union fought back and stopped it. Also, they can't use minimum wage employees for the driver who just pushes a button because the union would throw a fit and might go on strike.
- steveBK123 1y agoYet another NYS/NYC own goal in progress, and one of the many symptoms of being a one party state. Again & again our elected officials see the public service unions as their primary constituents. Transit policy in favor of transit employees rather than riders, education policy in favor of teachers unions rather than students and public safety policy in favor of police unions than actual safety. All because these blocks of XX,000 voters in each union can be expected to vote as a block in the low turnout primaries, based on whatever political favor is/isn't being handed out.
- WhyNotHugo 1y agoI’m surprised to read that this is such a bad practice. Trains here in the Netherlands seem to always have two operators. I got the same impression of German trains. Trams in Amsterdam even have two staff of board.
- disentanglement 1y agoI have never seen a conductor on a metro/subway system in Europe. Mainline trains often have one, but not always. I've ridden trains on small branch lines in Germany which were operated by a driver only.
- danhor 1y agoMont (if not allmost all) S-Bahn trains in Germany only have one staff member. The space for wheelchairs is directly behind the drivers cabin and the few times I've seen a ramp being deployed, it took the driver 1-2 minutes (Usually the automatically deployed gap filler is good enough). A large portion (I'd guess somewhere around 20-40%) of regional trains are also only staffed with the driver. The others do have an additional staff member, but they're almost always not safety relevant and only perform ticket checks, answer questions and help with ramp deployment. The only times I've seen more than the driver on trams/Stadtbahns/metros, they checked tickets. This also happens surprisingly rarely.
- kimos 1y agoOne of those staff on the trams is selling fares though.
- rmason 1y agoIt took thirty years for railroads to overcome union opposition and remove the caboose on trains. That's because union rules specified a full time employee in the caboose.
- Animats 1y agoFrom 1962 to 1964, the Times Square - Grand Central shuttle was fully automated. There was still a "motorman", for union reasons, who did not ride in the cab.[1] Worked fine, but an unrelated station fire damaged the equipment, and the automatic system was not rebuilt. That's the simplest possible case - a train on a dedicated track, going back and forth between two stations. It's a 90 second trip. That trip is still being driven manually today. It takes two motormen, one at each end of the train, because one person going from one end of the train to the other through the crowd would slow the 90-second operation way down. It's amazing that it's not automated today. [1] https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_Times_Square-Grand_Central_Shuttle https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_Times_Square-Grand_Centra...
- denkmoon 1y agoPlanes manage to be economically viable with two pilots. Arguably modern planes are so automated only one is needed. Yet we don't see such hand wringing about that. The labour cost of train operations is so relatively small it's a non-issue.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoPlanes manage to be economically viable with two pilots because tickets cost on the order of 100 times more than the subway fare and aren't expected to be used by ordinary people for daily commutes, and they also travel 30,000 feet in the air so if there's trouble it can be more dangerous and complicated than something that operates on rails on the ground. And even then the need for two pilots is pretty questionable and is primarily sustained for precisely the same questionable reason, i.e. lobbying by pilot unions.
- Ericson2314 1y agoThe labor costs of trains is relatively huge, actually. Everything else is very very very efficient. It's a little bit of electricity, not tons of jet fuel, for one.
- londons_explore 1y agoJump straight to zero people autonomous trains then... They already exist in a bunch of other countries and work well
- Ericson2314 1y agoIf we can get our shit together to put platform screen doors in: yes, absolutely. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors
- throw0101d 1y agoMeanwhile there are many places with on-person operation already (and for years): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-person_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-person_operation And even zero-person operation (GoA4): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_train_systems#Grade-of-Automation_4_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_train_syste... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation
- bigbacaloa 1y ago[dead]
- sershe 1y agoSee what we could achieve if we unionized software industry? Come on people, get on board, this fantasy of being exempt from worker solidarity is such an American "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" thing that is not serving anyone. We can all agree that the code written by one person is clearly unsafe, we need 100% pair programming by law and at least 15 people and 2 scrum matsres per scrum to ensure proper working conditions.