How 2 M.T.A. Decisions Pushed the Subway into Crisis(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How 2 M.T.A. Decisions Pushed the Subway into Crisis
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/09/nyregion/subway-crisis-mta-decisions-signals-rules.html
144 comments
I hate the driver who pens the L line going to Brooklyn from Manhattan. He speeds way too much and then breaks way too hard. I have seen passenger fall because of it time and again. If we can't get rid of the union workers, I would rather have MTA pay these guys wages to sit at home and replace them with computer-driven subway.
Oh yeah, that's it. Because non-union-workers would never drive like that. :-P
TFA mentions train operators will preemptively slow down to keep their job.
Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in.
Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in.
It has everything to do with unions, specifically public-sector unions that shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway.
You can't expect the development and deployment of efficient automation in an environment where it's impossible to fire the existing human operators. Or where firing them would be just as expensive as keeping them around doing nothing useful.
You can't expect the development and deployment of efficient automation in an environment where it's impossible to fire the existing human operators. Or where firing them would be just as expensive as keeping them around doing nothing useful.
> It has everything to do with unions, specifically public-sector unions that shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway.
OP complained about a driver slowing down and speeding up. TFA explained it. There's no magic.
Your viewpoint is staunch, one-sided, and brought no new information. That point of view sounds questionable.
OP complained about a driver slowing down and speeding up. TFA explained it. There's no magic.
Your viewpoint is staunch, one-sided, and brought no new information. That point of view sounds questionable.
Why don't public sector employees deserve rights?
First, public sector employees don’t deserve special rights everyone else doesn’t have. Second, public sector unions present unique problems privat sector unions do not. If a private sector union pushes too hard, the company goes out of business and everyone is out of work. If a public sector union pushes too hard, nothing happens—it can hold critical government services (often monopoly services) hostage until it gets whatever terms it wants.
If MTA were a private company, it would have gone bankrupt long ago. But we accept that public services should sometimes be subsidized at the public expense. That subsidy should go toward making the service cheaper and more available to the public. But public sector unions capture some of that subsidy to get higher pay and benefits for public sector workers than those workers would get in a private company.
If MTA were a private company, it would have gone bankrupt long ago. But we accept that public services should sometimes be subsidized at the public expense. That subsidy should go toward making the service cheaper and more available to the public. But public sector unions capture some of that subsidy to get higher pay and benefits for public sector workers than those workers would get in a private company.
Because those "rights" come from extorting the taxpayer, who has little or no say in the matter.
> TFA mentions train operators will preemptively slow down to keep their job. Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in.
As alluded to in the article, the TWU has been fighting very aggressively against the reforms for most of the issues documented in this article.
As alluded to in the article, the TWU has been fighting very aggressively against the reforms for most of the issues documented in this article.
Who need allusion? TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union.
Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas.
It all hinges on if the safety concerns are valid.
Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas.
It all hinges on if the safety concerns are valid.
> TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union. Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas.
You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value?
Of course they'll frame nearly everything in rhetoric of safety, because politically that's the equivalent "but think of the kids".
Of course, when you actually look at it, it's obvious that the TWU has spent the last several decades fighting actual safety improvements (including those that are SOP at the other Big Four systems), because their only interest is in protecting their members' jobs.
As linked elsewhere in this article, if the MTA tries to introduce newer and safer machinery, the TWU actually extracts a "technological advancement" fee to compensate them for the missed job opportunities, in an attempt to disincentive them from adopting new technology.
The TWU is literally putting passengers' lives at risk because their only goal is to extract as much money as possible from the MTA, and they don't actually care about the end state of the subway system.
You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value?
Of course they'll frame nearly everything in rhetoric of safety, because politically that's the equivalent "but think of the kids".
Of course, when you actually look at it, it's obvious that the TWU has spent the last several decades fighting actual safety improvements (including those that are SOP at the other Big Four systems), because their only interest is in protecting their members' jobs.
As linked elsewhere in this article, if the MTA tries to introduce newer and safer machinery, the TWU actually extracts a "technological advancement" fee to compensate them for the missed job opportunities, in an attempt to disincentive them from adopting new technology.
The TWU is literally putting passengers' lives at risk because their only goal is to extract as much money as possible from the MTA, and they don't actually care about the end state of the subway system.
> You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value?
That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue.
Why would anyone trust an internet-rando and a single article?
You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness?
I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.
That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue.
Why would anyone trust an internet-rando and a single article?
You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness?
I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.
> That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue. You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness?
I don't know where you get "one-sided" out of any of this. I responded to a claim that the problems in this article have nothing to do with unions, pointing out that the union for MTA workers has been the main driving force against solving the problems described in the article. Between the information in the article, the other information linked elsewhere in the comments here, and some basic Googling, that's all pretty easy to verify.
If anything is "one-sided", it's the original claim that I refuted.
> I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.
Rampant corruption. The TWU isn't the only source of that corruption, but it's foolish to pretend they're not a significant part of it.
I don't know where you get "one-sided" out of any of this. I responded to a claim that the problems in this article have nothing to do with unions, pointing out that the union for MTA workers has been the main driving force against solving the problems described in the article. Between the information in the article, the other information linked elsewhere in the comments here, and some basic Googling, that's all pretty easy to verify.
If anything is "one-sided", it's the original claim that I refuted.
> I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.
Rampant corruption. The TWU isn't the only source of that corruption, but it's foolish to pretend they're not a significant part of it.
Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.
> Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.
Instead of blindly speculating on what could be true, when you've already said that you're not familiar with the topic, how about doing your research on the facts and learning why this is what's actually true.
You started off with a claim that was directly debunked by actually reading the article. Then you pivoted to speculating (but not substantiating) the existence of information that could hypothetically make your original statement a little less incorrect.
At this point, the only foolish thing is pretending that you're contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.
Instead of blindly speculating on what could be true, when you've already said that you're not familiar with the topic, how about doing your research on the facts and learning why this is what's actually true.
You started off with a claim that was directly debunked by actually reading the article. Then you pivoted to speculating (but not substantiating) the existence of information that could hypothetically make your original statement a little less incorrect.
At this point, the only foolish thing is pretending that you're contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.
The L train already uses CBTC (i.e automatic train operation); fast speeds are issued by the computer.
There's also at least one conductor who starts closing the doors during the morning rush our while passengers are still existing at the 1 AV stop.
One of those times the doors smashed into a person walking out on crutches.
One of those times the doors smashed into a person walking out on crutches.
The L is entirely computerized already. The two people working on each train are there to press a "keep the union happy" button every 30 seconds.
> The L is entirely computerized already. The two people working on each train are there to press a "keep the union happy" button every 30 seconds.
In case anyone thinks this is a joke, it's not. The MTA pays the Transit Workers Union massive sums of money when they use technology they use which does a job otherwise performed by a human, even when it's been standard practice worldwide to automate that job for decades.
One example, from tunnel boring:
> The critics pointed to several unusual provisions in the labor agreements. One part of Local 147’s deal entitles the union to $450,000 for each tunnel-boring machine used. That is to make up for job losses from “technological advancement,” even though the equipment has been standard for decades.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
In case anyone thinks this is a joke, it's not. The MTA pays the Transit Workers Union massive sums of money when they use technology they use which does a job otherwise performed by a human, even when it's been standard practice worldwide to automate that job for decades.
One example, from tunnel boring:
> The critics pointed to several unusual provisions in the labor agreements. One part of Local 147’s deal entitles the union to $450,000 for each tunnel-boring machine used. That is to make up for job losses from “technological advancement,” even though the equipment has been standard for decades.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
I don't understand why New York has two employees per train. Nearly everywhere else in the world has 1.
The person in the middle's job seems to be operating the doors and making sure the train is berthed correctly, but all you have to do is put a line where the front of the train has to line up and the driver can do it. As for the doors, it's not like the driver has much else to do when in the station.
The person in the middle's job seems to be operating the doors and making sure the train is berthed correctly, but all you have to do is put a line where the front of the train has to line up and the driver can do it. As for the doors, it's not like the driver has much else to do when in the station.
> I don't understand why New York has two employees per train. Nearly everywhere else in the world has 1.
Because the TWU penalizes the MTA financially for technological advancement. They are incredibly powerful, mostly because neither the MTA nor the state government which oversees the MTA bother to keep costs in check.
There's no reason the L couldn't be completely automated, with zero employees per train. As described elsewhere in the thread, the person operating the train doesn't actually have to do anything at the moment; the entire process is already automated.
Because the TWU penalizes the MTA financially for technological advancement. They are incredibly powerful, mostly because neither the MTA nor the state government which oversees the MTA bother to keep costs in check.
There's no reason the L couldn't be completely automated, with zero employees per train. As described elsewhere in the thread, the person operating the train doesn't actually have to do anything at the moment; the entire process is already automated.
Nominally, the trains are long, and sometimes the stations are curved. A person in the middle of the train can see more of the doors to make sure they're clear.
This is easily solved by cameras.
Now, yes, but when the union started it wasn't, and they've been working ever since to never allow cuts in the number of personnel.
Kinda sounds like he's doing his part to keep the trains actually on time in a totally broken signalling environment!
The L train is actually the one train with fully upgraded signals, and no track sharing with other trains. Probably for that reason, it also has the highest on-time percentage of all trains.
I've never been bothered by that (and as others point out, the L is automated, anyway). What I'd like to know is why, when the L reaches the 8th Ave stop in Manhattan, the operator waits 10 seconds after coming to a full stop before opening the doors. The train has already stopped, so this seems unnecessary.
There's also this weird thing where, while the train is sitting there waiting to return the opposite way back to Brooklyn, they close all the subway doors except one in each carriage. It doesn't prevent people from getting on.
There's also this weird thing where, while the train is sitting there waiting to return the opposite way back to Brooklyn, they close all the subway doors except one in each carriage. It doesn't prevent people from getting on.
> There's also this weird thing where, while the train is sitting there waiting to return the opposite way back to Brooklyn, they close all the subway doors except one in each carriage. It doesn't prevent people from getting on.
My understanding is that it's to keep the subway cars relatively climate-controlled. Especially in the summer, it's better not to let all the cool air from the AC leak out the open doors.
My understanding is that it's to keep the subway cars relatively climate-controlled. Especially in the summer, it's better not to let all the cool air from the AC leak out the open doors.
They do this at every terminal. I have no idea why.
I found an answer here [1], via a Reddit thread [2] (where the answers are apparently gone):
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kx5fa/iama_new_york_c...
I won't go into details, but if the conductor wants to exit
the train and leave the doors open at the terminal, he needs
to walk to the next car at the last stop in order to open
the doors, which is why there's a short delay before they
open. If the doors open immediately at the last stop, then
it means the train is either going to go to the yard, or the
crew is going to manually key open one door per car (which
is only done if the train is going to sit there for at least
10 minutes, and helps the air comfort system).
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kx5fa/iama_new_york_c...
Very interesting. I definitely always hear the conductor moving between cars at the last stop but I never connected that to being why the doors can't be opened.
I think it's funny that the train's computer knows it's the last stop and announces that fact to the passengers... but the conductor has to manually override some sort of system before he or she can exit the train.
I think it's funny that the train's computer knows it's the last stop and announces that fact to the passengers... but the conductor has to manually override some sort of system before he or she can exit the train.
I agree with your point, but strongly disagree with your example. You think DC should be running the risk of accidents which kill riders because of trains that lurch into stations? Loss of life is a massive cost, even if only economic factors are accounted for. Please show me a cost-benefit analysis where that is outweighed by lurching trains (even many millions of lurching trains).
Also, it's incorrect to say that we could have used decades of problem-free operation to extrapolate and predict a low risk of similar accidents in the coming decades. The 2009 crash was caused by an aging system, and unless your solution involved replacing all the switches/sensors, we would have seen new failures at a more frequent rate.
Finally, the 2009 accident highlighted an inherent problem with the old system: putting a human operator in a train who is only responsible for acting in an emergency will not work. Just like the recent self-driving car fatality. It wasn't a case where we knew and should have accepted the risk, it was a case where the crash caused us to understand that the prior risk assessment was wrong (because it assumed that a human operator could prevent these kinds of accidents, when that's just not going to happen). So it was appropriate to change operations.
Also, it's incorrect to say that we could have used decades of problem-free operation to extrapolate and predict a low risk of similar accidents in the coming decades. The 2009 crash was caused by an aging system, and unless your solution involved replacing all the switches/sensors, we would have seen new failures at a more frequent rate.
Finally, the 2009 accident highlighted an inherent problem with the old system: putting a human operator in a train who is only responsible for acting in an emergency will not work. Just like the recent self-driving car fatality. It wasn't a case where we knew and should have accepted the risk, it was a case where the crash caused us to understand that the prior risk assessment was wrong (because it assumed that a human operator could prevent these kinds of accidents, when that's just not going to happen). So it was appropriate to change operations.
> You think DC should be running the risk of accidents which kill riders because of trains that lurch into stations?
DOT estimates the cost of a human life at about $6 million. Times 9 is $54 million. Let's say such an event happens once every 10 years, so $5.4 million per year. The D.C. metro has 180 million rides per year. That works out to 3 cents per ride. Do you think people would pay 3 cents for a smoother, ATO-controlled Metro ride? I bet they would. (That's not even counting all the delays caused be forgoing automated control.)
As to the switches and sensors--Metro already replaced the track circuits (per the NTSB's recommendation): https://wamu.org/story/17/04/06/metro-shelves-plans-bring-ba....
DOT estimates the cost of a human life at about $6 million. Times 9 is $54 million. Let's say such an event happens once every 10 years, so $5.4 million per year. The D.C. metro has 180 million rides per year. That works out to 3 cents per ride. Do you think people would pay 3 cents for a smoother, ATO-controlled Metro ride? I bet they would. (That's not even counting all the delays caused be forgoing automated control.)
As to the switches and sensors--Metro already replaced the track circuits (per the NTSB's recommendation): https://wamu.org/story/17/04/06/metro-shelves-plans-bring-ba....
It's worth elaborating on a central point; the idea that 'preventable deaths are unacceptable' only makes sense at ordinary human scales. In someone's day-to-day life, they aren't reasonably going to be in a situation where letting someone die will be the best alternative.
The situation changes completely at the level of the decision makers of countries and large cities work at. /Everything/ is a variant of the trolley problem and all resources could in theory be used to save a life. Not accepting a risk of death can do more harm than good and realistically infrastructure; it just obscures the cause and effect.
Eg, we'll never know if someone died because their doctor was late because a train operator made a mistake operating a train. The cause-effect chain is too convoluted. But statistically speaking, something like that will happen every so often. Deaths from inefficiency are just as bad as deaths from direct accident; and if the scale is large enough that they can reasonably be detected then they need to be considered too.
Obviously most of the time a high standard of safety is going to be best, but trains are a high-risk environment moving 100s people at speeds they were never meant to move. True perfection over 30 years is probably not a required standard. Great goal though.
The situation changes completely at the level of the decision makers of countries and large cities work at. /Everything/ is a variant of the trolley problem and all resources could in theory be used to save a life. Not accepting a risk of death can do more harm than good and realistically infrastructure; it just obscures the cause and effect.
Eg, we'll never know if someone died because their doctor was late because a train operator made a mistake operating a train. The cause-effect chain is too convoluted. But statistically speaking, something like that will happen every so often. Deaths from inefficiency are just as bad as deaths from direct accident; and if the scale is large enough that they can reasonably be detected then they need to be considered too.
Obviously most of the time a high standard of safety is going to be best, but trains are a high-risk environment moving 100s people at speeds they were never meant to move. True perfection over 30 years is probably not a required standard. Great goal though.
This has been interesting to chew on. Let me say that if there are actually delays, obviously those impose other costs (as a sister post explains here) and so the cost-benefit calculation may come out differently. But your original post was only about whether it's worth risking lives to avoid lurching trains, which is why I thought it was interesting.
I think the problem with your cost-benefit analysis is that you are using different methodologies to value the cost and the benefit. If you value the benefit of non-lurching trains by asking what people would pay, then you need to use a value for human life that asks what people would agree to receive to be killed--which I believe is much more than $6 million.
Conversely, if you are going to value a human life based on lost earnings/support to family/etc., or some other figure which might produce results in the ballpark of $6 million, then on the other side you need to consider only the lost earnings/hard economic costs of an annoying train ride, which are $0 -- there is no economic loss caused by lurching into a station.
I think the problem with your cost-benefit analysis is that you are using different methodologies to value the cost and the benefit. If you value the benefit of non-lurching trains by asking what people would pay, then you need to use a value for human life that asks what people would agree to receive to be killed--which I believe is much more than $6 million.
Conversely, if you are going to value a human life based on lost earnings/support to family/etc., or some other figure which might produce results in the ballpark of $6 million, then on the other side you need to consider only the lost earnings/hard economic costs of an annoying train ride, which are $0 -- there is no economic loss caused by lurching into a station.
I think the devil's advocate argument here is: would deciding not the run trains on auto cause an increase of car riding which would lead to greater than the number of deaths generated by the aging automatic driving system?
The problem is that ATO relies on the underlying technology to be working and maintained. Maintenance requires money, which WMATA doesn't have. That's the issue. Humans don't require maintenance the same way something like ATO does.
Politicians continue to underfund WMATA, which means they can't assure safety using an automated system, so that have to use humans.
Politicians continue to underfund WMATA, which means they can't assure safety using an automated system, so that have to use humans.
Got to wonder why - while they were paying people to begin 'installing and modifying hundreds of signals to prevent trains from going too fast' - they didn't modify the signals so they could be remotely re-configured.
Something in that system must be configured to be resistant to superior technology. Cuz it couldn't be the humans, right?
Something in that system must be configured to be resistant to superior technology. Cuz it couldn't be the humans, right?
The purpose of this change probably isn't so much to make the trains more safe as to facilitate transferring blame for a fatal accident from the transit system to a human operator.
This example is exactly why I'm dubious of the idea of mass adoption self driving car technology.
Edit: I should add: in the United States.
Edit: I should add: in the United States.
Similarly, I have noticed that a difference between American subways and European subways is that when you stop at a station in Europe, the interlocks allow the automatic doors to open as soon as the train is slower than maybe 1–2 km/h. Whereas in America they don't open until a couple seconds after the train has come to a dead stop.
I keep wondering how many wasted man-hours this adds up to over the course of a day — especially on a line that's running at capacity, so if one train is 4 seconds later then the next train will be 8 seconds later and so on.
(The same seems to be true of elevators.)
I keep wondering how many wasted man-hours this adds up to over the course of a day — especially on a line that's running at capacity, so if one train is 4 seconds later then the next train will be 8 seconds later and so on.
(The same seems to be true of elevators.)
The release of door interlock used to be as you described, but now in Europe train stop is controlled prior to releasing it. The delay you note is generally tied to the reaction time of the ATP computer in charge of authorizing doors opening. Some of these could be slow (sometimes 5s). Today it’s less than 0.5s.
Disclaimer: I design and deliver such systems.
Disclaimer: I design and deliver such systems.
Almost every delay in computerized systems that is greater than the physical/logical sensor debounce interval (ie. on the order of milliseconds) is due to programmer error.
It plagues software literally everywhere. We need to stop!
Every gas pump, payment terminal, elevator door is a testament to poor implementations of event driven state machinery...
</rant>
It plagues software literally everywhere. We need to stop!
Every gas pump, payment terminal, elevator door is a testament to poor implementations of event driven state machinery...
</rant>
I am with you in this general rant. However, in this particular case, the delay was a consequence of the introduction of computers and asynchronous telecommunications. I was not around at that time but it seems nobody anticipated that putting all the logic in a computer would result in worst performances as opposed to older designs were computations were essentially carried out by relays wired together. Relay logics worked in parallel, when CPU have to do things sequentially.
Fun fact: some operators around the world refuse to use computer-based systems for some applications because of that, and they are getting a strong support now because of cyber security threats. A relay is hard to hack :D
Fun fact: some operators around the world refuse to use computer-based systems for some applications because of that, and they are getting a strong support now because of cyber security threats. A relay is hard to hack :D
And every new tech is shinier and slower than the old generation. Nobody pays any attention to latency as a part of UX (except people making pro-photo and music gear, it seems - even gaming these days accepts pretty large latency as a part of the experience).
>Similarly, I have noticed that a difference between American subways and European subways is that when you stop at a station in Europe, the interlocks allow the automatic doors to open as soon as the train is slower than maybe 1–2 km/h
No, this must only happen with older rolling stock. Newer rolling stock both from European and Asian manufacturers operates like your "American" example
No, this must only happen with older rolling stock. Newer rolling stock both from European and Asian manufacturers operates like your "American" example
Imagine the lawsuits if the train wasn't 100% stopped when the doors were opened.
In Montreal they definitely open the doors on the trains before the train has stopped. People even jump out while it's still moving.
I personally don't understand why it's done... but it is, and it seems common enough that if they were going to get sued they would have gotten sued.
Maybe Canada is a lot different than the US, though.
I personally don't understand why it's done... but it is, and it seems common enough that if they were going to get sued they would have gotten sued.
Maybe Canada is a lot different than the US, though.
Montreal is on tires which gives a predictable stop, it’s not metal on metal which varies based on atmospherics
> Maybe Canada is a lot different than the US, though.
Montreal is just different than anywhere on the planet.
Montreal is just different than anywhere on the planet.
Buses open their doors before they come to a stop all the time. So far the lawsuits (if any) from this, don't seem to have harmed bus service.
difference being that (at least in NYC), youre not standing directly in front of the door of bus, squashed like you are on trains
That definitely doesn't happen in Chicago. Nothing drives me nuts like pushing on the back door of a bus when it's completely stopped only to jam it cause I jumped the gun by like .2 seconds because the light hadn't come on yet.
That and also driven so many European subways (most called METRO) you never seen cars as overcrowded as in USA and barely people leaning over the door! In USA its normal to lean against the door because people are exactly gotten used to the fact the train will stop first before the door gets open.
> That and also driven so many European subways (most called METRO) you never seen cars as overcrowded as in USA and barely people leaning over the door! In USA its normal to lean against the door because people are exactly gotten used to the fact the train will stop first before the door gets open.
The only places in the EU that have public transportation on a scale comparable to NYC are London and Paris. I haven't ridden in Paris in a while, but in London, you absolutely do see cars that are overcrowded with people leaning against the doors.
The only places in the EU that have public transportation on a scale comparable to NYC are London and Paris. I haven't ridden in Paris in a while, but in London, you absolutely do see cars that are overcrowded with people leaning against the doors.
I think the train complains if the doors are being leaned on - you certainly get an announcement from the driver, so I reckon the train won't go if that's happening.
Also in some places (Berlin S-Bahn comes to mind) leaning against the doors will obscure the button you have to press to open them.
Ehh, if you changed it I bet people would learn really quickly not to lean on doors. Most people leaning on doors are going to be young people with decent reaction times and balance so I wouldn’t even expect injury more like surprise. It would probally be reasonable to run a publicity campaign to reduce surprise as people don’t like being supprised.
Most people leaning on doors are going to be young people with decent reaction times and balance
Say what?
Say what?
Further to your point, missing a few seconds due to this will reduce capacity but will not create delays, since this time will be factored in the timetables with a margin.
Disclaimer: I realize such studies :O)
Disclaimer: I realize such studies :O)
(The same seems to be true of elevators.)
The solution to this is called "Pater noster". Just kidding....
The solution to this is called "Pater noster". Just kidding....
CYA is rule #1 in bureaucracies. If something happens and you "do nothing," you're responsible, so you have to "do something."
Delays have pushed more people onto the roads (bikes, taxis, etc.), where there is a much higher chance of injury or fatality. So their decision has probably killed more people than if they had changed nothing.
Yes, and see the TSA for another example.
We've easily lost another 3000+ people on the roads since 9/11, simply because the professional pearl-clutchers have made it such a pain in the ass to fly anywhere.
We've easily lost another 3000+ people on the roads since 9/11, simply because the professional pearl-clutchers have made it such a pain in the ass to fly anywhere.
I had to read a little bit to find the real reason - combine faulty signals which trigger over-speed warnings when they shouldn’t — with the following...
“Train operators face steep penalties after a number of instances of tripping a signal, like losing vacation days or being forced into early retirement.”
That’s a recipe for exactly the problem they are seeing. Fix the signals. Fix the policy. It will fix the problem.
But I also suspect this whole thing is much more intentional than we are being led to believe — it’s actually intentional policies which have led to expected slowdowns in a jaded attempt to boost funding. The whole narrative around overcrowding has collapsed. The narrative around underfunding is also collapsing. But I’m not sure the other shoe (proof that this was a charade to increase funding) has dropped quite yet.
“Train operators face steep penalties after a number of instances of tripping a signal, like losing vacation days or being forced into early retirement.”
That’s a recipe for exactly the problem they are seeing. Fix the signals. Fix the policy. It will fix the problem.
But I also suspect this whole thing is much more intentional than we are being led to believe — it’s actually intentional policies which have led to expected slowdowns in a jaded attempt to boost funding. The whole narrative around overcrowding has collapsed. The narrative around underfunding is also collapsing. But I’m not sure the other shoe (proof that this was a charade to increase funding) has dropped quite yet.
Eh, I don't know if the narrative around underfunding is collapsing. Most of the narrative around overpriced projects has been around the large flashy projects, but the mundane replacement and maintenance is still not fully funded.
The crux of the issue is that while operations are funded with a variety of dedicated resources, capital expenditures are not, and those include things like replacing tracks, signals, and trains. Most of the recent fare hikes, IIRC, would have been avoided if the State and City provided funding for these plans, but they don't, so the MTA issues debt, and these hikes are almost entirely just to keep up with debt interest.
The crux of the issue is that while operations are funded with a variety of dedicated resources, capital expenditures are not, and those include things like replacing tracks, signals, and trains. Most of the recent fare hikes, IIRC, would have been avoided if the State and City provided funding for these plans, but they don't, so the MTA issues debt, and these hikes are almost entirely just to keep up with debt interest.
Mundane replacement and maintenance, just like the big flashy projects, are insanely expensive per unit work.
It’s one thing to pay workers really well (especially when you include benefits on an accrual basis) but it’s another to pay really well and have terrible labor efficiency.
It’s one thing to pay workers really well (especially when you include benefits on an accrual basis) but it’s another to pay really well and have terrible labor efficiency.
We live in a society where all the actors in the system need to virtue signal about how much they care about safety, usefulness of the system be damned. That's why the draconian speed limit policy in the first place.
The union wants the trains to go slow so they can say they're fighting for policies that protect workers. The MTA wants signal enforced speed limits so they can say they're preventing crashes.
If we could just have an adult discussion about the damage of marginally (if at all) increased risk compared to the benefits of a more functional subway system this wouldn't be as big of a problem.
This isn't even a resources issue, changing policy is close to free.
The union wants the trains to go slow so they can say they're fighting for policies that protect workers. The MTA wants signal enforced speed limits so they can say they're preventing crashes.
If we could just have an adult discussion about the damage of marginally (if at all) increased risk compared to the benefits of a more functional subway system this wouldn't be as big of a problem.
This isn't even a resources issue, changing policy is close to free.
The union wants the trains to go slow so they can say they're fighting for policies that protect workers.
Have you ever performed maintenance literally inches from a train going 40mph? The union has valid safety concerns for wanting trains to slow down in the vicinity of workers, and this particular safety measure only applies to late-night routes when they are performing maintenance on closed lines that share tracks with operating lines.
The problem is that the MTA introduced a number of other "safety" measures that did nothing to affect the safety of workers or employees, such as increasing the distance between cars or introducing speed-limiting signals, and these other measures apply 24-7.
Have you ever performed maintenance literally inches from a train going 40mph? The union has valid safety concerns for wanting trains to slow down in the vicinity of workers, and this particular safety measure only applies to late-night routes when they are performing maintenance on closed lines that share tracks with operating lines.
The problem is that the MTA introduced a number of other "safety" measures that did nothing to affect the safety of workers or employees, such as increasing the distance between cars or introducing speed-limiting signals, and these other measures apply 24-7.
Trains don't need humans to steer them and the humans there are being paid to (presumably) operate them safely.
Cops and tow truck drivers have more exposure to worse traffic going faster for less pay and nobody is in a hurry to bring back the national speed limit.
I'd take working on tracks over changing someone's tire on the side of the highway.
Cops and tow truck drivers have more exposure to worse traffic going faster for less pay and nobody is in a hurry to bring back the national speed limit.
I'd take working on tracks over changing someone's tire on the side of the highway.
Trains also have really long braking distances. If you can see a track worker in the way, it's already too late. Hence the declaration of these work zones.
In my areas, they usually close a lane next to the accident in addition to the lane where the accident occurred. This is basically the exact same thing.
In my areas, they usually close a lane next to the accident in addition to the lane where the accident occurred. This is basically the exact same thing.
They close an entire highway lane for the towtruck moving a stalled car off the shoulder? Not all towtruck work is related to accidents, in fact most of it isn't.
Many US states require drivers to move over, leaving an empty lane next to emergency workers. Specific state laws vary
for law enforcement, fire and emergency medical, highway
workers, tow truck operators, and disabled vehicles, but
while all states appear to at least nominally require
moving over for law enforcement. California does not seem
to notify drivers on the road much, but other western states
do notify/advertise much more, and Indiana and Ohio are
fairly vehement about it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_over_law#In_the_United_...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_over_law#In_the_United_...
I imagine if it were my job to perform maintenance inches from a train going 40mph, I would grow accustomed to it before long. While we're at it, feeling safe and being safe aren't the same thing.
And ‘tis why it’s super dangerous...
Every time I drive my feet are mere inches from a roaring engine that works by exploding toxic fuel, reaching temperatures high enough to give third degree burns, other cars flying past mine in the opposite direction with a combined speed difference of 60 to 150mph. Clearly we need to change the way cars are laid out so that there are ten additional feet between my gas pedal and my engine and an additional thirty feet between cars going opposite directions. For safety.
You are not conscious of this, but your car certifications, the driving rules and the road design constraints precisely achieved that, after now nearly 100 years of continuous trial and error. And it will not stop.
My point is that it is easy to make safe things sound dangerous using first-principles arguments absent any in-depth knowledge of the actual situation.
> The union wants the trains to go slow so they can say they're fighting for policies that protect workers
If it results in increased funding, for problems mistakenly blamed on overcrowding, that can result in more money for the union leadership, too.
If it results in increased funding, for problems mistakenly blamed on overcrowding, that can result in more money for the union leadership, too.
Sounds like there could be large benefit from A) removing the punishment for tripping the signal, that causes drivers to go extra extra slow (well under safe and officially regulated speed) cause they know there are faulty unpredictable signals which they'll still get punished for tripping; and B) fixing faulty signals (which they probably don't even know about when all the drivers are slowing down so much in case of faulty signal that they don't even know which ones are faulty).
Contrary to the article saying "And there’s no easy fix", it seems like this would be a fairly easy fix?
Contrary to the article saying "And there’s no easy fix", it seems like this would be a fairly easy fix?
From a moral standpoint, it's definitely wrong to punish drivers for signal issues, and we should stop doing that.
However, if drivers all started going at the normal speed and regularly tripping broken signals, it would absolutely destroy the system. When a train's emergency brake is tripped, it takes tens of minutes to reset it and get the train going again. If that was happening at every faulty signal on a daily basis, the system would grind to a halt.
Really the only fix is dealing with the signals. But that's extremely difficult because they haven't been regularly maintained and are very old. Most of them use mechanical timing systems and other insane things that nobody has built parts for. There's no particular reason to believe that "changing them back" would go any better than the botched rollout of the initial change.
However, if drivers all started going at the normal speed and regularly tripping broken signals, it would absolutely destroy the system. When a train's emergency brake is tripped, it takes tens of minutes to reset it and get the train going again. If that was happening at every faulty signal on a daily basis, the system would grind to a halt.
Really the only fix is dealing with the signals. But that's extremely difficult because they haven't been regularly maintained and are very old. Most of them use mechanical timing systems and other insane things that nobody has built parts for. There's no particular reason to believe that "changing them back" would go any better than the botched rollout of the initial change.
Sometimes if something is hard you should do it more often so you get good at it.
That is workers should be rewarded if they trip a system and after investigation it is proven the system was wrong. That worked just found a real bug and it needs to be fixed.
That is workers should be rewarded if they trip a system and after investigation it is proven the system was wrong. That worked just found a real bug and it needs to be fixed.
Ah, I see your point, yes, thanks.
Contrary to the article saying "And there’s no easy fix", it seems like this would be a fairly easy fix?
It's a very easy fix. The problem is that it's a very time-consuming and expensive fix to repair and/or replace all the signals. (Doing A doesn't accomplish much since the faulty signals will automatically slow down the trains anyway, and then impose an additional delay while the train's brakes are reset.)
It's a very easy fix. The problem is that it's a very time-consuming and expensive fix to repair and/or replace all the signals. (Doing A doesn't accomplish much since the faulty signals will automatically slow down the trains anyway, and then impose an additional delay while the train's brakes are reset.)
> The problem is that it's a very time-consuming and expensive fix to repair and/or replace all the signals.
There must be some period of time with low traffic - put a few managers and signal-guys in the train and rock the line at maybe +5% of regular advertised speed. Count where and how often the train stops. Fix that. Do that for all lines.
Honestly if that is the real problem that would probably take them a few weeks at most.
There must be some period of time with low traffic - put a few managers and signal-guys in the train and rock the line at maybe +5% of regular advertised speed. Count where and how often the train stops. Fix that. Do that for all lines.
Honestly if that is the real problem that would probably take them a few weeks at most.
It sounds like the signals may not really be _fixable_, from rohansingh's comment nearby. They are very old fully mechanical devices, you could send someone around to reset them, but there's no guarantee the reset would actually _work_, they might remain unpredictable. After all the problem is that they _tried_ to set them to a new value, and it didn't work.
Perhaps they were working fine in the same configuration they were in for decades, but once they were touched to change the settings, they are just entirely unreliable. I dunno, but ancient mechanical parts can be like that.
Perhaps they were working fine in the same configuration they were in for decades, but once they were touched to change the settings, they are just entirely unreliable. I dunno, but ancient mechanical parts can be like that.
We are talking millions of dollars. There must be someone who can figure that out - even if the failure is kind of random it follows probably a distribution and you can set it to a value that has enough margin to stop the train and not trip on slower trains. But you are right - easy to look and comment from the outside, there is probably a reason it is how it is.
Well, yeah, clearly they GOT to fix/replace them. I have no idea what the budget for that would be, but seems plausibly outside of _easy_ fix.
Won't you have to convince the union to do this change? They seem particularly intractable from my outsider's POV. If they accept culpability here and make one change, maybe they would consider that as bending and inviting future concessions. It's a shame that overall efficiency and rider satisfaction count for much less to the union than their own politics.
"fix the faulty signals" is not an easy fix - it's something the MTA has been trying to do for a very long time, and taking forever to do it. The reasons are systemic. They need to be fixed, but they won't be easy.
Yeah, I guess that's so.
I want a followup article explaining why it's so hard to fix the signals, the OP didn't really go into it, heh.
I want a followup article explaining why it's so hard to fix the signals, the OP didn't really go into it, heh.
"The London Underground, a system of similar size and age, has had no track worker fatalities since 1998."
As far as I can tell, the London Underground only allows work on sub-surface and deep tracks when the line is completely shut down. Like, not just slowing down trains on the tracks either side of the work, but not running trains on any of the tracks full stop.
As far as I can tell, the London Underground only allows work on sub-surface and deep tracks when the line is completely shut down. Like, not just slowing down trains on the tracks either side of the work, but not running trains on any of the tracks full stop.
Also, as I understand it, the line shuts down each night.
This is a great use of visualizations. Bostock made his mark while at the NYTimes.
how hard is it to put a location based speed governor on the train instead of using antiquated mechanical signals to enforce max speeds? or is that just too much common sense for the MTA?
It would be extremely difficult. How would the train know where it is? GPS is unusable at that depth. You'd need location beacons...but at that point you're better off just using signals, like they already are, rather than upgrading every train and dealing with the ongoing maintenance of making sure that each train's location-based speed governor is properly up-to-date with all proper slow-down locations.
Could you please explain why positioning would be hard? Since trains only move on the edges of a fixed graph, you'd think positioning would be super easy compared to almost all other indoor positioning applications.
It is hard because it must be vitally accurate. Screw it up and you end up with collision hazards. The number of dimensions is not the problem. The safety is.
Your indoor positioning applications would require the installation of numerous positioning beacons--or in other words, significantly more hardware than the many thousands of speed signals they have already installed and are unable to maintain.
[deleted]
MTA is doing this. It’s the basis of Communication Based Train Control.
Meta but the interactive visuals are great! They're an excellent supplement to the text.
Losing your job over a faulty signal sounds like some serious bullshit. I hope they sued.
While I love interactive docs as much as the next person, I wondered if all these demos were really necessary to get the point across in this particular case. The text did a pretty admirable job, along with a few charts. Did the more graphical pieces help, or were they more of an "ooh, pretty" feature?
The value that the graphical pieces provide is that they are interactive.
The graphical pieces build up to the one where you control both parameters simultaneously, and see how you can halve the throughput of the system by seemingly innocuous changes.
The whole point is that the cause of the slowdowns is not obvious because the effect of the changes is non-linear. Sure, you can take the author's word for it - but with the neat simulation, you don't have to. You can see the model in front of your eyes.
The graphical pieces build up to the one where you control both parameters simultaneously, and see how you can halve the throughput of the system by seemingly innocuous changes.
The whole point is that the cause of the slowdowns is not obvious because the effect of the changes is non-linear. Sure, you can take the author's word for it - but with the neat simulation, you don't have to. You can see the model in front of your eyes.
personally, it allowed me to read much faster and understand the points without concentrating on every word
They are trying to get their points across to entrenched public officials and bureaucrats so maybe it’s needed.
Close reading of text for information is a dying skill.
If it can't be stated in 120 characters or presented as an animation, you've lost a big part of your audience.
If it can't be stated in 120 characters or presented as an animation, you've lost a big part of your audience.
root cause? undercapitalized.
Didn’t MTA say they are increasing the speed limits after the Village Voice article was published?
This is the best article I've ever read on the subways. So many people blame so many factors: people holding doors, overcrowding, badly made signals, etc. But this explains it very well with clear visuals.
Strange how the article blames the workers and unions while also admitting it's not their fault.
- cheap and worse brakes appear to be the initial error beeing made
- lack of control over their signals and blaming the workers for it is not excusable. Also there must be some kind of cheap and reliable assistant that can calculate the maximum velocity and help the driver.
- badly organized maintenance is also not the workers fault.
- cheap and worse brakes appear to be the initial error beeing made
- lack of control over their signals and blaming the workers for it is not excusable. Also there must be some kind of cheap and reliable assistant that can calculate the maximum velocity and help the driver.
- badly organized maintenance is also not the workers fault.
There's alot of context missing, mostly because you'd need a book to provide context! It isn't the union workers per se, but the transit union is a massively politically powerful organization that gets what it wants, and the calculus there doesn't necessarily make sense.
NY politics in general and NYC politics (plus the confluence of labor) in particular is an arcane and dark art. There's always a vicious cycle where the various interests are very difficult to manage. Administering something as impactful, complex and expensive as MTA with the number stakeholders is a Sisyphean task.
NY politics in general and NYC politics (plus the confluence of labor) in particular is an arcane and dark art. There's always a vicious cycle where the various interests are very difficult to manage. Administering something as impactful, complex and expensive as MTA with the number stakeholders is a Sisyphean task.
> Tony Utano, the president of the Transport Workers Union Local 100, said he would fight any rule change that could put workers at risk.
Given that any change "could put workers at risk", it seems pretty clear that the union's are likely to be somewhat to blame.
Surely the train operators are not to blame for bad signals but why then is no one else at the MTA to blame? Are the workers that installed the signals not union members too? Are none of the MTA managers union members?
Given that any change "could put workers at risk", it seems pretty clear that the union's are likely to be somewhat to blame.
Surely the train operators are not to blame for bad signals but why then is no one else at the MTA to blame? Are the workers that installed the signals not union members too? Are none of the MTA managers union members?
Yes, the Transit Workers Union has specifically been fighting against reforming the flagging rules for decades. They're more than "somewhat" responsible for this situation.
He said that in the context of the reporter complaining that drivers have to slow down on tracks immediately next to where line workers are working. That's already a compromise that endangers worker safety in order to keep the trains running. The London Underground, whose much better safety record the NYT points to in the article, doesn't seem to allow any track work unless the entire line is shut down (with the exception of above-ground tracks).
The Tube isn't 24/7 and so much of it is only undergoing double track (one track going one easy, the other the opposite). To do any work on such a line you have to shut it. The whole system closes four (five?) nights a week, and lines often shut or have limited service at weekends for maintenance.
Nevertheless "red zone" working (on an otherwise open line with no mechanical barrier or technological controls keeping you safe) is in widespread use in the UK's mainline railway and sure enough it's dangerous.
Although I'll agree that "safety" is the go to explanation for industrial disputes in these sectors, it is striking how often a dispute over "safety" is resolved through better pay or conditions of employment (which in principle you'd naïvely expect to never happen). From actual workers we see the usual human trend for convenience over safety. Red zone is easy to plan, easy to execute, paste in a generic execuse where the plan says to explain why you couldn't use a safer method and you're done. Until a team member dies or is badly injured and investigators read your paperwork.
I seem to recall a nasty London accident where a track worker was struck by a train after walking up a convenient slope to the track where they were working, thus bypassing all the signs on the official route telling them it was closed. They knew they weren't supposed to go that way, they just didn't expect the penalty for non-compliance to be death. People never do.
Nevertheless "red zone" working (on an otherwise open line with no mechanical barrier or technological controls keeping you safe) is in widespread use in the UK's mainline railway and sure enough it's dangerous.
Although I'll agree that "safety" is the go to explanation for industrial disputes in these sectors, it is striking how often a dispute over "safety" is resolved through better pay or conditions of employment (which in principle you'd naïvely expect to never happen). From actual workers we see the usual human trend for convenience over safety. Red zone is easy to plan, easy to execute, paste in a generic execuse where the plan says to explain why you couldn't use a safer method and you're done. Until a team member dies or is badly injured and investigators read your paperwork.
I seem to recall a nasty London accident where a track worker was struck by a train after walking up a convenient slope to the track where they were working, thus bypassing all the signs on the official route telling them it was closed. They knew they weren't supposed to go that way, they just didn't expect the penalty for non-compliance to be death. People never do.
Managers are generally not allowed to be union members since they have an adversarial relationship with the workers.
> Managers are generally not allowed to be union members since they have an adversarial relationship with the workers.
Managers are generally not allowed to unionized because they aren't covered by the federal law which protects that right; where they are unionized (which happens in some public sector areas) it's usually not in the same unions as their employees, for the reason you discuss.
Managers are generally not allowed to unionized because they aren't covered by the federal law which protects that right; where they are unionized (which happens in some public sector areas) it's usually not in the same unions as their employees, for the reason you discuss.
You'd be surprised in NYC where, for the NYPD, there are separate unions for Officers and their supervisors: Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains (which also includes Inspectors & Deputy Inspectors) each have their own union.
Awesome visualizations.
Absolutely! One of the best use of visualizations to support a story I've seen ever. New York Times in general does a great job with visualizations.
When I first learned about computer networking, I remember being blown away when I learned that network congestion dynamics also explained how freeway traffic worked. It’s cool to see the same idea in this article!
Specifically, I thought it was amazing how it explained why if someone stops abruptly on a crowded highway, every subsequent driver will have to experience that pause, even hours later, so long as the highway maintains the same level of congestion.
You network folk will undoubtedly explain it better than me, but I think that's the correct gist of the idea?
Specifically, I thought it was amazing how it explained why if someone stops abruptly on a crowded highway, every subsequent driver will have to experience that pause, even hours later, so long as the highway maintains the same level of congestion.
You network folk will undoubtedly explain it better than me, but I think that's the correct gist of the idea?
I've always had this odd feeling that traffic is actually a Bernoulli flow, where instead of "pressure" you have congestion.
eg if you have two lanes merging and the system is at capacity, then the "pressure" across the streamline increases and traffic slows down as a result. And when you have very little pressure (or diverging arterial roads) traffic tends to speed up.
Of course there is a secondary problem of "phantom" traffic jams where the system is not really slowing down due to traffic merging or anything, you just have spots where traffic is not flowing at all for no real reason (the optimal solution being that everyone puts their foot on the gas and accelerates together). I suppose the physical analogue might be cavitation or non-laminar/turbulent flow?
I can't find any academic references on this but it's always made intuitive sense to me.
eg if you have two lanes merging and the system is at capacity, then the "pressure" across the streamline increases and traffic slows down as a result. And when you have very little pressure (or diverging arterial roads) traffic tends to speed up.
Of course there is a secondary problem of "phantom" traffic jams where the system is not really slowing down due to traffic merging or anything, you just have spots where traffic is not flowing at all for no real reason (the optimal solution being that everyone puts their foot on the gas and accelerates together). I suppose the physical analogue might be cavitation or non-laminar/turbulent flow?
I can't find any academic references on this but it's always made intuitive sense to me.
This is exactly why traffic regimes are sometimes described as "laminar" or "turbulent".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic...
Here's one for you: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/operations/tf...
I seem to remember a statistic that said, essentially, traffic waves propagate backwards at approximately 12mph. There are a set of circumstances where you can set up a "standing" wave of traffic where cars will have to tap their brakes at the same place for hours, for no reason.
I seem to remember a statistic that said, essentially, traffic waves propagate backwards at approximately 12mph. There are a set of circumstances where you can set up a "standing" wave of traffic where cars will have to tap their brakes at the same place for hours, for no reason.
I wonder whether any of the large networked navigation software does random early drop.
The negative feedback loop on faulty signals should be a read for anyone doing engineering, including software engineering.
If the workers go the proper speed, the faulty signal will trip an emergency break. This actually threatens their jobs because they'll be blamed for tripping the e-brake as if the signals worked perfectly.
1. The management trusts the automation too much without proper checks or tests proving the automation is accurate. 2. These workers are still blamed, even after signals are known to be bad. 3. People, even in here, blame the workers (and the union) for the fault of the system's quality being garbage. 4. Workers try to preserve their jobs by just working around the problem and reducing productivity all-around.
If the workers go the proper speed, the faulty signal will trip an emergency break. This actually threatens their jobs because they'll be blamed for tripping the e-brake as if the signals worked perfectly.
1. The management trusts the automation too much without proper checks or tests proving the automation is accurate. 2. These workers are still blamed, even after signals are known to be bad. 3. People, even in here, blame the workers (and the union) for the fault of the system's quality being garbage. 4. Workers try to preserve their jobs by just working around the problem and reducing productivity all-around.
I'm not sure. The incentives could go either way. If the incentive is "on time performance is a must and the signal system is not going to check your speed", then people would drive the trains over the recommended speed to make the schedule, and thus derail the train around curves or not keep the speed low enough for the block system to provide adequate train protection.
As it stands now, the incentive is to not get "tripped", so people drive the trains well below the speed at which the signalling system will trip the train... doing anything else runs the risk of getting yelled at or worse, and nobody wants that, so they play it safe.
A computer can be programmed to take into account both concerns and drive the train at the exact speed to satisfy all the constraints of the signalling system. If a computer gets tripped for travelling through a block too quickly, a meeting is had and a fix is checked in. The software doesn't care if you're mad at it. You just fix it and move on. Humans are more fragile, and if you don't align the incentives correctly you will not get the right result.
As it stands now, the incentive is to not get "tripped", so people drive the trains well below the speed at which the signalling system will trip the train... doing anything else runs the risk of getting yelled at or worse, and nobody wants that, so they play it safe.
A computer can be programmed to take into account both concerns and drive the train at the exact speed to satisfy all the constraints of the signalling system. If a computer gets tripped for travelling through a block too quickly, a meeting is had and a fix is checked in. The software doesn't care if you're mad at it. You just fix it and move on. Humans are more fragile, and if you don't align the incentives correctly you will not get the right result.
It seems stupid to use these unreliable "signals" at all, but even if they have to use them for "safety" they don't have to use them for operator evaluation. It would be real easy for every operator to carry a device that could prove e.g. she drove an appropriate speed even though her train tripped a poorly-maintained signal. I'm not foolish enough to imagine this would lead to the signals getting fixed, and from a political perspective it might be important to stipulate that it wouldn't, but that seems secondary to the horrible schedule problems that tentative driving has caused.
What sort of magical device would accomplish this feat? It couldn't be GPS-based, as GPS signals wouldn't penetrate to the subway level. It couldn't be momentum-based, because that's not sufficiently accurate. It couldn't be connected to the train's computers because that would require major upgrades to every train in the system, which would take decades.
I don't have an amazon link for you, but it doesn't seem that magical to me? Submarines have had inertial nav for decades. This is a simpler problem, because travel is restricted to rails and drift can be corrected as often as necessary. Every airbag in every automobile is equipped with a very accurate fairly inexpensive MEMS acceleration sensor, which would the only specialized component required for such a system. Hobbyist components like the ADXL345 are also cheap. It wouldn't surprise me if such a system already exists for e.g. tracking underground mining equipment, but if not it wouldn't be an impossible task for an organization with the budget of MTA. It's not as though the system would need to be incredibly precise; it's replacing one that at its best can only measure average speed over some huge distance.
Submarines also need to surface periodically to verify their navigational position as dead reckoning is frequently off by a margin.
Airbags are equipped with acceleration sensors that have a very simple test: is the acceleration force greater than X? If so, deploy!
The point of the system is to have a system that is accurate enough to replace the current system, which neither of your solutions achieves.
Airbags are equipped with acceleration sensors that have a very simple test: is the acceleration force greater than X? If so, deploy!
The point of the system is to have a system that is accurate enough to replace the current system, which neither of your solutions achieves.
Yeah that's what's meant by "drift". Submarines correct every few thousand nautical miles. The hypothetical device could do so at every station. The current system is not accurate at all, and even if it were is quite imprecise by design.
But you've convinced me. A much better solution would just be a camera pointed at the speedometer.
But you've convinced me. A much better solution would just be a camera pointed at the speedometer.
Every truck at least in the EU has such a mandated device. Basically it's a signed timestamp with current speed. They have a shedule, they know the driver. If they fear manipulation just include the device in the train and read the data every other week. Trains in the EU also have this.
We're talking about subways, which do not have access to GPS, and which is what EU trains use. Most of the trains in the MTA system predate the EU and a fair number of the countries that are members of the EU! The London system uses a different positional system based on location beacons built into the lines to locate trains (essentially, land-based GPS).
It isn't magical. A bicycle computer style senor to measure speed, record that once per second to a raspberry pi ish computer. When the e-brake triggers (simple momentum sensor is enough) log that too.
From the above I can be close enough to how fast you were going. If you should be going 15mph and are doing 16 and slowing down - well that is in the margin of error and you are fine. If you should be going 15mph and are going 25 I'll know that.
The key to the above is margin of error. I don't need centimeter level accuracy, just enough that I can reconstruct if you were close to right or not.
From the above I can be close enough to how fast you were going. If you should be going 15mph and are doing 16 and slowing down - well that is in the margin of error and you are fine. If you should be going 15mph and are going 25 I'll know that.
The key to the above is margin of error. I don't need centimeter level accuracy, just enough that I can reconstruct if you were close to right or not.
A bicycle computer uses the radius of the wheel, multiplied by rotations, to determine distance traveled and uses that to back out to speed. More expensive bicycle computers use GPS to verify their measurements. This method is accurate enough for its use; it's not accurate enough to be the primary safety mechanism for trains carrying hundreds of people. For example, the difference between 15mph and 16mph on a bike is irrelevant because it doesn't trigger a response. But for an emergency breaking system, going above the threshold triggers a physical response (i.e., the emergency brakes).
On top of that, you're asking the MTA to buy hundreds of new devices and maintain those on top of the existing devices they don't have the capacity to maintain...
On top of that, you're asking the MTA to buy hundreds of new devices and maintain those on top of the existing devices they don't have the capacity to maintain...
There are (or have been - with GPS so cheap these days they might not make that style anymore?) some that use some other senor. I'm not sure if it was ultrasonic, radar, or something else, but they have existed.
You misunderstand what I'm proposing. I'm not suggesting this system replace anything. I'm suggested a much cheaper system that just collects data to monitor the performance of the existing systems. The comments are full of suggestions that the existing e-brake system is causing drivers to go too slow because if the e-brake triggers the driver is in trouble even if the driver was going a safe speed and the e-brake was wrong. (It is a good thing that the existing e-brake fails in this way!) My proposal was a data source so we could know if the driver was really in the wrong, or the automated system. The proper response for the driver being in the wrong is very different from the e-brake being in the wrong, and that data seems to be missing.
I'm asking MTA to buy and maintain these devices on top of everything else because this is data they need anyway: a second source of data for reconstruction after the fact. Airplanes have a "black box" data recorder for much the same reason: nobody can predict everything that might go wrong. However if we have the right data after the fact we can at least make sure that particular failure never happens again. Airplanes a extremely safe because that data is analysed and acted on. MTA doesn't seem to have the data (though I will admit it is entirely possible they have it and are unwilling to look at it for whatever reason)
You misunderstand what I'm proposing. I'm not suggesting this system replace anything. I'm suggested a much cheaper system that just collects data to monitor the performance of the existing systems. The comments are full of suggestions that the existing e-brake system is causing drivers to go too slow because if the e-brake triggers the driver is in trouble even if the driver was going a safe speed and the e-brake was wrong. (It is a good thing that the existing e-brake fails in this way!) My proposal was a data source so we could know if the driver was really in the wrong, or the automated system. The proper response for the driver being in the wrong is very different from the e-brake being in the wrong, and that data seems to be missing.
I'm asking MTA to buy and maintain these devices on top of everything else because this is data they need anyway: a second source of data for reconstruction after the fact. Airplanes have a "black box" data recorder for much the same reason: nobody can predict everything that might go wrong. However if we have the right data after the fact we can at least make sure that particular failure never happens again. Airplanes a extremely safe because that data is analysed and acted on. MTA doesn't seem to have the data (though I will admit it is entirely possible they have it and are unwilling to look at it for whatever reason)
New idea: mount a camera so that the train's speedometer is in view.
Overreaction to safety incidents and inability to do cost-benefit analysis cripple American transit systems. DC's Metro, for example, was designed for trains to be driven automatically ("ATO"). In fact, they operated in automatic mode for decades, since the system was built in the 1970s. But in 2009, after nine people were killed in a collision, the system was disabled, and will remain disabled indefinitely.[1]
The result of disabling ATO is that what was previously a very smoothly running system has become a disaster, with human operators lurching into stations, then lurching some more to place the train correctly relative to the platform. Almost a million riders inconvenienced every day for a decade, just to avert recurrence of an incident that resulted in a handful of deaths in 30 years of operation.
[1] https://ggwash.org/view/62992/metro-kicks-the-automatic-trai....