New York Computerizes its Subway System 492
Iphtashu Fitz writes "New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority launched it's first fully computer controlled subway line this month. The `L' Line of the MTA that connects the southern part of Manhattan with Brooklyn was picked for this pilot program because of its relatively short length and the fact that it doesn't share tracks with any other lines. Trains on this line no longer have conductors on board, and only a single driver in the front to monitor all the systems.
What's the big deal, you may ask? After all, cities like San Francisco and Paris already have computerized subway lines. Well, having recently celebrated its 100th anniversary the MTA is one of the oldest subway systems in the United States, and one of the largest in the world. If all goes well, the MTA will continue to expand automated service to the rest of the subway system over the next 20 years. But just how safe and secure will these new automated lines be? The radio links that provide data communication between the trains and the control center are encrypted, but how long until a hacker manages to crack it?"
Cracker schmackers (Score:5, Insightful)
Worry more about the failsafes. Are they independent systems, or would a single point of failure allow to trains to attempt to pass through each other? A good failsafe system should keep passengers safe from accident even if some cracker gets in. Hopefully it won't be a matter of life and death because some programmer who actually worked on the system suffered a brain-fart and assumed 1 based instead of 0.
As for the 20 year estimate, that sounds more the result of negotiations with the transit workers union than ability to get things switch over. You know City Hall, when it comes to a budget, they suddenly know the value of each penny and would switch the whole thing over in a couple years, tops.
On the subject of anniversaries... 2005 will be the 50th of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Re:Subways big targets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, why?
How is hacking the train system and having people in predetermined locations any less complicated than holding up the engineer driving the train and forcing him to stop it?
Your plan:
1. Hack Train System.
2. Stop Train at Pre-determined location
3. Have baddies with guns at location to hold hostages.
My plan:
1. Use gun to stop train.
2. Use gun to hold hostages.
Not sure why you'd want to go through the trouble of all that hacking for essentially no gain.
Sorry - Prefer a computer to people (Score:5, Insightful)
1) get drunk.
2) get distracted. (Chicago collision recently)
3) fall asleep.
All of which have killed people in the past. People can whine all they want about how dangerous it is not to have a person running the trains. Personally, I'm happier. Controlling trains in 1D isn't that hard folks. Not at all like flying an airplane, where autopilot has been accepted for decades.
The status displays are the killer app (Score:5, Insightful)
In New York City, which has an enormously complex subway system, it's different. If you're standing in the Times Square subway station, you can choose from at least seven different subway lines, radiating in all directions.
Without a status display, New Yorkers are reduced to leaning over the edge of the platform to peer down a darkened tunnel for the telltale glint of subway headlights when deciding to wait for the 3 or jump on the 1. Forget about running upstairs to check for the R- you have to go with your gut that the IRT generally comes more frequently than the BMT (how's that for some old school NY goodness?)
The most exciting thing the article mentions are the status displays (grafitti resistant, I hope) that give you a running diplay of approaching trains and their time to arrival.
New Yorkers are notoriously impatient, and a large part of why we're so rude is having to deal with the daily hassles of getting from one end of the stinkin' island to another. I guarantee these status screens will attract so many eyeballs that they'll pay for themselves with supplemental advertising within months.
Re:I was reading the it... (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, even in the tunnels, each train still has a conductor/driver to take over in case something happens (such as someone throwing themselves in front of the train). The only thing the conductors do in the tunnel is close the doors (even the opening is controlled by computers).
Re:Potential problems (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, shit happens. There should always be a mechanism so the door stops automatically if an electric eye or a pressure sensor notes an obstruction. Now, a long enough delay should probably summon human intervention, but the doors should never just close.
Re:Potential problems (Score:5, Insightful)
how to stop people from holding the doors? place a 2nd set of doors on the platform outside the train, a set which ppl will have to walk through in order to get on the train. This set would close around 10 seconds before the train doors - therefore, no point trying to hold them open. And if you have ever been in NY, you will know that ppl all surround the train doors before they open and then push each other chaotically. having a 2nd set of doors, along with a series of gates to herd the ppl aboard quickly, would be a simple solution to this.
another thing that could be done is that while ppl are waiting at the station the platform could have a scale under it. Based upon the weight, the number of ppl waiting for the train at that particular station could be estimated, and using this value traffic decisions such as "have next train stop at station" or "just pass this station by - not enough ppl" could be made by a centralized system such as the one in the article.
The L has been down BECAUSE of this upgrade. (Score:4, Insightful)
So it will only "solve" the problem because its installation is the source of the problem.
I agree with all the people who have pointed out that:
1. The current system, while low-tech, works pretty damn well. It is a certainty that the new tech will have more bugs (because it's new) and more things that can go wrong (because it's far more expensive and complex).
2. Conductors do not just serve as announcers and door operators -- they are also a pair of eyes that can spot any "human" problems on or around the train. The MTA recently closed hundreds of token booths at less-used station entrances. Now they're eliminating conductors. God help us if NYC experiences another crime wave.
The real reason they are going to computer control is to cram more trains thru the system in the same amount of time. In theory, this will shorten waits, crowding, and ride times... assuming that the new gadgetry works, and that you don't get mugged.
made in china parts wont last 3 years :) (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to the old attitude of build it tuff, build it strong to last, rather than build it to last just long enough until the next upgrade to increase perpetual sales?
Oh well, maybe the next inflation boom / economic down turn will turn people back into long term long life attitudes.
Re:Potential problems (Score:3, Insightful)
I live 1 block from the L, and it's the main train I take. This should be... interesting.
Thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
bad, bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need help late at night in the city, the one thing you can count on is having a human in a booth in the subway. They might be surly, but if you NEED help those people can be your best friends. A conductor focusing on the platform and keeping an eye out for trouble serves a purpose a computer can't possibly compete with. You wouldn't need 'em 99.99% of the time, but that one time you're getting your ass kicked and need help is no time to go looking for a police call box.
I mean, I know it's heretical to say this here, but computers can't do everything.
Re:Potential problems (Score:3, Insightful)
It's surprisingly not that hard (a quarter of my posts in the last year have been +5ed.) The trick is to watch for a topic that you know more about than the average person (for me it might be Macs, Mozilla, or Vancouver) and post a quick, concise comment. Works more often than I expected it would!
I'd rather lose the motorman than the conductor (Score:2, Insightful)
The London Docklands Light Railway [tfl.gov.uk] is an example of such a system. In case the automatic system breaks down (which happened very often when LDLR was new) the conductor has the keys and skills needed to drive the train manually. Usually (s)he drives the train to the next station and restarts computer operated mode. The conductor's primary function is to close the doors and ensure safety on board of the trains and to assist passengers with boarding, alighting and information.
In automatic mode, the computer stops the train at each station and unlocks the doors. When the time to depart has arrived the RTD (Ready To Depart?) light comes on (there is one at every door). The conductor is then supposed to close the doors (using a key that can be used in a lock present on any of the doors). When all doors are closed the ADC (All Doors Closed?) light (also at every door) comes on and the train departs.
As there is no train driver cabin, the passengers have a nice view in all directions (LDLR runs mostly on elevated track). Having no driver cabin saves some space too. (The manual driving controls are behind a cover.)
Re:In london (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand your objection to the post: either re-working an existing light rail system to be driverless is a significant acheivement - in which case this has already been done in London, and being the oldest system, this is a significant acheivement - or building a new driverless light rail system is an acheivement - in which case this has already been done in London.
Re:Cracker schmackers (Score:1, Insightful)
War is bad. But just because bad things happen in war, it doesn't mean that they are necessarily without reason or "evil". The attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack against a military installation. The atomic bombs and the firebombings were attacks primarily on civilian targets. This is not to say that the Japanese have bloodless hands, on the contrary, they have a whole slew of incidents (to put it lightly) that history will judge them for.
But what happened during war is behind us. Apologizing for those things now, when such an apology is essentially a meaningless gesture and only opens the door to greater leverage on the side of the "wronged".
One would think that we would like to learn from our history, instead of living vicariously through it.