Computers Don't Crash Trains, People Crash Trains
The New York Times reports on a protest by the Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union of America, which is the union of the New York City transit operators, against a plan to make trains on the L line completely automated by the middle of 2005. A conductor would remain onboard the train in case of emergency, but would not control the train, unless an emergency occured.
Two officials, quoted by the Times, explained:
"This is a gamble, a dangerous gamble, and passengers will pay," said the president of the union, Roger Toussaint, who contended that conductors were essential during emergencies.
"When was the last time you saw a computer lead people to safety?" asked Representative Jerrold L. Nadler. "When was the last time you saw a computer evacuate a train?"
Both of which seem to neglect the fact that under the $287 million plan,
a train conductor will remain in the front cab at all times. Which means, in the case of an emergency, there will be a conductor to evacuate the train. It does mean, however, fewer jobs for train operators (and fewer union members). And not to be crass, but maybe computerized operation isn't a bad thing -- the major train accident in D.C. earlier this month likely happened precisely because the trains weren't operating automatically but were being manually handled.
Post Author:
amg | 3:15 PM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
