DC Train Crash Freaks Out MTA's Union

Let us sit back and appreciate the MTA for a moment, because even though they are trying to run us through the paces with the fare hike talk, thanks to their amazing budget deficit, at least we haven't seen two trains crash the way the Metro did in DC. Of course, this accident has prompted union leaders to say the MTA's plan of computer-operated trains is dangerous. The Metro train was an automatic, computerized train, and the president of Transport Workers Union Local 100 told the Daily News "If this crash could happen on the D.C. Metro, a contemporary system designed for this technology, much worse could happen in New York, where the MTA is trying to stick unproven 21st century technology onto 100-year-old railbeds." Of course, this union represents the conductors who would be out of a job. And the MTA is going to great lengths to explain that the computerized system, which will be used on the L train first, will have a human motorman at the controls to override the system. Gothamist thinks that great, but, man, that DC crash is scary - a car piled on top of another? Yikes.

Gothamist on our theory that the MTA hates hipsters. And DCist on the Metro's future.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on November 8, 2004 4:06 PM

Comments [rss]

empty A

The NYC station dispatchers currently do not have a way to tell exactly where the trains are. Because of this, they have to time a mandatory safe-distance between trains, otherwise they risk a collision. It's actually quite an impressive amount of work they do behind the scenes with such a large, antiquated system of lights and signals to work with.

The MTA is currently working on upgrading the system to allow dispatchers to know exactly where the trains are, which would allow trains to run closer to each other.

S.D.

Can an automated train offer help when your being Mugged?

I'm all for Automated signs, but when the S__t hits the fan, I want to know that there is someone in the middle of the train that has the potential to assist. I know the MTA say's that a "Video Camera" will keep people safe, but they can be taken out and will only let the Police know where to pick up the Body.

Ashley

The red line train was being driven manually at the time. Automated trains rock. Metrorail flawlessly shuttles almost 2 million riders around every day. And automated technology allows us to have some things NYC'ers dont: electronic boards that tell us exactly when the next train will arrive and those nifty flashing floorlights.

Ashley

The DC red line train was being driven manually when it crashed. Metrorail uses automoated technology flawlessly every day, shuttling almost 2 million consumers around. And it has one other great benefit: unlike people in NYC, we have electronic billboards that tell us exactly how long we have to wait until the next train and those nifty flashing floorlights.

mgrass

It's interesting that organized labor is using the D.C. Red Line crash as a way to argue that automatic trains are dangerous. The train that rolled backwards and crashed into the Woodley Park station was being driven manually at the time.

Terry Malloy

Kojak & others:

The technology the MTA is putting in place will improve service, but these benefits are not delivered BECAUSE trains need fewer human personnell (though from a budgetary standpoint that is a significant benefit).

This new system will allow MTA HQ to know precisely where each train is in the system. This is important because for safety reasons, each train must be spaced a certain minimum distance from the next. But once they know exactly where all the trains are, they can move them along at shorter intervals during peak hours, respond better to emergencies, more efficiently route around delays, etc. (This technology is pretty standard on most subways around the world, but then of course they're not nearly as old or large as our system is, and many of those nations have socialized systems that take your income tax and use it to subsidize the urban transports.)

And yes, there is a possibility here for a glitch that doesn't show the correct position of a train, or omits it completely--and the MTA knows these risks exist. That's why it's taking so frigging long to get the system implemented. Testing, and re-resting. Because the MTA knows that if there's a problem, riders all over the city will piss and moan that the MTA _rushed_ this new system in place and fired employees without regard for rider safety(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

S.D.

While I work in IT, An "Automated" train would be a big mistake.

The simple presence of a Conductor ensures that Somone is there looking out for problems. Also, last I checked, a conductor could call for help (i.e. The Police) if assistance is needed...

Doctor Memory

Ahem. It's quite possible to have similar-scale accidents with entirely human-operated trains. Why do we know this? Well, because the MTA has had plenty of them. (Note especially the 8/28/91 crash on the 4 train.)

That said, the one thing I trust less than the unions' safety predictions is the MTA's cost estimates.

Jen W

At that rate, Dirk, we should let MoMA run the MTA.

Dirk

Automated subways?! No way that would be safe. If that happens, then I'm biking everywhere...

And besides, how the hell would they pay for that? Raise the fares to $5 a ride? Why stop there? $10 a ride.

Kojak

efficient , Efficent . . . . spell check anyone? :-(

Kojak

I refuse to believe the notion that the only way to have a more efficent subway system is to replace everyone with automated computer techology.

I cite again the Tokyo Metro. Almost all of their trains are manned by regular personel and it is still, by far, the most efficent subway system in the world. I think the MTA can better train their personel and upgrade the technology they use to better serve the city.

Maybe if they actually hired conductors who really gave a shit about how on time they are, maybe we would be travelling with ease.