Slashdot Mirror
New York Computerizes its Subway System
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?"
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Only if DVD-Jon has an MTA-Bob counterpart
The `L' Line of the MTA
Man, that just brought back horrific memories of sendmail M4 syntax.
In New York, train dwell times--time spent in stations--can be frustratingly long, especially during rush hours. Besides people pushing and shoving to get on the train, you've also got the jokers who hold the doors for their friends who're still running down the stairs.
Without a conductor, who's going to yell at everyone to stop holding the doors? How does this work in other automated systems, like Paris's Météor?
Trains on this line no longer have conductors on board
I dunno about the rest of you, but I want a conductor on the train. Things like having a human look outside the train to make sure nobody is about to get on when the doors close, having someone on the train in case of an emergancy, having someone on the train that is a detterent to crime (just imagine, would a would-be rapist be more or less likely to rape a woman if a conductor was walking up and down the cars).
And part of me feels bad for the guy losing the job, the conductor.
Continue reading the news story:
To have a truly integrated system, the city would have to continue buying all its equipment from Siemens AG, effectively giving it a monopoly.
This also raises a red flag. One company that will in effect control the whole parts system? How can we know we won't get hosed with the price?
Even if they do autimate, lets keep the conductor. Someone who knows how the train runs. Someone who can over-ride the computers if needed. Every vessel needs her captin.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
"I dont know about you but I'm more comfortable with things the old way."
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.
Computers don't:
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.
On the BART or DC's Metro, the displays that tell you when the next train is coming are really just there to calm your impatience- normally the train you're waiting for is the only one you can take anyhow.
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.
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
Nuremberg will introduce a completely driverless subway next year. Good article with lots of pictures. See (partially English) PDF
People have tried to hack the metrocard system for years. The closest they came was a decidedly non-l33t solution involving demagnetising part of the strip relating to card expiration date. It gave access for a week, only because they MTA had the system set for "be generous". Some NYers, led by the local tabloid "The Daily News" tend to be moderate to extremely luddite when it comes to technology, and the metrocard was not welcomed with open arms. When it was first released the MTA went to great lengths to ensure that no one felt the metro card system was "ripping them off". So rather than properly rejecting expired cards (that may have had money on them, you see), they let them through. Some smartass realised that by erasing the part of the strip that contained the expiration date, the reader would automatically decide the card was expired. Since the system was set to ignore that on initial release, they got through. Once the exploit got out, they stopped it, iirc within 3 days of the first occurance (the system tracks this too, you see).
Things have changed since then, and in light of a recent subway fire that caused great inconvenience, NYers have gone the other way, wishing that the entire system was computerized. Yea, even the Daily News quite vociferously raised the cry for greater computerization in the MTA switching network.
The MTA is underfunded but not stupid or poorly run. The system is well designed and the underlying databases are also redundant and protected. The hardest part of the job for them is getting funding approved for their various efforts, they usually do a good job of executing once they get it. They've worked quite hard on this new system, it'll be a step forward in spite of the pundits.