Could San Francisco Automate Strike-Threatening Train Drivers?

This is a rhetorical question. Of course it could. I&#x27;ve ridden driverless trains in at least three countries - the technology is unquestionably available, proven, and safe.<p>Is it possible politically? That is the real question. Perhaps not, but let&#x27;s not pretend it has anything to do with technology.

I wonder if TechCrunch articles could be automated. Have the TC editors ever bothered to ask, or are they too afraid of the interests of the contributors to explore the question?

BART is already automated. The &quot;drivers&quot; just make announcements, check that the doors don&#x27;t close on someone&#x27;s leg, and press the emergency stop button if the computer goes badly awry.

They should be. Artificially keeping jobs alive that are better, safer and cheaper performed by machines is bad for everyone in the long run, even the train drivers.

This could be answered as yes and also no.<p>Since 1985, Vancouver has had a 100% automated metro system (&quot;SkyTrain&quot;) which has expanded to three lines (soon 4) and about 65 KM in track (soon to be closer to 80).<p>Almost any metro system could be converted to be automated but SkyTrain was built to be 100% computer-controlled from the get go. To switch from manual to electronic control would likely lead to enormous interruptions and it is unlikely that the unions in charge would accept it. It also isn&#x27;t a matter of just updating the trains but it also means building sensors at all stations to detect intrusions and it also means changing signal controls. Needless to say it would be a bad idea and likely would just cost money.<p>In 2001, we suffered a prolonged transit strike that stopped all local bus and ferry service. However, the SkyTrain system continued to operate as normal albeit without any staff at any of the stations.

I would like to see all forms of transportation automated as long as it is proven safe. Trains have to be one of the easiest to automate since it runs on a track. If Google can automate a car which needs to avoid potholes, idiot drivers, construction, snow, rain, etc, I think we should be able to automate trains.

The technology already exists. Take the money that&#x27;s saved and invest it back into the system. Run trains more frequently and have them run 24 hours.<p><a href="http://www.bart.gov/guide/latenight.aspx" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bart.gov&#x2F;guide&#x2F;latenight.aspx</a>

I&#x27;m not from the bay area-- do the train operators seem to have any public support? I feel like it&#x27;s hard to sympathize with striking workers who are already among the highest paid in the country for this line of work.

Tangential point: I once got speaking to a taxi driver who used to be a tube driver. He said if you ever want to commit suicide, do it on the Victoria line. Although the traines have a driver in the cab, they are automated so the driver will be paying less attention and less likely to stop in time.<p>I&#x27;m not sure how this came up in conversation.

If BART became automated they could afford to run more trains, especially later at night, as they do in Vancouver: <a href="http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/driverless-rapid-transit-why-it-matters.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.humantransit.org&#x2F;2010&#x2F;02&#x2F;driverless-rapid-transit...</a>

My understanding has been that the a significant role of a BART driver is crowd control as people get on and off. Some of that seems less automatable than the travel itself. I could easily be wrong about that, though, or automating the rest might be worth doing anyway.

Plus there is the zoom and whoosh factor, which BART already has: <a href="http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/transits-zoomwhoosh-problem.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.humantransit.org&#x2F;2010&#x2F;01&#x2F;transits-zoomwhoosh-prob...</a>

Shorter TC: &quot;Hey, that crab is near the top of the bucket! PULL HIM DOWN!&quot;