6 ms·

I hate the driver who pens the L line going to Brooklyn from Manhattan. He speeds way too much and then breaks way too hard. I have seen passenger fall because

I hate the driver who pens the L line going to Brooklyn from Manhattan. He speeds way too much and then breaks way too hard. I have seen passenger fall because of it time and again. If we can't get rid of the union workers, I would rather have MTA pay these guys wages to sit at home and replace them with computer-driven subway.

electricEmu 8y ago
TFA mentions train operators will preemptively slow down to keep their job. Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > TFA mentions train operators will preemptively slow down to keep their job. Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in. As alluded to in the article, the TWU has been fighting very aggressively against the reforms for most of the issues documented in this article.
  - electricEmu 8y ago
    Who need allusion? TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union. Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas. It all hinges on if the safety concerns are valid.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union. Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas. You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value? Of course they'll frame nearly everything in rhetoric of safety, because politically that's the equivalent "but think of the kids". Of course, when you actually look at it, it's obvious that the TWU has spent the last several decades fighting actual safety improvements (including those that are SOP at the other Big Four systems), because their only interest is in protecting their members' jobs. As linked elsewhere in this article, if the MTA tries to introduce newer and safer machinery, the TWU actually extracts a "technological advancement" fee to compensate them for the missed job opportunities, in an attempt to disincentive them from adopting new technology. The TWU is literally putting passengers' lives at risk because their only goal is to extract as much money as possible from the MTA, and they don't actually care about the end state of the subway system.
      - electricEmu 8y ago
        > You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value? That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue. Why would anyone trust an internet-rando and a single article? You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness? I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue. You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness? I don't know where you get "one-sided" out of any of this. I responded to a claim that the problems in this article have nothing to do with unions, pointing out that the union for MTA workers has been the main driving force against solving the problems described in the article. Between the information in the article, the other information linked elsewhere in the comments here, and some basic Googling, that's all pretty easy to verify. If anything is "one-sided", it's the original claim that I refuted. > I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city. Rampant corruption. The TWU isn't the only source of that corruption, but it's foolish to pretend they're not a significant part of it.
        electricEmu 8y ago
        Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise. Instead of blindly speculating on what could be true, when you've already said that you're not familiar with the topic, how about doing your research on the facts and learning why this is what's actually true. You started off with a claim that was directly debunked by actually reading the article. Then you pivoted to speculating (but not substantiating) the existence of information that could hypothetically make your original statement a little less incorrect. At this point, the only foolish thing is pretending that you're contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  It has everything to do with unions, specifically public-sector unions that shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway. You can't expect the development and deployment of efficient automation in an environment where it's impossible to fire the existing human operators. Or where firing them would be just as expensive as keeping them around doing nothing useful.
  - electricEmu 8y ago
    > It has everything to do with unions, specifically public-sector unions that shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway. OP complained about a driver slowing down and speeding up. TFA explained it. There's no magic. Your viewpoint is staunch, one-sided, and brought no new information. That point of view sounds questionable.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Why don't public sector employees deserve rights?
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Because those "rights" come from extorting the taxpayer, who has little or no say in the matter.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      First, public sector employees don’t deserve special rights everyone else doesn’t have. Second, public sector unions present unique problems privat sector unions do not. If a private sector union pushes too hard, the company goes out of business and everyone is out of work. If a public sector union pushes too hard, nothing happens—it can hold critical government services (often monopoly services) hostage until it gets whatever terms it wants. If MTA were a private company, it would have gone bankrupt long ago. But we accept that public services should sometimes be subsidized at the public expense. That subsidy should go toward making the service cheaper and more available to the public. But public sector unions capture some of that subsidy to get higher pay and benefits for public sector workers than those workers would get in a private company.
michaelper22 8y ago
The L train already uses CBTC (i.e automatic train operation); fast speeds are issued by the computer.
L_Rahman 8y ago
There's also at least one conductor who starts closing the doors during the morning rush our while passengers are still existing at the 1 AV stop. One of those times the doors smashed into a person walking out on crutches.
InitialLastName 8y ago
The L is entirely computerized already. The two people working on each train are there to press a "keep the union happy" button every 30 seconds.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > The L is entirely computerized already. The two people working on each train are there to press a "keep the union happy" button every 30 seconds. In case anyone thinks this is a joke, it's not. The MTA pays the Transit Workers Union massive sums of money when they use technology they use which does a job otherwise performed by a human, even when it's been standard practice worldwide to automate that job for decades. One example, from tunnel boring: > The critics pointed to several unusual provisions in the labor agreements. One part of Local 147’s deal entitles the union to $450,000 for each tunnel-boring machine used. That is to make up for job losses from “technological advancement,” even though the equipment has been standard for decades. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
  - Declanomous 8y ago
    I don't understand why New York has two employees per train. Nearly everywhere else in the world has 1. The person in the middle's job seems to be operating the doors and making sure the train is berthed correctly, but all you have to do is put a line where the front of the train has to line up and the driver can do it. As for the doors, it's not like the driver has much else to do when in the station.
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      Nominally, the trains are long, and sometimes the stations are curved. A person in the middle of the train can see more of the doors to make sure they're clear.
      - rayiner 8y ago
jrochkind1 8y ago
Kinda sounds like he's doing his part to keep the trains actually on time in a totally broken signalling environment!
- rohansingh 8y ago
  The L train is actually the one train with fully upgraded signals, and no track sharing with other trains. Probably for that reason, it also has the highest on-time percentage of all trains.
lobster_johnson 8y ago
I've never been bothered by that (and as others point out, the L is automated, anyway). What I'd like to know is why, when the L reaches the 8th Ave stop in Manhattan, the operator waits 10 seconds after coming to a full stop before opening the doors. The train has already stopped, so this seems unnecessary. There's also this weird thing where, while the train is sitting there waiting to return the opposite way back to Brooklyn, they close all the subway doors except one in each carriage. It doesn't prevent people from getting on.
- jrockway 8y ago
  They do this at every terminal. I have no idea why.
  - lobster_johnson 8y ago
    I found an answer here [1], via a Reddit thread [2] (where the answers are apparently gone): I won't go into details, but if the conductor wants to exit the train and leave the doors open at the terminal, he needs to walk to the next car at the last stop in order to open the doors, which is why there's a short delay before they open. If the doors open immediately at the last stop, then it means the train is either going to go to the yard, or the crew is going to manually key open one door per car (which is only done if the train is going to sit there for at least 10 minutes, and helps the air comfort system). [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mta-worker-goes-underground-share-subway-secrets-reddit-top-10-reveals-324984 http://www.ibtimes.com/mta-worker-goes-underground-share-sub... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kx5fa/iama_new_york_city_transit_subway_conductor_ama/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kx5fa/iama_new_york_c...
    - jrockway 8y ago
      Very interesting. I definitely always hear the conductor moving between cars at the last stop but I never connected that to being why the doors can't be opened. I think it's funny that the train's computer knows it's the last stop and announces that fact to the passengers... but the conductor has to manually override some sort of system before he or she can exit the train.
8bitsrule 8y ago
Oh yeah, that's it. Because non-union-workers would never drive like that. :-P

electricEmu 8y ago

TFA mentions train operators will preemptively slow down to keep their job. Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> TFA mentions train operators will preemptively slow down to keep their job. Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in. As alluded to in the article, the TWU has been fighting very aggressively against the reforms for most of the issues documented in this article.
- electricEmu 8y ago
  Who need allusion? TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union. Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas. It all hinges on if the safety concerns are valid.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union. Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas. You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value? Of course they'll frame nearly everything in rhetoric of safety, because politically that's the equivalent "but think of the kids". Of course, when you actually look at it, it's obvious that the TWU has spent the last several decades fighting actual safety improvements (including those that are SOP at the other Big Four systems), because their only interest is in protecting their members' jobs. As linked elsewhere in this article, if the MTA tries to introduce newer and safer machinery, the TWU actually extracts a "technological advancement" fee to compensate them for the missed job opportunities, in an attempt to disincentive them from adopting new technology. The TWU is literally putting passengers' lives at risk because their only goal is to extract as much money as possible from the MTA, and they don't actually care about the end state of the subway system.
    - electricEmu 8y ago
      > You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value? That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue. Why would anyone trust an internet-rando and a single article? You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness? I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue. You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness? I don't know where you get "one-sided" out of any of this. I responded to a claim that the problems in this article have nothing to do with unions, pointing out that the union for MTA workers has been the main driving force against solving the problems described in the article. Between the information in the article, the other information linked elsewhere in the comments here, and some basic Googling, that's all pretty easy to verify. If anything is "one-sided", it's the original claim that I refuted. > I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city. Rampant corruption. The TWU isn't the only source of that corruption, but it's foolish to pretend they're not a significant part of it.
        electricEmu 8y ago
        Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise. Instead of blindly speculating on what could be true, when you've already said that you're not familiar with the topic, how about doing your research on the facts and learning why this is what's actually true. You started off with a claim that was directly debunked by actually reading the article. Then you pivoted to speculating (but not substantiating) the existence of information that could hypothetically make your original statement a little less incorrect. At this point, the only foolish thing is pretending that you're contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.
CamperBob2 8y ago
It has everything to do with unions, specifically public-sector unions that shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway. You can't expect the development and deployment of efficient automation in an environment where it's impossible to fire the existing human operators. Or where firing them would be just as expensive as keeping them around doing nothing useful.
- electricEmu 8y ago
  > It has everything to do with unions, specifically public-sector unions that shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway. OP complained about a driver slowing down and speeding up. TFA explained it. There's no magic. Your viewpoint is staunch, one-sided, and brought no new information. That point of view sounds questionable.
- gowld 8y ago
  Why don't public sector employees deserve rights?
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Because those "rights" come from extorting the taxpayer, who has little or no say in the matter.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    First, public sector employees don’t deserve special rights everyone else doesn’t have. Second, public sector unions present unique problems privat sector unions do not. If a private sector union pushes too hard, the company goes out of business and everyone is out of work. If a public sector union pushes too hard, nothing happens—it can hold critical government services (often monopoly services) hostage until it gets whatever terms it wants. If MTA were a private company, it would have gone bankrupt long ago. But we accept that public services should sometimes be subsidized at the public expense. That subsidy should go toward making the service cheaper and more available to the public. But public sector unions capture some of that subsidy to get higher pay and benefits for public sector workers than those workers would get in a private company.

michaelper22 8y ago

The L train already uses CBTC (i.e automatic train operation); fast speeds are issued by the computer.

L_Rahman 8y ago

There's also at least one conductor who starts closing the doors during the morning rush our while passengers are still existing at the 1 AV stop. One of those times the doors smashed into a person walking out on crutches.

InitialLastName 8y ago

The L is entirely computerized already. The two people working on each train are there to press a "keep the union happy" button every 30 seconds.

chimeracoder 8y ago
> The L is entirely computerized already. The two people working on each train are there to press a "keep the union happy" button every 30 seconds. In case anyone thinks this is a joke, it's not. The MTA pays the Transit Workers Union massive sums of money when they use technology they use which does a job otherwise performed by a human, even when it's been standard practice worldwide to automate that job for decades. One example, from tunnel boring: > The critics pointed to several unusual provisions in the labor agreements. One part of Local 147’s deal entitles the union to $450,000 for each tunnel-boring machine used. That is to make up for job losses from “technological advancement,” even though the equipment has been standard for decades. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
- Declanomous 8y ago
  I don't understand why New York has two employees per train. Nearly everywhere else in the world has 1. The person in the middle's job seems to be operating the doors and making sure the train is berthed correctly, but all you have to do is put a line where the front of the train has to line up and the driver can do it. As for the doors, it's not like the driver has much else to do when in the station.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    Nominally, the trains are long, and sometimes the stations are curved. A person in the middle of the train can see more of the doors to make sure they're clear.
    - rayiner 8y ago

jrochkind1 8y ago

Kinda sounds like he's doing his part to keep the trains actually on time in a totally broken signalling environment!

rohansingh 8y ago
The L train is actually the one train with fully upgraded signals, and no track sharing with other trains. Probably for that reason, it also has the highest on-time percentage of all trains.

lobster_johnson 8y ago

I've never been bothered by that (and as others point out, the L is automated, anyway). What I'd like to know is why, when the L reaches the 8th Ave stop in Manhattan, the operator waits 10 seconds after coming to a full stop before opening the doors. The train has already stopped, so this seems unnecessary. There's also this weird thing where, while the train is sitting there waiting to return the opposite way back to Brooklyn, they close all the subway doors except one in each carriage. It doesn't prevent people from getting on.

jrockway 8y ago
They do this at every terminal. I have no idea why.
- lobster_johnson 8y ago
  I found an answer here [1], via a Reddit thread [2] (where the answers are apparently gone): I won't go into details, but if the conductor wants to exit the train and leave the doors open at the terminal, he needs to walk to the next car at the last stop in order to open the doors, which is why there's a short delay before they open. If the doors open immediately at the last stop, then it means the train is either going to go to the yard, or the crew is going to manually key open one door per car (which is only done if the train is going to sit there for at least 10 minutes, and helps the air comfort system). [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mta-worker-goes-underground-share-subway-secrets-reddit-top-10-reveals-324984 http://www.ibtimes.com/mta-worker-goes-underground-share-sub... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kx5fa/iama_new_york_city_transit_subway_conductor_ama/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kx5fa/iama_new_york_c...
  - jrockway 8y ago
    Very interesting. I definitely always hear the conductor moving between cars at the last stop but I never connected that to being why the doors can't be opened. I think it's funny that the train's computer knows it's the last stop and announces that fact to the passengers... but the conductor has to manually override some sort of system before he or she can exit the train.

8bitsrule 8y ago

Oh yeah, that's it. Because non-union-workers would never drive like that. :-P