Comments on: Does Automating the Metro Save Lots of Money?

By: Angela

Angela — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 21:33:08 +0000

As gerard said, the main argument for automating the metro in France is that strikes have less impact on the system.

By: Caciara

Caciara — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 14:26:13 +0000

C’mon, I have never heard Metro company executives saying “oh, we would wholeheartedly upgrade the system to bleeding edge, but those pesky unions don’t want us to do it!”

By: gerard

gerard — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 14:11:10 +0000

I am living in Lyon (France) and the claims are totally false.
There are 4 lines: A (the main one by far), B, C (the tiny steep one indeed), D (the only one automated). There is talk about automating the B line (it exists since at least 20 years so I am not holding my breath).

The D line is better than the other by far because of the higher frequency and the reliability (something too often forgotten in discussion of transport modes)
You get a a far better travel performance with the D line, but it may be more expensive as well, because what you save by not having drivers to pay, you lose in energy and maintenance by running it more.
That’s why the whole argument is inane; it’s not a matter of cost per se , it’s making metro more attractive versus individual modes: being faster and more reliable wins it for metro.
If you have drivers you need to rest them, there is the question of them doing an en masse stop if there any fracas between a passenger and an employee (‘droit de retrait’), and the strike question (both problems are somehow similar). Lyon’s drivers have played the strike dance very often, and usually at the most annoying moments as you can guess; the favourite one was always before the main touristic event (the 8 december at Lyon). The town has always kowtowed before the drivers, I guess because of a french law that forces it to re-hire the same drivers if it contracts with another company.
I wish that all the lines and in particular the A line could be automated, but it is not going to happen. The drivers are just too powerful.

By: Roman

Roman — Thu, 07 Nov 2019 11:57:31 +0000

If you are interested in comparing true costs, maybe reach out to Taipei authorities. The city has both automated, Vancouver-like, bombardier line, and a couple of classic underground lines with hoomans.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:30:21 +0000

Fraser,

The expo line branches, dividing frequency. So yes, if you happen to be on one of the 6 stations on a branch then you could be waiting 8-10 minutes for a train. But the core of the expo line is the combination of both branches, so you never have to wait more than 5 minutes for a train.

The Montreal metro has an absolutely abysmal off-peak schedule (night time, weekend) with a more than 10 minute wait between trains. The difference is that you could be downtown at McGill station waiting 12 minutes for a train, whereas in Vancouver you always get good service if you are in a central location. The branches also mean that there is no transfer needed, so that 12 minute wait in Montreal could be times 2 (I work on the green line and live on the orange line, but usually it’s faster to take a bus at night than deal with the wait and transfer.)

By: Fraser Pollock

Fraser Pollock — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:12:58 +0000

Vancouver’s Expo Line has very high frequency of service during the day and evening peak periods but much lower service frequency than both the Montreal Metro and Toronto Subway Systems during non peak times, especially in the late evening and weekend time periods.

By: Yogi

Yogi — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:21:58 +0000

The metro is already automated. In normal operation, the only thing the drivers do is close the doors after which the metro will automatically depart and follow a programmed schedule (acceleration, top speed, deceleration) to the next station where the doors will open automatically again.

So why the drivers? Some say it’s due to big contracts signed under pressure from the union that covers the STM employees. But while they are there, they do have their hand on the emergency stop in case someone throws him-/herself on the rails. And in case of a disruption, they’ll override the auto pilot to catch up with the schedule (driving faster than the program). But if the STM manages to install the platform doors, there will hardly be any disruptions any more with people blocking doors (harder to hold two sets of doors) and people jumping on the tracks.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:57:21 +0000

Given the capriciousness, if not outright sadism, of STM metro drivers (they seem to delight in making the doors slam shut just as people are entering the trains), it’s a shame that the STM doesn’t save on operating costs and let the trains operate themselves. It doesn’t cause any issues in Vancouver, which has a significantly higher on-time performance than Montreal’s metro. I’ve also never experienced door issues there, whereas in Montreal I’ve witnessed many occasions where the doors slam shut with passengers still in the threshold. There have also been incidences in Montreal where the trains go from one station to another with the doors still open!

Passenger Screen Doors are not a pre-requisite for automation, and result in many benefits. They prevent debris from accumulating on the tracks, which is a major cause of delays and drives track maintenance costs. They prevent people from committing suicide (something that occurs fairly often but is not publicized), and prevent other person-on-tracks incidences (e.g. someone going down to retrieve something). They allow more efficient climatisation of the stations, and prevent the accumulation of brake dust in the air in the stations (a recent report showed high levels of particulate matter in the air in subway stations, comparable to China’s air quality.) They also provide safety in the event of crowding. Overall they improve the reliability of the system, which is a significant benefit for their cost.

By: Julien Gatien

Julien Gatien — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 15:15:57 +0000

Great article as usual.
I believe one of the main reason for service slowdown is due to track obstruction at the stations from customers which platform screen doors would prevent.
So the service increased reliability should be factored in when analysing their cost.

By: Fraser Harris

Fraser Harris — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:11:55 +0000

Vancouver is the obvious counter-example for requiring platform screen doors. The biggest benefit of ATO is it enables all-day frequency, which equates to freedom for users to live their lives without working to a timetable. Skytrain’s frequency at say 1a on a Saturday night is every 2 minutes. No system with drivers comes close to matching that.