/general/ | /photos/ | /projects/

- [Home] [Catalog] [Search] [Thread List] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Link
Subject [
Comment
File
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 12000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File: tram.jpg -(723.2 KB, 1704x2272) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
740551 No.8240  
Guys, I fucking love trams, and I'm thinking about becoming a tram driver. Bad idea?
>> No.8764  
I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Someone has to do it. It would really be better if the person doing it derived some form of pleasure from the job, you know?
>> No.56588  
you'll probably hate trams after a year or two
>> No.56609  
Public transportation is the first industry to go fully automatic once they figure out self-driving cars. There will be mass unemployment when that hits the market.
But if you can keep other venues of employment open, go for it.
>> No.56611  
>>56609
I'm actually kind of dubious of this. As someone who uses public transport/biking as basically my only means of transport, I've heard many a conversation from public servants about the plights of public transport workers, and a lot of them don't even pertain to transport itself. Public servants aren't just regular workers, they're authority figures, glorified babysitters, really. And a lot of the folks who use public transport, I assure you, can get really infantile. I don't know what precisely the preponderance of that is, but I suspect that what automated transport would entail is far more that just a paradigm shift in economic terms.
>> No.56614  
>>56609
>>56611
Aren't modern airplanes basically fully automatic, and haven't they been like that for ages? We still have pilots who usually do very little, just in case shit goes wrong so we don't suddenly have tons of people dying because the technology cannot sufficiently adapt to unexpected circumstances.
>> No.56618  
>>56609
There are already cars that you can drive yourself and yet poor people like >>56611 still use public transit. So there will probably still be the same number of buses, and as >>56614 points out there will be a human operator on board for legal reasons.
At a certain point the AI driver becomes statistically safer than the human driver and that person gets phased out, but somehow I doubt driver salaries are a significant cost compared to the overall operations budget for a bus service, so that would not be an instant adoption either and these people would have time to retrain for other careers. Similar to airline pilots, really, autopilot is afaik already good enough but they're an insignificant cost to retain and it would be more expensive to lobby governments to allow their removal.
Human drivers would still exist as a luxury or tourist service, the way horses are still around today.
>> No.56620  
>>56618
>but somehow I doubt driver salaries are a significant cost compared to the overall operations budget for a bus service
Are you sure, at least for smaller public transport like buses? People are pretty expensive, and a bus doesn't carry all that many passengers. I'd assume the driver costs more than the fuel and the bus maintenance combined.

Also, public transit isn't only for poor people. I heard the US's public transit system is horrible, but some places have pretty good public transit, and as public transit takes you to your destination without any effort of your own (meaning you can do other stuff in that time, like browse the internet or play video games; stuff you can't do while driving a car) it may be a more pleasant alternative if it takes you close enough to your destination and it isn't too busy (in other words, if the public transit system is decent).
>> No.56621  
>>56620
Bus drivers can't be making much more than minimum wage. It's like the ultimate unskilled labor job, even flipping burgers takes more expertise (since you have to drive to McDonalds first AND flip the burger).
I assume sanitation is the most expensive part of running a bus.
>> No.56623  
>>56621
I looked it up, and it looks like US bus drivers do indeed get paid complete shit (median $20,662 a year according to http://www1.salary.com/Bus-Driver-salary.html ). In my country they get paid a lot better (median EUR 2275 a month before taxes (https://loonwijzer.nl/home/salaris/salarischeck?job-id=8331010000000#/); about EUR 1850 a month after taxes (~$2190 a month); they also get an additional 8% of their yearly salary in May (legally required extra pay to cover vacation costs). I guess underpaying your drivers is a good first step to a shitty public transit system.

Even so, from a company costs perspective the difference between $20k a year or $30k a year isn't that big; the $20k is still a huge expense. If you could save $20k a year per concurrently active bus (as each one needs a separate driver) by replacing the drivers with computers, I'm sure that becomes interesting pretty quickly.
>> No.56632  
File: 1411430605124.jpg -(21.9 KB, 480x332) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
22476
>>56623
> from a company costs perspective the difference between $20k a year or $30k a year isn't that big

That's not a company costs perspective. You've clearly never actually worked for a company as anything other than a disposable peon.

You have 50 bus drivers covering two shifts, increasing their pay by 10k each costs 500k per year, and raises the payroll tax by about another 6% on top of that each year, matching 401k contributions also raise that up another 5%, and then the company needs to forecast the pension payout increase and raise the amount of quarterly liquid capitol needed on hand. Where are they going to get that additional money while remaining competitively priced?
>> No.56633  
>>56632
My point was the opposite: If $30k per driver counts as a big expense, so does $20k. If $20k is a trivial expense, $30k isn't all that much more and would not suddenly become a reason to cut costs in that department where previously it was completely unappealing to remove those costs (as >>56618 >>56621 claims). Regardless of whether bus drives get paid $30k or $20k, entirely removing those costs from the equation should be a significant cost reduction unless overall expenses are so high that $20k/$30k is trivial in comparison.
>> No.56634  
>>56632
>>56633
I can't speak for bus drivers, of course, but I work for a company which is happy to pay hundreds of thousands in salary but too stingy to modernize equipment for mere tens of thousands. Procurement is truly mysterious.

>Diesel buses are the most common type of bus in the United States, and they cost around $300,000 per vehicle, although a recent purchase by the Chicago Transit Authority found them paying almost $600,000 per diesel bus.Jul 10, 2017
t. google
These things are replaced every 10-20 years, so effectively the bus price (without maintenance and upkeep) is on par with that of the driver. I expected it to be considerably more. Maybe you do have a point about the incentive to dispose of drivers.
>> No.56652  
http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/konzern/im_blickpunkt/15970884/20171025_autonomes_fahrzeug.html

Unfortunately not available in english, but the main german rail corporation just launched its first automated shuttle bus - still including a bus attendant just in case, but I believe that job is neither well-paying nor sustainable.
>> No.56674  
>>8240
http://www.hoftrammm.nl/
It's a tram you can dine in. Too bad you all eat the same thing from the menu, which changes monthly but is still pretentious pseudo-richfaggery.

>>56614
No, not really. A flight starts by route planning and reading current weather and forecasts (METAR/TAF), also reading alerts on flight restrictions imposed due to security of VIPs on ground (Presidents/Kings/Queens). Fuel calculations for the route are done as well.

Any checklists performed at ANY point of the flight are done by the pilots. Getting the plane online and ready for fueling/passengers, gotta pushback and taxi, gotta talk with ground/ATC and get clearances. And when you finally are ready for throttle up? Only then can an autopilot help you, but only after you're off the ground and in a steady climb.

APs don't protect against CFIT/pilot error.

And I don't know if you can land with an AP, probably not. You CAN follow an ILS glideslope though, but that probably won't flare you? I don't know, man. I ain't a pilot or expert.

Either way: APs aren't magic.
>> No.56675  
>>56674
All of those things seem like something that can be done by a computer right now. Especially the mumbling into the intercom bit.


Delete Post []
Password