No doubt the RMT will take the blame for this but as the article points out:
> It’s now been confirmed that the study reached the same conclusion that every other study into the issue has already reported — it’ll cost an awful lot of money for very little benefit.
I wish they'd kept conductors on buses but that ship left 3 decades ago. Some of my fondest memories are the conductors on Melbourne's ageing W class wooden trams.
Trains feel like something where drivers and conductors and platform staff are a social good. We're beyond cost at this point, it's about public utility.
I think the combination of driverless trains and automated platform screen doors is the gold-standard for new metro-like systems. The new REM in Montréal is able to have very high frequencies with much lower cost, so transit users should be able to get more transit for the same cost and the municipality isn't worried about the burden of high operating costs for the next century. The platform screen doors are great too, anyone who's taken the Metro enough has had to wait for hours because someone has fallen onto or committed suicide on the track, which feels like such a sad problem to have when the solution exists.
Also the ratio of driver to passenger especially compared to say a taxi, is negligible so the amortized cost is basically zero. That said, they’re not exactly useful on trains, you don’t chit chat with the man in the armored cab.
The conductor wages over the system as a whole are a large part of operating costs. Another issue you can have is a lack of conductors, which is a big issue in the Netherlands apparently.
More to the point, staffing isn't setting the price of transport, it's subsidised almost everywhere. Sure. It's a cost. The cost:benefit here is more than just apparent budget impact because public transport is a utility function.
> It’s now been confirmed that the study reached the same conclusion that every other study into the issue has already reported — it’ll cost an awful lot of money for very little benefit.
reply