Comments on: Calling for an MTA technology czar http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/08/17/calling-for-an-mta-tech-czar/ A New York City Subway Blog Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:51:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Marc Ebuna http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/08/17/calling-for-an-mta-tech-czar/#comment-63943 Marc Ebuna Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:25:54 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3675#comment-63943 Having studied IT during my time at RPI, I'm not unfamiliar with the fact that businesses and most anyone whose job it isn't to actually manage computer systems takes IT for granted and is usually the first to go or get downsized when organizations are in a pinch. I've read countless business cases where businesses suffer as a result of their short-sighted decision and then scramble to improve their IT resources because it's the very asset that allows them to compete in the market. While market competition isn't necessarily the MTA's priority, IT can certainly reduce operating and maintenance costs, but in order for this to happen, a significant amount of infrastructure needs to be upgraded and integrated and this comes at a cost. From the perspective as an IT professional, the biggest challenge I see any CTO of the MTA facing is convincing EVERYONE that the invisible components of IT (read: infrastructure), the components upon which a lot of service-enhancing technologies are based, are well worth the investment. The second largest challenge the CTO will face will be dealing with IT projects integrating with tight, damp, century-old infrastructure and concrete caverns. Finding someone who is resourceful with experience in dealing with leading projects in unorthodox IT operating environments should be paramount, as unfamiliarity with the MTA's operating environment and infrastructure seems to be the main reason construction and technology-based projects continually get redesigned and delayed. Having studied IT during my time at RPI, I’m not unfamiliar with the fact that businesses and most anyone whose job it isn’t to actually manage computer systems takes IT for granted and is usually the first to go or get downsized when organizations are in a pinch. I’ve read countless business cases where businesses suffer as a result of their short-sighted decision and then scramble to improve their IT resources because it’s the very asset that allows them to compete in the market.

While market competition isn’t necessarily the MTA’s priority, IT can certainly reduce operating and maintenance costs, but in order for this to happen, a significant amount of infrastructure needs to be upgraded and integrated and this comes at a cost. From the perspective as an IT professional, the biggest challenge I see any CTO of the MTA facing is convincing EVERYONE that the invisible components of IT (read: infrastructure), the components upon which a lot of service-enhancing technologies are based, are well worth the investment.

The second largest challenge the CTO will face will be dealing with IT projects integrating with tight, damp, century-old infrastructure and concrete caverns. Finding someone who is resourceful with experience in dealing with leading projects in unorthodox IT operating environments should be paramount, as unfamiliarity with the MTA’s operating environment and infrastructure seems to be the main reason construction and technology-based projects continually get redesigned and delayed.

]]> By: StationStops http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/08/17/calling-for-an-mta-tech-czar/#comment-63843 StationStops Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:30:02 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3675#comment-63843 Don't even get me started on this subject. *smoke arises from ears* Don’t even get me started on this subject.
*smoke arises from ears*

]]> By: George http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/08/17/calling-for-an-mta-tech-czar/#comment-63822 George Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:43:17 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3675#comment-63822 Its certainly not easy work, that's why they are spending so much money on it. However, by spending hundreds of millions of dollars into a technology that other systems have adopted (such as cellphone access) and not getting any returns whatsoever is pathetic. The MTA's adaptation is technology is woeful, and the age of the system is absolutely no excuse, for example, for having a website in 2009 that looks like a GeoCities page from 1997. Its certainly not easy work, that’s why they are spending so much money on it. However, by spending hundreds of millions of dollars into a technology that other systems have adopted (such as cellphone access) and not getting any returns whatsoever is pathetic. The MTA’s adaptation is technology is woeful, and the age of the system is absolutely no excuse, for example, for having a website in 2009 that looks like a GeoCities page from 1997.

]]> By: Peter http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/08/17/calling-for-an-mta-tech-czar/#comment-63821 Peter Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:26:10 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3675#comment-63821 Grafting 21st Century technology onto a 19th Century System (and the IRT portions of the Subway were designed in the 1890s, with the 'newer' portions not far behind) is far more easily said than done. One of the major hurdles of introducing the MetroCard was that NONE of the 260+ stations had sufficient electricial capacity to even power all the equipment needed for the Automated Fare Control ("AFC") system, much less wiring and equipment needed to process & transmit the data. Certainly the designers of the IRT - which remember, operated with TICKETS, not tokens - couldnt conceive of digital technology, much less set aside space for it. That the Computer Based Train Control (CBTC) system including those oft-discussed digital train arrival displays is on the Canarsie Line, a later BMT route that not directly intersecting any other line is not a coincidence. The L train terminates at the (relatively) huge 8th Ave& 14th St terminal, within a (also relatively) cavernous IND station, with space available for wiring & equipment. Such equipment & wiring cannot easily be grafted onto IRT infrastructure. There is simply NO room. Even the Canarsie CBTC project required expensive acquisition of private property outside the Subway to construct signal & equipment rooms. Adding interoperable State-or-The-Art signalling and communications to a 700 mile-long 100-year-old subway is not like going to BestBuy for a wifi setup. Grafting 21st Century technology onto a 19th Century System (and the IRT portions of the Subway were designed in the 1890s, with the ‘newer’ portions not far behind) is far more easily said than done.
One of the major hurdles of introducing the MetroCard was that NONE of the 260+ stations had sufficient electricial capacity to even power all the equipment needed for the Automated Fare Control (“AFC”) system, much less wiring and equipment needed to process & transmit the data.
Certainly the designers of the IRT – which remember, operated with TICKETS, not tokens – couldnt conceive of digital technology, much less set aside space for it.
That the Computer Based Train Control (CBTC) system including those oft-discussed digital train arrival displays is on the Canarsie Line, a later BMT route that not directly intersecting any other line is not a coincidence. The L train terminates at the (relatively) huge 8th Ave& 14th St terminal, within a (also relatively) cavernous IND station, with space available for wiring & equipment.
Such equipment & wiring cannot easily be grafted onto IRT infrastructure. There is simply NO room. Even the Canarsie CBTC project required expensive acquisition of private property outside the Subway to construct signal & equipment rooms.
Adding interoperable State-or-The-Art signalling and communications to a 700 mile-long 100-year-old subway is not like going to BestBuy for a wifi setup.

]]> By: anonymouse http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/08/17/calling-for-an-mta-tech-czar/#comment-63813 anonymouse Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:39:29 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3675#comment-63813 Software is not easy! People seem to think that it is, even (especially?) people selling their services writing software. Consider, for example, the Metrocard: the MTA got that one pretty much right: it's reliable, it's secure, it mostly just works. You'd think that Boston's CharlieTicket would just be a metrocard knockoff. But no, they didn't learn the lesson, and as a result made a system that basically has no security and makes it trivial to give yourself free rides if you can rewrite the magstripe. Or look at the TransLink smart-card system in the SF Bay Area. They've been working on the system since what, 2002? And they've rolled it out in a "limited test" on BART only this month. With any luck, they might get it deployed on all the major local transit systems by 2012, but nobody has any faith in their schedules anymore. The Translink hardware has been on Caltrain for at least 2 years now, it's just a matter of software and possibly politics to get the system working. Software is not easy! People seem to think that it is, even (especially?) people selling their services writing software. Consider, for example, the Metrocard: the MTA got that one pretty much right: it’s reliable, it’s secure, it mostly just works. You’d think that Boston’s CharlieTicket would just be a metrocard knockoff. But no, they didn’t learn the lesson, and as a result made a system that basically has no security and makes it trivial to give yourself free rides if you can rewrite the magstripe. Or look at the TransLink smart-card system in the SF Bay Area. They’ve been working on the system since what, 2002? And they’ve rolled it out in a “limited test” on BART only this month. With any luck, they might get it deployed on all the major local transit systems by 2012, but nobody has any faith in their schedules anymore. The Translink hardware has been on Caltrain for at least 2 years now, it’s just a matter of software and possibly politics to get the system working.

]]>