The Coming Disruption of Transport

[2transpo]

And this right here is where the hostility comes from.

The problem is that urbanists are stubborn and set in their ways. They refuse to accept that there may be more efficient and innovative solution and are married to a specific way of doing things.

Take for example the talk of restoring the Northlander. People cite the Northlander as an important mode of public transport, especially for older people and those with limited ability to drive a car. Here is the question though; is having an expenseive and highly subsidized service that runs on a hard schedule and has slow journey times the best solution? Think about it this way. A person in North Bay has a medical appointment in Toronto in the mid Afternoon. What would be better for them? Taking an 8 am train down to Toronto, or hailing a small, solo-occupancy autonomous vehicle on their phone to leave closer to their appointment?

The answer is abundantly clear. In addition, the ride hailing option is much cheaper from a societal perspective as it requires no subsidy due to expensive infrastructure and high fixed costs.

This isn't some far off future, this is happening now and companies like Waymo and Mobileye are spearheading this revolution. Waymo just went through a leadership shakeup in order to start aggressively deploying AVs. San Francisco is their next target.

Instead of trying to restart the Northlander, why not establish Ontario as a mass, unrestricted testing site for autonomous vehicles which would have much more societal benefit?

See, but urbanists don't like that because urbansists use the term "urbanist" to make it seem as though they are interested in more than just trains and railways.

 

[crs1026]

The answer is abundantly clear. In addition, the ride hailing option is much cheaper from a societal perspective as it requires no subsidy due to expensive infrastructure and high fixed costs.

What an absurd statement. You actually are claiming that the North Bay-Toronto highway is an unsubsidized, inexpensive infrastructure with low fixed costs?

There is definitely a pot and a kettle here. You are arguing that because we have a road system, there is no cost to society in stuffing it full of AV's. And you feel that people who advocate towards transit, especially rail based transit, are fixated and not receptive to considering all-in costs and benefits?

Better check your argument, the trouble light just came on.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

urbanfuturist/urbanperson, is that you?

MoD

 

[afransen]

Take for example the talk of restoring the Northlander. People cite the Northlander as an important mode of public transport, especially for older people and those with limited ability to drive a car. Here is the question though; is having an expenseive and highly subsidized service that runs on a hard schedule and has slow journey times the best solution? Think about it this way. A person in North Bay has a medical appointment in Toronto in the mid Afternoon. What would be better for them? Taking an 8 am train down to Toronto, or hailing a small, solo-occupancy autonomous vehicle on their phone to leave closer to their appointment?

I think the relevant model here is Tesloop as a proto-EV minibus service for intercity travel. They used Tesla Model S/X to bring passengers between LA and San Diego (200km).

Tesloop: Rent a Tesla to drive from San Diego to LA for $49

It might break some San Diegans’ budgets to buy a Tesla, but renting one is a different story.

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

Smaller scale frequent service is likely to be profitable and more convenient for users. They were making this business model work with luxury vehicles that aren't optimized for this kind of service. A true minibus could work much better. You would see configurations optimized for shorter urban trips and longer highway trips like North Bay to Toronto. The only challenge is that with more passengers and lack of on-board facilities you would have to stop more frequently for restroom breaks on long trips.

 

[afransen]

What an absurd statement. You actually are claiming that the North Bay-Toronto highway is an unsubsidized, inexpensive infrastructure with low fixed costs?

There is definitely a pot and a kettle here. You are arguing that because we have a road system, there is no cost to society in stuffing it full of AV's. And you feel that people who advocate towards transit, especially rail based transit, are fixated and not receptive to considering all-in costs and benefits?

Better check your argument, the trouble light just came on.

- Paul

The infrastructure exists, it's just using it for incremental service.

I think we'll need road pricing to manage AEVs demands on the road network. Busy corridors will warrant rail service. North Bay to Toronto is not and likely never will be a busy corridor to justify the expense of rail service. There isn't enough travel demand to make it possible to offer a competitive level of service.

 

[crs1026]

The infrastructure exists, it's just using it for incremental service.

I think we'll need road pricing to manage AEVs demands on the road network. Busy corridors will warrant rail service. North Bay to Toronto is not and likely never will be a busy corridor to justify the expense of rail service. There isn't enough travel demand to make it possible to offer a competitive level of service.

That’s the perspective that is lacking from the discussion... what will be the pricing be, and how much will that pricing be manipulated to factor in other things, and how does that affect modal demand. I can believe that AVs will change that balance - but The assumption that AV’s will be cheap and everything else isn’t is just too simplistic.
The GTA is so close to gridlock that adding even a single AV of modal shift is problemmatic.
I can certainly grasp that AV rideshare might be cheaper to offer than the Northlander.... but the pricing might still argue for the AV to drop off at the Allandale GO, taking RER the rest of the way.

- Paul

 

[DirectionNorth]

The problem is that urbanists are stubborn and set in their ways. They refuse to accept that there may be more efficient and innovative solution and are married to a specific way of doing things.

Take for example the talk of restoring the Northlander. People cite the Northlander as an important mode of public transport, especially for older people and those with limited ability to drive a car. Here is the question though; is having an expenseive and highly subsidized service that runs on a hard schedule and has slow journey times the best solution? Think about it this way. A person in North Bay has a medical appointment in Toronto in the mid Afternoon. What would be better for them? Taking an 8 am train down to Toronto, or hailing a small, solo-occupancy autonomous vehicle on their phone to leave closer to their appointment?

The answer is abundantly clear. In addition, the ride hailing option is much cheaper from a societal perspective as it requires no subsidy due to expensive infrastructure and high fixed costs.

This isn't some far off future, this is happening now and companies like Waymo and Mobileye are spearheading this revolution. Waymo just went through a leadership shakeup in order to start aggressively deploying AVs. San Francisco is their next target.

Instead of trying to restart the Northlander, why not establish Ontario as a mass, unrestricted testing site for autonomous vehicles which would have much more societal benefit?

See, but urbanists don't like that because urbansists use the term "urbanist" to make it seem as though they are interested in more than just trains and railways.

Just because something is new, does not make it better.

The problem is that urbanists are stubborn and set in their ways. They refuse to accept that there may be more efficient and innovative solution and are married to a specific way of doing things.

OK, first attack. My problem with AVs is not that I'm married to a train, it's that everyone driving AVs would increase road usage to a breaking point. The Yonge Line carries as many people as the 401, but uses much less room to do so.

Take for example the talk of restoring the Northlander. People cite the Northlander as an important mode of public transport, especially for older people and those with limited ability to drive a car. Here is the question though; is having an expenseive and highly subsidized service that runs on a hard schedule and has slow journey times the best solution? Think about it this way. A person in North Bay has a medical appointment in Toronto in the mid Afternoon. What would be better for them? Taking an 8 am train down to Toronto, or hailing a small, solo-occupancy autonomous vehicle on their phone to leave closer to their appointment?

I have no opinion on the Northlander, though I lean towards the bus service side.

The answer is abundantly clear. In addition, the ride hailing option is much cheaper from a societal perspective as it requires no subsidy due to expensive infrastructure and high fixed costs.

Roads require a subsidy. I seriously doubt that ride hailing, even in AVs, will be much more popular than Uber today.

This isn't some far off future, this is happening now and companies like Waymo and Mobileye are spearheading this revolution. Waymo just went through a leadership shakeup in order to start aggressively deploying AVs. San Francisco is their next target.

I think the best use for AVs is on low-demand corridors; they don't have to have a fixed corridor like buses.

Instead of trying to restart the Northlander, why not establish Ontario as a mass, unrestricted testing site for autonomous vehicles which would have much more societal benefit?

See Northlander comment above. Remember, everyone having AVs would increase congestion, increasing cost to society.

See, but urbanists don't like that because urbansists use the term "urbanist" to make it seem as though they are interested in more than just trains and railways.

Wow. Comments like these are very helpful to the discussion.

 

[MrGoose]

See, but urbanists don't like that because urbansists use the term "urbanist" to make it seem as though they are interested in more than just trains and railways.

Why would I want our roads to be ultra congested with AEVs? I want to be able to walk to the grocery store, talk to my neighbors along the way. Maybe an environment where my kids can ride their bikes around the neighborhood/ go to school, give them a level of independence at a young age.

Maybe I enjoy the environment and feel that a denser urban environment allows me to enjoy all the benefits of urban life with nature and countryside only a 30 minute drive away instead of sprawl from London to Kingston and from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe.

Maybe, I believe in social interactions between people, instead of atomizing individuals in their own cars, their own 100ft Mcmansions.

Maybe I want to reclaim city streets as public places, not as concrete deserts, getting cars from point A to B

Maybe I don't want to pay Uber AEV 150$ a month to get around the city.

Yea, trains and railways are really important to what I want, because they're more energy efficient, more space efficient ways of getting around compared to cars.


Yea, maybe AEVs can provide a painless journey for people, but at what cost to society? Doubling the width of the DVP to accommodate all the AEV commuters? Being prevented from enjoying the city because I am relegated to pedestrian gutters along AEV super highways?

The problem is that urbanists are stubborn and set in their ways. They refuse to accept that there may be more efficient and innovative solution and are married to a specific way of doing things.

Maybe the problem is that you're married to a self-centered anti-social corporatist way of thought and refuse to believe that a better car-free/car-lite future is possible or even desirable.

 

[afransen]

Roads require a subsidy. I seriously doubt that ride hailing, even in AVs, will be much more popular than Uber today.

This is far too pessimistic. Uber costs around $1.25/km (using their fare estimator and a random 33 km trip). A privately owned vehicle costs around $0.50-0.60/km total cost of ownership. An autonomous electric vehicle can operate for something like $0.20/km (this could be driven quite low for a vehicle optimized for single occupant rides, too). It could offer rides at $0.40/km and undercut nearly all private car ownership and make good money. We may need to introduce road pricing, but that will add to the cost of private cars at nearly the same rate (AEVs will have non-revenue dead head kms between rides). Where things become very powerful is when you add pooled rides to the mix. If you can get average vehicle occupancy up to 3 passengers, that AEV can sell rides for $0.15/passenger km. Then for a 30 km ride we are in the range of public transit fare territory. You could go from Mississauga City Centre to North York Centre with a one seat ride in less than half the time of transit trip for a similar fare. Service could be very frequent between high demand centres. For low demand pairs, maybe you get brought to a mobility centre as a last mile service, to then get matched with other passengers. Or you spring for more for a solo ride to save the hassle. And I imagine passenger behaviour will get policed by a bit of a social credit score (like your Uber star rating). If you fall too low you might be relegated to solo trips only at higher cost.

 

[crs1026]

Where things become very powerful is when you add pooled rides to the mix. If you can get average vehicle occupancy up to 3 passengers, that AEV can sell rides for $0.15/passenger km. Then for a 30 km ride we are in the range of public transit fare territory. You could go from Mississauga City Centre to North York Centre with a one seat ride in less than half the time of transit trip for a similar fare.

It sounds like maybe all we are arguing about is the size of the bus.....a smaller vehicle arriving every ten minutes would beat a large vehicle every 20 minutes.
There will still likely be a trunk network....once you have a large vehicle arriving every five minutes, halving the load into smaller vehicles no longer adds value,
unless you can parse some of those customers off into smaller more granular destinations, possibly including first/last mile.
Reducing all of that traffic to single passenger AV’s may be an extreme with costs that exceed benefit.. Anywhere you have volume, the sweet spot for cost per seat will veer towards larger volume vehicles.
I can envision the York U bus terminal having plenty of smaller AV’s, but I can’t see many being car sized. And the individualised destinations might be better managed near the other end of the journey, at a transfer hub.... so you can add in shoppers coming home from the Eaton center to students coming home from York.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

Dumb, practical question: Has anybody proven a full AV on snow-covered roads?

 

[crs1026]

Dumb, practical question: Has anybody proven a full AV on snow-covered roads?

Taught an AV to drive down an empty snow covered road? Yes. There’s video on Youtube, but I can’tlook it up right now. (It basically tracked and straddled the centerline of the road)

Taught an AV to find the clearest/safest lane on the 401 during snowfall/blowing snow when the plows haven’t cleared the road yet?

I doubt it.

- Paul

 

[afransen]

There will still likely be a trunk network....once you have a large vehicle arriving every five minutes, halving the load into smaller vehicles no longer adds value,
unless you can parse some of those customers off into smaller more granular destinations, possibly including first/last mile.

This. Buses have a hard time competing with cars on trunk routes when they have many people getting on and off continuously. You want to bundle riders into a trip with mostly the same origin and destination, with no stops in the middle. Essentially a dynamically scheduled/routed bus matched to demand. Big buses are actually quite inefficient when they operate with low utilization.

 

[TRONto]

Domino's pizzas now delivered with autonomous cars in Houston

Thanks to a new partnership with Nuro, customers can request a robocar delivery.

www.cnet.com

Who wants pizza?

 

[afransen]

Talk on confluence of AEVs and road pricing.

He talks about the importance of carpooling to reduce cost per km, rather than just improving the utilization of a car. He kind of waves away the cost of car storage (parking) as something that is 'free' in suburbs, but it is really rather expensive to provide all the parking we do. Would not be surprised if it represents a significant percentage of the private cost of ownership; that we spend thousands per year per car on car storage as a society, between employers, retailers, wider streets, etc.