afransen
Senior Member
Political non-starter. Do you think we could sell this when other cities are enjoying the economic benefits?
|
|
|
The Coming Disruption of Transport
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
MrGoose
Active Member
Yea, Vancouver banned uber for many years, same with London.
There is no reason why we couldn't ban something that other cities have.
Why haven't we banned SFH zoning yet or implemented pro-bike policies like the netherlands?
afransen
Senior Member
Great synthesis. I'm frankly rather astonished that policymakers aren't even beginning to reckon with this disruption.
One hope I would have is that eventually (it will take time) the form factor of AEVs change a bit. Local trips are done more in very light, 1-2 passengers low speed vehicles. They can use narrower lanes and because they are not so heavy, place a much lower maintenance burden on roads. In some countries, vehicles like this are used by disabled people (a micro car) to get around on bike lanes.
Canta (vehicle) - Wikipedia
I wonder how heavy goods vehicles will play into this, as shrinking passenger vehicles won't help us if roads still need to accommodate heavy goods vehicles. Eliminating the driver does reduce the imperative for larger vehicles, though larger vehicles still have a cost advantage. So maybe more goods deliveries are completed on smaller vehicles.
afransen
Senior Member
Vancouver repealed its Uber/Lyft ban. Most of the objections were around the treatment of drivers, obviously not applicable to AVs.
Why haven't SFHs been banned? The public would not support it. They haven't been banned in NL either. Pro-bike policies are very slow in coming, but they are coming.
MisterF
Senior Member
Every technological advancement has put people out of work and companies out of business. Think of what Apple and Samsung did to Nokia. What cars did to the horse and buggy industry and railways. What the jet engine did to ocean liners. Massive sectors of the economy with countless employees, all gone. Yet there's no more unemployment now than in the past. Economies adapt.
crs1026
Superstar
^ Great summary. I would add the need for some scheme to balance supply and demand. eg How do we ensure that there are enough AV’s on hand when the Leafs game lets out? And if the Royal Alex lets out at the same time ? How much loading ramp capacity should a venue require, to avoid lineups.... this becomes a building code issue as well as a street design problem.
In aggregate, parking capacity can shrink, but there will be needs for lots of pool lots. Just as there is a staging lot for Airport limos today. There will have to be “deadhead“ trips to balance supply across the city, but we don’t want empty vehicles circling endlessly while awaiting dispatch.
I would also expect that capacity tolling could be automated and made much more complex - a fare structure for each trip, some form of surge premium, etc.Trip time guarantees? The economics of bigger vehicles could give an advantage here.... charge by linear feet of vehicle, a 40 foot bus would pay much less per seat than 40 AV’s, so transit pricing might encourage omnibus routes.
Hopefully there would be a mechanism for regulating supply, also. Supply won’t be “democratized” if one or two large corporations are contracted in a monopolistic way to put vehicles on the roads. Similar to the problems of taxicab supply - Can a new startup or small investor put a few cars on the road? How are vehicles dispatched? Is there one central network dispatcher, or can I hail any brand I choose from my phone?
- Paul
In aggregate, parking capacity can shrink, but there will be needs for lots of pool lots. Just as there is a staging lot for Airport limos today. There will have to be “deadhead“ trips to balance supply across the city, but we don’t want empty vehicles circling endlessly while awaiting dispatch.
I would also expect that capacity tolling could be automated and made much more complex - a fare structure for each trip, some form of surge premium, etc.Trip time guarantees? The economics of bigger vehicles could give an advantage here.... charge by linear feet of vehicle, a 40 foot bus would pay much less per seat than 40 AV’s, so transit pricing might encourage omnibus routes.
Hopefully there would be a mechanism for regulating supply, also. Supply won’t be “democratized” if one or two large corporations are contracted in a monopolistic way to put vehicles on the roads. Similar to the problems of taxicab supply - Can a new startup or small investor put a few cars on the road? How are vehicles dispatched? Is there one central network dispatcher, or can I hail any brand I choose from my phone?
- Paul
2transpo
New Member
My biggest conclusion about autonomous vehicles, and I hate this, but rail is going to suffer more than any other mode of transport. In fact, it will likely be seen as the greatest disruption of transport in the modern era. Basically, rail is going to go the way of canals and ocean liners.
I have said this before, but I envisions that we will lose 70-80% of our rail network. We can say what we want about urban transport, but intercity on freeways is a different animal. There is a lot more tolerance for a greater amount of smaller vehicles on intercity freeways. Private freight rail will go extinct and what little remains will be nationalized and subsidized. Most intercity passenger trains, especially those like the Ocean will be discontinued as the economics of AVs will beat them hands down.
Again, I hate this, but you don't have to like it for it to be true.
I have said this before, but I envisions that we will lose 70-80% of our rail network. We can say what we want about urban transport, but intercity on freeways is a different animal. There is a lot more tolerance for a greater amount of smaller vehicles on intercity freeways. Private freight rail will go extinct and what little remains will be nationalized and subsidized. Most intercity passenger trains, especially those like the Ocean will be discontinued as the economics of AVs will beat them hands down.
Again, I hate this, but you don't have to like it for it to be true.
MrGoose
Active Member
I think we should create a division of Metrolinx to own and operate the GTAs passenger AEV fleet in combination with a large TfL like role for Metrolinx and amalgamated GTA transit.
So when a user wants to get downtown, they book a ride with Metrolinx. Then the Metrolinx central computer can dispatch an AEV to pick them off and drop them off at the nearest higher order transit station, right before the next train is due to leave. And on the other side, they can have an AEV waiting to pick them up.
Seamless door to door transit with AEV's operating as feeder routes for other transit routes like busses and trains.
2transpo
New Member
Something to remember if you watch the video at the top of this thread is that autonomous vehicles will reduce the total amount of vehicles on the road by 80%. In this case, why drop passengers off at a train station? Say for instance, this vehicle was picking up people in Hamilton; why not just drive all the way to Toronto? Why is the train involved?
MrGoose
Active Member
Because there isn’t enough street capacity to allow people to auto-commute into Downtown. I don’t know that AVs will reduce the total amount of vehicles by 80%. It seems like if we don’t change our urban landscape and prevent AVs from totally consuming our public transit, the number of vehicles is much more likely to increase by 80%.
Making driving easier will induce more people to drive rather than keeping people off the roads.
So using AVs to solve the last mile problem and retaining high capacity trunk lines is IMO the right way to incorporate AVs into our public transit service. From a consumers point of view, buses and trains are self driving vehicles. So just as we service lower demand routes with buses which feed into high capacity trunk lines ie subways and regional rail, we augment our existing public transit networks by servicing even lower demand routes with Autonomous shuttles.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Rail will always have it's purpose since each vehicle can carry more tonnage. What might happen is that instead of the different types of railway cars everything will become modular in a container. This way you can just pick it up and put it on a truck or ship or drop it off at the customers site.
And you can deliver it at a siding and transfer it to a truck where it can be brought to its final destination. This way you don't need the train to get to the last mile.
2transpo
New Member
People need to change the way they think about this. It won't be space-inefficient. Think of an open concept shuttle carrying 3-5 people. It cuts down on the number of vehicles you need immensely and allows for a point to point journey. Transferring people to trains adds a layer of complexity and time to the journey so should be avoided at all costs.
Also, traffic isn't as really caused by volume, but rather inconsistencies in human driving. CGP Grey explains here:
Last edited:
MrGoose
Active Member
Transferring people to trains is simple. There's a pick-up drop-off section for AV shuttles. The shuttle pulls up and you get off. A couple of minutes later your train arrives and you take the train downtown. If you're going elsewhere, when you arrive you head to the shuttle zone and take the AV shuttle your phone told you to take.
People manage to take the bus and subway everyday. I think that we could manage an auto shuttle-train transfer. Also in terms of scheduling, it should be doable to create an auto shuttle synced with train timetables. Why should transfers be avoided? It's unnecessary or inconvenient transfers that need to be limited. If we have a sufficiently comprehensive rapid transit network, then you would only need 2 transfers max. AV-RT-AV
You know what else would cut down on the number of vehicles you need? Ensuring that the suburban shuttles don't have to commute downtown everyday.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Interesting reading through the past few pages. AV's are coming but I don't think its the silver bullet to our problems as advocates of the technology like to claim.
The idea that AV's resolves congestion needs to be thrown out of the window immediately, or else we will enter an era of adoption of this disruptive technology with false expectations. There is every reason to expect that AV's will lead to more congestion as you are adding multiple more trips per vehicle compared to the present. Currently when someone drives to work, they leave their vehicle parked at their office's parking lot, and likewise when they return home, the vehicle is parked in their driveway. Where does the AV go when it is not being used? They may immediately go and pick someone else up, but afterwards when peak demand period is over, they must drive back to the AV parking garage (and depart from said garage for service in evening peak hours). That is multiple more trips you are adding per day, congesting our streets.
And no, you can't simultaneously size an AV fleet to serve as an all-day taxi service AND replace public transit + conventional car ownership model, jurisdictions must choose one or the other. Why? Because in order to replace public transit and conventional car ownership, the AV fleet must be sized to meet peak hour demand, or else people simply won't be able to get to work - and the fleet size required for peak hour is several magnitudes larger than the fleet you require for an all-day taxi service.
I think to get this right, jurisdictions must be very deliberate with what they are looking to accomplish with AVs. They cannot be thinking that embracing mass-adoption will magically resolve their problems because 'efficiency'. The suggestion that the GO rail corridors will be made obsolete for instance, is just silly. We are planning TOD around GO stations to point where the 1-2km radius surrounding GO station areas will in practice one-day be 20-30k mini-cities in their own right - I don't want to be transporting those people on highways to downtown Toronto. Rail capacity is much greater than highway capacity, and much much much much much greater capacity than the local road network. Instead, a jurisdiction should be planning around how to use AV ride sharing service to serve as first- and last-mile transit service for people to get to and from the GO station, which is actually a problem that could be solved with AVs.
Likewise, surface transit routes (buses specifically) need to be looked at with how they can be upgraded (read: not replaced!) with AVs. Toronto's successful surface transit network is largely successful in part due to our arterial grid network. My thinking is that upgrading buses with AV buses (unions be damned) will allow for increased efficiency, frequency, and operational regularity (no more bus bunching?) - and this is something that we can begin preparing for today by incrementally adopting features of BRT systems onto our arterial bus routes. Things like level boarding, signal priority, dedicated (or even separated) bus lanes, all-door boarding, off-board fare collection, would improve the attractiveness and operational efficiency of our bus corridors, regardless if the bus vehicle is autonomous or not. (AV technology doesn't resolve human induced problems like people lining up to board a bus). If I was in charge of transportation planning, I would also be deliberately looking at how AVs can be used for servicing areas such as business parks that are too impractical and costly to service with conventional surface routes, such as business parks. If an AV bus can pick up fifteen passengers at Don Mills station, and take the destination inputs of each passenger and design a route that drops each passenger off in front of their office building, while skipping every other designated stop on the route, that would be a game-changer for last-mile problems.
And finally, those advocating for transit technologies to resolve all our problems need to be careful that they don't repeat the mistakes of modernist era engineers, architects, and pioneers of industry. Efficiency =/= Quality. Simply upgrading the efficiency of our roadway network to highway systems did not improve the quality of our urban realm or quality of life within our cities. We lost a lot of space within our public realm in dedication to our automobile gods and we're only beginning to come to grips with that in North America. And I definitely worry that AVs will spur a new wave of urban sprawl. But, I believe there is an opportunity here to be deliberately planning for a future with AVs that includes a reclaiming of the public realm from vehicles. No more surface parking in built-up areas, on-street parking, driveways, dedication of lanes to public transit routes (that may be operating with AV technology), as well as a significant trimming of road ROW including full pedestrianizing of some roads. However, these outcomes if desired, won't be achieved by rushing headfirst into mass AV adoption.
The idea that AV's resolves congestion needs to be thrown out of the window immediately, or else we will enter an era of adoption of this disruptive technology with false expectations. There is every reason to expect that AV's will lead to more congestion as you are adding multiple more trips per vehicle compared to the present. Currently when someone drives to work, they leave their vehicle parked at their office's parking lot, and likewise when they return home, the vehicle is parked in their driveway. Where does the AV go when it is not being used? They may immediately go and pick someone else up, but afterwards when peak demand period is over, they must drive back to the AV parking garage (and depart from said garage for service in evening peak hours). That is multiple more trips you are adding per day, congesting our streets.
And no, you can't simultaneously size an AV fleet to serve as an all-day taxi service AND replace public transit + conventional car ownership model, jurisdictions must choose one or the other. Why? Because in order to replace public transit and conventional car ownership, the AV fleet must be sized to meet peak hour demand, or else people simply won't be able to get to work - and the fleet size required for peak hour is several magnitudes larger than the fleet you require for an all-day taxi service.
I think to get this right, jurisdictions must be very deliberate with what they are looking to accomplish with AVs. They cannot be thinking that embracing mass-adoption will magically resolve their problems because 'efficiency'. The suggestion that the GO rail corridors will be made obsolete for instance, is just silly. We are planning TOD around GO stations to point where the 1-2km radius surrounding GO station areas will in practice one-day be 20-30k mini-cities in their own right - I don't want to be transporting those people on highways to downtown Toronto. Rail capacity is much greater than highway capacity, and much much much much much greater capacity than the local road network. Instead, a jurisdiction should be planning around how to use AV ride sharing service to serve as first- and last-mile transit service for people to get to and from the GO station, which is actually a problem that could be solved with AVs.
Likewise, surface transit routes (buses specifically) need to be looked at with how they can be upgraded (read: not replaced!) with AVs. Toronto's successful surface transit network is largely successful in part due to our arterial grid network. My thinking is that upgrading buses with AV buses (unions be damned) will allow for increased efficiency, frequency, and operational regularity (no more bus bunching?) - and this is something that we can begin preparing for today by incrementally adopting features of BRT systems onto our arterial bus routes. Things like level boarding, signal priority, dedicated (or even separated) bus lanes, all-door boarding, off-board fare collection, would improve the attractiveness and operational efficiency of our bus corridors, regardless if the bus vehicle is autonomous or not. (AV technology doesn't resolve human induced problems like people lining up to board a bus). If I was in charge of transportation planning, I would also be deliberately looking at how AVs can be used for servicing areas such as business parks that are too impractical and costly to service with conventional surface routes, such as business parks. If an AV bus can pick up fifteen passengers at Don Mills station, and take the destination inputs of each passenger and design a route that drops each passenger off in front of their office building, while skipping every other designated stop on the route, that would be a game-changer for last-mile problems.
And finally, those advocating for transit technologies to resolve all our problems need to be careful that they don't repeat the mistakes of modernist era engineers, architects, and pioneers of industry. Efficiency =/= Quality. Simply upgrading the efficiency of our roadway network to highway systems did not improve the quality of our urban realm or quality of life within our cities. We lost a lot of space within our public realm in dedication to our automobile gods and we're only beginning to come to grips with that in North America. And I definitely worry that AVs will spur a new wave of urban sprawl. But, I believe there is an opportunity here to be deliberately planning for a future with AVs that includes a reclaiming of the public realm from vehicles. No more surface parking in built-up areas, on-street parking, driveways, dedication of lanes to public transit routes (that may be operating with AV technology), as well as a significant trimming of road ROW including full pedestrianizing of some roads. However, these outcomes if desired, won't be achieved by rushing headfirst into mass AV adoption.
crs1026
Superstar
The peak scenario is a good one to consider. Replacing GO with AV to bring people to Skydome will not result in 80% fewer vehicles on the road. It will result in a sudden surge demand that will suck all available AV’s out of the downtown whenthe event ends.
Anyone who has been to a sports venue in the US knows what happens after the game. Those venues are usually surrounded by acrea and acres of parking lots. People flood out of the venue at game end, and dissipate across the parking lots. The huge expanse of these lots is what solves congestion....well, until everyone has found their car and started their engines. Some venues are much better than others in laying out access roads to drain the parking lots, but it can be a long slow creep to get onto a major thoroughfare.
Now imagine trying to do that on Bremner Ave. Imagine the loading area that would be required to promptly fill even 15,000 3-person shared AV’s after a sold-out event at Skydome. There just isn’t the curb space to fulfil that demand. Without transit, the AV loading area would extend from Spadina to York and from Front to Queens Quay. And there would likely have to be a parking facility to store a fleet of AV’s so they are available at that peak.
We have it good in Toronto with so many people leaving the major venues and walking directly to transit. GO, for its faults, is able to load several trains simultaneously and after the first loads depart, the second trainsets arrive pretty quickly. Same with TTC subway. The street network absorbs the crowd and mitigates that surge of people.
I simply don’t buy that 80% premise.
- Paul
Anyone who has been to a sports venue in the US knows what happens after the game. Those venues are usually surrounded by acrea and acres of parking lots. People flood out of the venue at game end, and dissipate across the parking lots. The huge expanse of these lots is what solves congestion....well, until everyone has found their car and started their engines. Some venues are much better than others in laying out access roads to drain the parking lots, but it can be a long slow creep to get onto a major thoroughfare.
Now imagine trying to do that on Bremner Ave. Imagine the loading area that would be required to promptly fill even 15,000 3-person shared AV’s after a sold-out event at Skydome. There just isn’t the curb space to fulfil that demand. Without transit, the AV loading area would extend from Spadina to York and from Front to Queens Quay. And there would likely have to be a parking facility to store a fleet of AV’s so they are available at that peak.
We have it good in Toronto with so many people leaving the major venues and walking directly to transit. GO, for its faults, is able to load several trains simultaneously and after the first loads depart, the second trainsets arrive pretty quickly. Same with TTC subway. The street network absorbs the crowd and mitigates that surge of people.
I simply don’t buy that 80% premise.
- Paul
Last edited: