The Coming Disruption of Transport

[Memph]

Some of my thoughts.

I think AEV maintenance costs are being underestimated. In my personal experience, a lot of the maintenance related issues are not related to moving parts in the motor/drive-train but to electronic components and rust, both of which would probably still affect AEVs. Also last time I checked electric car batteries needed to be replaced relatively often and at a relatively high price, which can also be considered a maintenance cost, although I understand that this cost will decrease.

Renewable energy is cheap in some areas, but less so in others. Solar is currently cheap in the American Southwest and wind is cheap in the Great Plains, but in other areas it's not as cost-effective yet. But being able to store excess energy during windy/sunny days will be useful. However, a lot of that variation is seasonal, although fortunately wind and solar at least sort of balance each other out in Ontario, since winters are more windy and summers are more sunny. Does anyone know if that's true in other regions?

Anyways, you need to look at how long the excess energy from renewables can be stored during windy/sunny periods. Lets say it's 3 days, then you need to look at the 3 day moving average of solar + wind power potential and find what times of the year have the weakest potential. Then see how much it costs to produce the necessary electricity during that period. If you're producing more electricity during other times of year/seasons that will most likely just be wasted unfortunately. I guess the good thing is that I'm pretty sure solar and wind power is easier to turn-off when it's not needed (unlike nuclear which you can't turn off). The electric grid can't handle excess electricity (in case anyone didn't already know that) so if you can't increase consumption enough, you need to turn stuff off.

So far, I'm not seeing any signs of an explosion in wind/solar capacity in Canada, in fact the new installed capacity seems to have been slowing in the last few years, but ok, lets say that between solar/wind, nuclear, hydroelectric and gas, we're able to handle the AEV needs.

The next question is can we provide the necessary raw materials needed to produce such massive amounts of batteries. We were able to very quickly switch over from certain technologies because the main "inputs" were things like artificial intelligence that don't require an increase in consumption of new resources. EV batteries on the other hand do require enough minerals to produce that it could significantly spike demand for minerals and could cause them to increase in price significantly with mass adoption of EVs, so that could put a significant damper on our abilities to reduce the cost of these batteries (or even maintain them at where they are). In fact, even the rather low adoption of EVs that we have currently is already causing some difficulties. The availability of the necessary minerals is definitely not something that should be taken for granted, and I think finding ways to make the batteries recyclable/refurbishable will be very important in the long term. Short term though, even if EV batteries get fully recycled after reaching the end of their useful life, there aren't anywhere near enough of them in the system, so production of the raw materials will still need to be significantly increased.

 

[afransen]

^ 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.

For big events, I think larger AEVs like minibuses would do well. Probably a dozen other people going to more or less the same part of town, they just need to be directed to a particular vehicle. In terms of loading area, I can imagine future large scale event facilities having largish loading zones (maybe repurposed underground parking). Or, as is the case today, the load is spread by people walking ~1km to various loading zones as they do with parking today.

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.

There will need to be parking areas. But, since they are just storage for unneeded vehicles they can be more like PPUDO queuing lanes at GO stations, and thus denser. Also, I have heard that the number of parking spots per car in a given city is in the range of 7-12. Surely that number can decline closer to 2 or 3 per car. And the number of cars per capita can drop significantly.

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?

Seems to me like Uber and Lyft have already largely figured this stuff out. I don't see why a city would 'contract' with providers. Providers will be able to enter a given market if they see a business opportunity. There will likely be only 2-3 such networks that would dominate a city, but maybe different aspects of the market or special circumstances can be addressed by smaller players.

 

[afransen]

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.

...Why? Why would you want/need it to be operated by Metrolinx? The only way AEVs will fail to materialize is if governments insist on being the ones to implement them (they are incompetent).

 

[afransen]

Some of my thoughts.

I think AEV maintenance costs are being underestimated. In my personal experience, a lot of the maintenance related issues are not related to moving parts in the motor/drive-train but to electronic components and rust, both of which would probably still affect AEVs. Also last time I checked electric car batteries needed to be replaced relatively often and at a relatively high price, which can also be considered a maintenance cost, although I understand that this cost will decrease.

Renewable energy is cheap in some areas, but less so in others. Solar is currently cheap in the American Southwest and wind is cheap in the Great Plains, but in other areas it's not as cost-effective yet. But being able to store excess energy during windy/sunny days will be useful. However, a lot of that variation is seasonal, although fortunately wind and solar at least sort of balance each other out in Ontario, since winters are more windy and summers are more sunny. Does anyone know if that's true in other regions?

Anyways, you need to look at how long the excess energy from renewables can be stored during windy/sunny periods. Lets say it's 3 days, then you need to look at the 3 day moving average of solar + wind power potential and find what times of the year have the weakest potential. Then see how much it costs to produce the necessary electricity during that period. If you're producing more electricity during other times of year/seasons that will most likely just be wasted unfortunately. I guess the good thing is that I'm pretty sure solar and wind power is easier to turn-off when it's not needed (unlike nuclear which you can't turn off). The electric grid can't handle excess electricity (in case anyone didn't already know that) so if you can't increase consumption enough, you need to turn stuff off.

So far, I'm not seeing any signs of an explosion in wind/solar capacity in Canada, in fact the new installed capacity seems to have been slowing in the last few years, but ok, lets say that between solar/wind, nuclear, hydroelectric and gas, we're able to handle the AEV needs.

The next question is can we provide the necessary raw materials needed to produce such massive amounts of batteries. We were able to very quickly switch over from certain technologies because the main "inputs" were things like artificial intelligence that don't require an increase in consumption of new resources. EV batteries on the other hand do require enough minerals to produce that it could significantly spike demand for minerals and could cause them to increase in price significantly with mass adoption of EVs, so that could put a significant damper on our abilities to reduce the cost of these batteries (or even maintain them at where they are). In fact, even the rather low adoption of EVs that we have currently is already causing some difficulties. The availability of the necessary minerals is definitely not something that should be taken for granted, and I think finding ways to make the batteries recyclable/refurbishable will be very important in the long term. Short term though, even if EV batteries get fully recycled after reaching the end of their useful life, there aren't anywhere near enough of them in the system, so production of the raw materials will still need to be significantly increased.

This has more or less nothing to do with autonomy, but rather electric cars. If you think electric cars will be successful, autonomy will make them more successful. If you think about it, the challenge of electric cars is that they have higher upfront costs but are idle most of the day. Increase their daily usage 5x-10x and the economics become very attractive. So if autonomy works, and electric cars are in shortage because of mineral shortage (I'm confident this won't be a problem) every electric car would most profitably be put to use as an AEV.

I have done the math previously. We need to produce roughly 30% more energy to electrify all ground transportation. It doesn't need to be renewable, that's a separate conversation. But because charging of these vehicles can be done almost exclusively off-peak, this really means we are just flattening the demand curve and improving the utilization of our existing generation and transmission assets.

 

[Memph]

I've made a summary of what I think of autonomous vehicles. I've tried to be as comprehensive and objective as possible.

First of all, autonomous electric vehicles (which I will refer to as AEVs) in ridesharing fleets are going to disrupt transportation as much as the car itself, perhaps more. This is inevitable.

This is because of just how cheap AEV ridesharing will be for consumers and operators:

• Electric cars have very few moving parts and thus have very little maintenance. There's not much that can go wrong.
• Fuel costs for AEVs will be very low. Electricity costs less than gasoline.
  • If we factor in renewable energy this actually gets even better. Capital costs for solar and wind are getting dramatically cheaper every year (already cheaper than fossil fuels in many cases). Since these energy sources are not consistent year-round, a significant amount of excess energy will be generated on windy and sunny days. Some of this will be stored in batteries, but since solar panels and wind turbines are much cheaper than batteries, it is cheaper to add more solar panels and wind turbines and generate more excess energy than to add large amounts of batteries.
• Autonomous cars will be far, far safer than human drivers, and insurance/accident costs will likewise decrease. AV's can see in all directions at once, don't get drunk, don't get tired, and don't get distracted, eliminating a huge proportion of accidents (human-driven cars are incredibly deadly
• AEVs will also have very low capital costs - all core technology like batteries, cameras, etc. are all decreasing in cost rapidly. Plus, with so few moving parts, they will be able to operate for 1,000,000 mi (1,600,000 km) before needing to be replaced, so the cost of the vehicle is spread out onto so many trips that it becomes almost nothing. With high utilization in ridesharing networks, this can be taken advantage of.
• For ridesharing networks, no driver = biggest cost eliminated. Not much else to say there.

That is pretty much every monetary cost currently associated with cars eliminated or dramatically reduced. This will flip the existing transportation system upside down. All of the above are basic facts, and all it takes is to connect the dots to see the inevitability of this disruption. There is no point denying or trying to avoid this.

This AEV transportation system will have many benefits:

• People no longer own cars (since AEV ridehailing will be cheaper for consumers)
• No more parking needed in urban areas, only drop-off zones.
• No emissions assuming renewable energy grid, or low emissions with current energy grid. No air pollution from cars.
• Subsidized public transit in smaller metros and suburban areas will no longer be needed, freeing up some funds.
• Some increase in road capacity from less lane changing and better drivers, potentially higher vehicle occupancy from ridesharing.

But there will also be enormous downsides, which cannot be ignored:

• Substantial increase in VMT everywhere, due to both new trips and trips displaced from other modes
  • Increased wear and tear on roads will happen
  • A new push for increasing road capacity may happen. New highway construction etc.
• Suburban sprawl. This is the really bad one, if left unchecked. Without the disincentivizing force of driving, sprawl could dramatically increase.
  • This may be somewhat better than current suburban sprawl, with narrower roads, no parking, no emissions, and slightly more bearable commutes. But it will still be terrible:
    • Huge infrastructure costs of building and maintaining huge networks of roads, water mains, fire stations, etc. Low-density sprawl inherently requires far more infrastructure per person than high density neighbourhoods. AEVs don't change this. In many cases the cost of this is so high that when it is time to do major repair or replacement of infrastructure in sprawl areas, the accrued tax revenue from these areas is not enough to pay for it, requiring debt financing or causing infrastructure to be neglected and fall apart.
    • Enormous impacts on farmland (impacting food security), water quality, and local ecosystems.
    • Car dependency in car-centric neighbourhoods make active transportation impractical. The result is 'obesogenic' neighbourhoods, where everyone rides a car everywhere and thus no one ever gets exercise unless they do it intentionally, leading to high obesity rates and associated societal problems.
    • Longer commutes. Even if the commute is more productive than driving, and less stressful, urban sprawl will still create long commutes.

Impacts on urban, high capacity, high ridership public transit is a big question mark for me. AEV ridehailing will likely be more convenient than public transit and probably cheaper under the current system. However, in transit-oriented areas, there is not enough road capacity for all trips to be made on AEVs, and transit is still competitive. Rail lines will still be more effective at moving large numbers of people.

• In the short term, there will be an equilibrium point, just like with cars and transit today. Speed is the most important factor when people choose a mode. Since speed decreases with demand on roads due to traffic (something which might shift a bit with AEVs but does not fundamentally change), demand for road transport increases until road trips are the same speed as transit (or active transportation) trips.
• For the long term, I think there are a range of possible outcomes, and I have no clue what might happen, but here are my worst and best case scenarios:
  • Worst case: Poor AEV accessibility in the central city causes people and jobs to leave, which makes them less vibrant and desirable, creating a negative feedback loop. A new era of urban decline begins, just like what happened in the 1960s-80s.
  • Best case: AEVs make the central city more vibrant and attractive by eliminating parking. Investments in active and public transportation make these areas extremely convenient to get around using those modes, as opposed to AEVs.

Conclusion
AEVs will be incredibly cheap for consumers, and cheaper than public transit today if no changes are made to the current system. However, just like cars, they may not be so cheap from a societal level. Under the current system, AEVs will heavily subsidized, just like cars today - they don't pay for the ROW and road that they use, they don't pay for the infrastructure costs of urban sprawl, they don't pay for the obesity caused by urban sprawl, etc.

But, this is not to say AEVs are unequivocally bad - they do eliminate some of the negative externalities of cars, like time wasted while driving, car accidents, and air pollution. These benefits must be recognized.

However, other negative externalities remain, and one of the worst negative externalities of cars, urban sprawl, may get worse. As such, the solutions to mitigate the problems caused by AEVs will be similar to solutions to mitigate those caused by traditional cars, including:

• A hefty road tax, much higher than current gas taxes, enough to pay for road construction and maintenance, plus some extra.
• Strict zoning policies aimed at intensifying existing areas and preventing suburban/exurban sprawl.
• A first-principles approach to urban planning, instead of a car-centric approach.

The transition to AEVs will be inevitable and unstoppable. It is our job to adapt in order to reap their benefits, while also curbing their problems.

I would also add "busy roads will be more quiet to the benefits".

Re: your disadvantages
-wear and tear: this is mostly from trucks and decreases exponentially with vehicle size. I am assuming in the long run, AEVs will be quite small. Most current vehicles are big enough for 4 passengers + luggage + have a lot of "crunchable material" to absorb the shock from accidents. Most AEVs could in theory be small 1 person pods.
-highway capacity: imo the extra miles driven would be mitigated by the smaller vehicles and being able to drive closer together
-suburban sprawl: actually AEVs would enable auto-oriented suburban development to be much denser. With narrower streets, no on-street or off-street parking, no need to buffer against all that asphalt with otherwise useless "greenspace", and no need to build excessively large homes to recoup all that parking/street related infrastructure and land consumption, you could double the current Toronto suburban densities and have something that is much nicer, human scaled and affordable. Also the amount of land freed up in cities by needing so much less parking would open up tremendous possibilities for infill.
-obesity: I think most people are already only walking if they feel like it anyways. Transit and cars have it pretty well covered already in 2020. But I think suburbs can be made much more pedestrian friendly once parking is not needed so "choice" active transportation will be more common.
-longer commutes: only if people don't mind because they can now do other stuff while commuting. Car commutes are generally shorter than transit commutes.

Re: transit
-people generally switch to transit before it's time competitive, since they also take into account car ownership costs, parking costs, and the fact that they can look at their phones while on transit
-I think AEVs can help with last mile problem a lot. I think currently most of the people driving into downtown are doing it because they don't have a train station nearby (ex Woodbridge, Malvern many parts of Brampton) or because they're destined for the parts of Downtown that are a bit further from the subway/GO station, or because they're going off-peak when GO service to many suburbs is poor.

 

[Memph]

This has more or less nothing to do with autonomy, but rather electric cars. If you think electric cars will be successful, autonomy will make them more successful. If you think about it, the challenge of electric cars is that they have higher upfront costs but are idle most of the day. Increase their daily usage 5x-10x and the economics become very attractive. So if autonomy works, and electric cars are in shortage because of mineral shortage (I'm confident this won't be a problem) every electric car would most profitably be put to use as an AEV.

I have done the math previously. We need to produce roughly 30% more energy to electrify all ground transportation. It doesn't need to be renewable, that's a separate conversation. But because charging of these vehicles can be done almost exclusively off-peak, this really means we are just flattening the demand curve and improving the utilization of our existing generation and transmission assets.

The video in the OP went into both the electrification and automation of vehicles in roughly equal parts, so I just decided to address each aspect one at a time.

Why are you confident that having enough minerals won't be a problem?

I still think the long-term costs are being understated somewhat. Current battery life is good for personal vehicles that get driven 10-20 thousand km per year, but not so much for fleet vehicle levels of usage, and the battery is practically half the cost of the car. Although I could imagine that changing in the not so distant future, we're not there yet.

And cars can be driven much longer in Cuba than in Toronto, which imo shows that dealing with corrosion damage from salt + water (probably mostly road salt) is a big part of the longevity/upkeep. Maybe the cars can last 1 million miles in Arizona where a lot of them are being tested and where they don't have winter or much rainfall but corrosion would have to be a consideration in Canada.

I didn't think of the charging at night aspect, although that doesn't work for every energy source does it? For example, with hydro, you can let more water through the dam to generate more electricity during the day, and then let less water through at night and let the reservoir fill up during that time. But if you increase electricity consumption at night to match day-time levels, you'd just drain the reservoir and have nothing left to generate electricity with.

 

[crs1026]

For big events, I think larger AEVs like minibuses would do well. Probably a dozen other people going to more or less the same part of town, they just need to be directed to a particular vehicle. In terms of loading area, I can imagine future large scale event facilities having largish loading zones (maybe repurposed underground parking). Or, as is the case today, the load is spread by people walking ~1km to various loading zones as they do with parking today.

So, we need a fleet of minibuses for some specific applications, plus the usual mix of 1-2 passenger av’s, Those special use minibuses would have to deadhead from wherever they are stored, to their pickup points, bring people downtown, sit idle during the event, then take their customers home, then deadhead back to storage location(s).And wait for another event demanding their use. I can see the deadheading costs approaching the in-service costs, and that’s vehicular movement on the roads. And less than optimal utilization. We can store and then deploy a dozen GO trains much more parsimoniously than the equivalent fleet of AV’s.

I can’t imagine how one would match large volumes of people with specific-destination AV’s, except by having some sort of downtown terminal. The load-and-go capabilities of GO or TTC subway terminal far exceed what an AV terminal of the same size could offer. Once one has to head to a terminal, the theory that av’s are more convenient fails. And, anyone who currently uses an auto dealer’s shuttle knows, sharing can lead to riding all over the place to match others’ destinations. A communal ride on the GO, plus an individual AV from the GO station to my house, likely gets me home faster with less hassle than a dedicated venue to driveway shared AV service. First mile/last mile AV ‘s do seem like a no-brainer application, I will say.

I’m not sure about sharing in the context of a (presumably) small vehicle either. What if I am sharing with four unruly kids who have been drinking beer all night? On transit I can move away and there is safety in numbers. Will AV‘s have cameras? Yellow strips? Who will intercept my AV if the drunk I am riding with throws up, or throws a punch?

Again, not saying some of these things don’t have solutions, but the point is that the 80% theory is probably wildly optimistic.

- Paul

 

[MrGoose]

...Why? Why would you want/need it to be operated by Metrolinx? The only way AEVs will fail to materialize is if governments insist on being the ones to implement them (they are incompetent).

Governments aren’t necessarily incompetent. Just because we’ve been conditioned to accept our governments being incompetent buffoons doesn’t mean that they are this way by default.

And the answer to incompetent governments isn’t necessarily relying on predatory foreign tech corporations l. It’s demanding that our governments become more competent.

I want to be operated by metrolinx so we can get a seamless door to door ride where a shuttle picks you up and drops you at the station off five minutes before the train. And on the other side, when you get off the train, there’s an AEV waiting for you.

 

[sche]

I would also add "busy roads will be more quiet to the benefits".

Re: your disadvantages
-wear and tear: this is mostly from trucks and decreases exponentially with vehicle size. I am assuming in the long run, AEVs will be quite small. Most current vehicles are big enough for 4 passengers + luggage + have a lot of "crunchable material" to absorb the shock from accidents. Most AEVs could in theory be small 1 person pods.
-highway capacity: imo the extra miles driven would be mitigated by the smaller vehicles and being able to drive closer together
-suburban sprawl: actually AEVs would enable auto-oriented suburban development to be much denser. With narrower streets, no on-street or off-street parking, no need to buffer against all that asphalt with otherwise useless "greenspace", and no need to build excessively large homes to recoup all that parking/street related infrastructure and land consumption, you could double the current Toronto suburban densities and have something that is much nicer, human scaled and affordable. Also the amount of land freed up in cities by needing so much less parking would open up tremendous possibilities for infill.
-obesity: I think most people are already only walking if they feel like it anyways. Transit and cars have it pretty well covered already in 2020. But I think suburbs can be made much more pedestrian friendly once parking is not needed so "choice" active transportation will be more common.
-longer commutes: only if people don't mind because they can now do other stuff while commuting. Car commutes are generally shorter than transit commutes.

Re: transit
-people generally switch to transit before it's time competitive, since they also take into account car ownership costs, parking costs, and the fact that they can look at their phones while on transit
-I think AEVs can help with last mile problem a lot. I think currently most of the people driving into downtown are doing it because they don't have a train station nearby (ex Woodbridge, Malvern many parts of Brampton) or because they're destined for the parts of Downtown that are a bit further from the subway/GO station, or because they're going off-peak when GO service to many suburbs is poor

I thought of roads being more quiet because EVs, but also neighbourhood streets might get more traffic so I think it's not really that much of an impact.

- Re: wear and tear, more VMT is going to be more wear and tear, maybe the effect isn't huge but it's definitely there.
-1 person pods are a pretty terrible idea. Generally, the more people fit on each pod, the more capacity the road has (less space between individual people)
- Road capacity will not be mitigated by AVs. Cars can't just drive super close together all the time - then whenever a car was merging or changed lanes, every car before that would have to stop. There would be some increase to road capacity (as I said in my original post) but because of induced demand so that would get filled up rapidly.
- Sprawl: AV sprawl would be marginally better than current sprawl, yes, but large houses and excessive front and back yards will not be changing without appropriate policy changes. Developers don't build gigantic yards and huge houses to recoup road costs, they do it because of zoning laws (which basically require front yards and low density) and profit (big house will sell for more vs small house on the same lot). There is nothing stopping us from doubling suburban densities right now - only NIMBYs, terrible zoning laws, and government inaction. Besides, even if suburban densities doubled, the suburbs would still be extremely hostile to pedestrians unless we zone for mixed use. For active transportation to work, walking and cycling has to be useful, and if no jobs or shops or anything other than houses are located in walking distance, then no one will walk for anything other than recreation. And, now that long commutes are more bearable, sprawl may increase too.
- Obesity: people only walking if they feel like it right now is the problem right now. Why do you think America has horrible obesity rates, and Canada isn't much better, while Europe has much lower obesity rates (yes there are many reasons, but car dependency is a huge one, and AVs don't change that)? Walking for recreation is not active transportation - it's recreation, not transportation.

Agree on the last two points.

 

[afransen]

Why are you confident that having enough minerals won't be a problem?

Assuming the rest of the car is trivial, since we obviously make cars today no problem, I assume you're talking about the battery pack. There are battery chemistries that use no exotic metals or minerals. Tesla is using Lithium Iron Phosphate in their Chinese cars, to make them a bit cheaper at the downside of lower energy density (energy density is not critical for local travel AEVs). These elements are all abundant. Lithium is abundant, though scaling up production will take some innovation. Tesla claims to have a process for extracting lithium from clay using saline solution. Obviously iron and phosphate are highly abundant. This chemistry doesn't need cobalt, which is usually the element you hear a lot of FUD around availability.

I still think the long-term costs are being understated somewhat. Current battery life is good for personal vehicles that get driven 10-20 thousand km per year, but not so much for fleet vehicle levels of usage, and the battery is practically half the cost of the car. Although I could imagine that changing in the not so distant future, we're not there yet.

And cars can be driven much longer in Cuba than in Toronto, which imo shows that dealing with corrosion damage from salt + water (probably mostly road salt) is a big part of the longevity/upkeep. Maybe the cars can last 1 million miles in Arizona where a lot of them are being tested and where they don't have winter or much rainfall but corrosion would have to be a consideration in Canada.

If you are doubtful, do some research into a company called Tesloop. They were using Model Xs to drive people from LA to Vegas and back. And that is using 5-7 year old technology. Battery costs are falling. The Model 3 battery pack costs Tesla around $8k-$10k now. This will fall by half over this decade, at least. They expect to get better than 500k miles out of a battery pack (meaning less than 20% battery degradation).

Corrosion is more a function of time than distance. If you are using up the usable mileage of a car in 5 years, I doubt that you would see many problems with corrosion.

I didn't think of the charging at night aspect, although that doesn't work for every energy source does it? For example, with hydro, you can let more water through the dam to generate more electricity during the day, and then let less water through at night and let the reservoir fill up during that time. But if you increase electricity consumption at night to match day-time levels, you'd just drain the reservoir and have nothing left to generate electricity with.

We have surplus generating capacity that isn't used at night. What source it is is rather moot, or unrelated to the topic of AVs. It could be fossil fuel plants and it changes nothing about the economics of autonomous vehicles. What matters is the rate that is charged for hydro.

 

[afransen]

And the answer to incompetent governments isn’t necessarily relying on predatory foreign tech corporations l. It’s demanding that our governments become more competent.

I want to be operated by metrolinx so we can get a seamless door to door ride where a shuttle picks you up and drops you at the station off five minutes before the train. And on the other side, when you get off the train, there’s an AEV waiting for you.

Would you want a government-run grocery store, too?

I'd rather have three companies innovating and competing to provide the most convenient, clean, safe and cost effective user experience. This is why Uber became popular over taxis. Taxis are a cozy protected oligopoly that got away with absolutely atrocious customer service, filthy and old vehicles, etc.

There is absolutely no reason why a private AV could not drop you off and pick you up from a station without being operated by Metrolinx. The train is running when it is running and does not need to coordinate with AVs. Do you want the AV to circle the block and drop you off just before the train arrives? These things will be everywhere, and these companies will have a very good idea of where demand will be, even if you don't plan all the legs of your trip in an app.

 

[afransen]

So, we need a fleet of minibuses for some specific applications, plus the usual mix of 1-2 passenger av’s, Those special use minibuses would have to deadhead from wherever they are stored, to their pickup points, bring people downtown, sit idle during the event, then take their customers home, then deadhead back to storage location(s).And wait for another event demanding their use. I can see the deadheading costs approaching the in-service costs, and that’s vehicular movement on the roads. And less than optimal utilization. We can store and then deploy a dozen GO trains much more parsimoniously than the equivalent fleet of AV’s.

I can’t imagine how one would match large volumes of people with specific-destination AV’s, except by having some sort of downtown terminal. The load-and-go capabilities of GO or TTC subway terminal far exceed what an AV terminal of the same size could offer. Once one has to head to a terminal, the theory that av’s are more convenient fails. And, anyone who currently uses an auto dealer’s shuttle knows, sharing can lead to riding all over the place to match others’ destinations. A communal ride on the GO, plus an individual AV from the GO station to my house, likely gets me home faster with less hassle than a dedicated venue to driveway shared AV service. First mile/last mile AV ‘s do seem like a no-brainer application, I will say.

I’m not sure about sharing in the context of a (presumably) small vehicle either. What if I am sharing with four unruly kids who have been drinking beer all night? On transit I can move away and there is safety in numbers. Will AV‘s have cameras? Yellow strips? Who will intercept my AV if the drunk I am riding with throws up, or throws a punch?

Again, not saying some of these things don’t have solutions, but the point is that the 80% theory is probably wildly optimistic.

- Paul

I don't think GO is going anywhere, particularly not in the near future. For your example, I imagine such mini-buses would be commonly used at peak period rushes when there are lots of people traveling, it is easiest to match rides, and roads are most congested. So they wouldn't exist just for Raptors games or concerts. I imagine they would be used to bring people to an event, then wait nearby until the event is over and bring people away.

In terms of unruly passengers, I think you have many of the same problems with transit. With an AV service, like with Uber, your identity is known and there is a degree of social credit involved (like your Uber 5 star rating). Yes, cue the Black Mirror Nosedive reference. If you trigger complaints from other passengers your rating would decrease. I could see the right to use shared vehicles being limited to those with high enough ratings (as a privilege to enjoy lower cost rides). If you have a low rating, maybe you are restricted to more expensive personal rides in smaller vehicles or barred from the service altogether (if you have a habit of destroying the vehicle). I can see governments preventing services from excluding users as a right. But they could be held liable for any damage they cause to a vehicle, whereas people can largely vomit on a bus, slash seats, graffiti, etc. with impunity.

As a passenger, I would expect the ability to exit a pooled ride if I felt uncomfortable with the other passengers, either during the trip or before boarding. Heck, there could event be a premium service to have an attendant on the vehicle for people who might feel vulnerable travelling alone (a woman late at night after an event, for instance).

 

[afransen]

Sprawl: AV sprawl would be marginally better than current sprawl, yes, but large houses and excessive front and back yards will not be changing without appropriate policy changes. Developers don't build gigantic yards and huge houses to recoup road costs, they do it because of zoning laws (which basically require front yards and low density) and profit (big house will sell for more vs small house on the same lot). There is nothing stopping us from doubling suburban densities right now - only NIMBYs, terrible zoning laws, and government inaction. Besides, even if suburban densities doubled, the suburbs would still be extremely hostile to pedestrians unless we zone for mixed use. For active transportation to work, walking and cycling has to be useful, and if no jobs or shops or anything other than houses are located in walking distance, then no one will walk for anything other than recreation. And, now that long commutes are more bearable, sprawl may increase too.

I feel like this is largely going away anyway. If you look at new developments, you don't see large properties anymore. Not sure if that is due to density minimums of just economics. Large lots were a factor in the 80s/90s suburban sprawl. New sprawl is all semis, townhouses, stacked townhouses. Some of the more recently built out parts of Mississauga, etc. are built to 6500 people + jobs per sqkm, which is about as dense as a lot of the inner Toronto suburbs. It is just more car oriented and hostile to active transportation.

So, maybe greenfield is not so much the problem, though I think we should be looking for more complete communities with commercial/employment as well as higher density residential (midrise apartments) mixed in. On the other hand, the legacy yellowbelt that is built to low densities is definitely a target for intensification.

 

[crs1026]

I don't think GO is going anywhere, particularly not in the near future. For your example, I imagine such mini-buses would be commonly used at peak period rushes when there are lots of people traveling, it is easiest to match rides, and roads are most congested. So they wouldn't exist just for Raptors games or concerts. I imagine they would be used to bring people to an event, then wait nearby until the event is over and bring people away.

I can certainly see more of this happening. Certainly, even now, people rent limos and limo-quality minibuses for group outings to games, theatre etc. No reason why AV's couldn't offer premium-ride services possibly at premium (for AV) pricing. No driver so no need to look away if there is a little back seat boozing on the way to the big game ;-)

Few people drive themselves alone to games at present. It's much more common for people to go to events, games in 2's, 4's, etc. There are always limo's and charter buses lined up after a game. One has to discount the opportunity to reduce vehicle use by shared AV's by this factor. One electric self driven 40-seat charter bus will offer a group experience better than 5 8-seat AV's, and on a linear foot basis today's coach uses less highway capacity..

The question is, how much of this service is possible at the suggested much-lower-cost that is projected by AV fans. I can't see "local" transit offering up many vehicles for special events, because events do overlap with local transit peaks, and the core fleet of "transit" minibuses will be needed for local transit. Maybe weekends are a different story. The rates for event transport would have to be higher, in part because those vehicles won't earn much in the off times - just as charter bus operators today price very differently than local transit when we ride to the game or theatre.

I would hold the same principle for "regular" commuter peaks. Work from home may evolve and central city commuting may well decline, but one GO train versus umpteen AV's..... anyone who has seen the lineup of NJT coaches entering the tunnels to Manhattan at rush hour knows why trains do it better.

The interesting thing with reduced vehicle use....I am very certain that our second car would cease to be attractive once AV's came along....if....they were reliably available at short notice, vehicle quality (cleanliness) were consistently good, etc. Already it's far cheaper for me to call a cab when needed than to maintain our second vehicle....but crappy taxi's just don't cut it, so the second car remains. Don't underestimate the premium people will pay to manage their own "space".

- Paul

 

[MrGoose]

Would you want a government-run grocery store, too?

I'd rather have three companies innovating and competing to provide the most convenient, clean, safe and cost effective user experience. This is why Uber became popular over taxis. Taxis are a cozy protected oligopoly that got away with absolutely atrocious customer service, filthy and old vehicles, etc.

There is absolutely no reason why a private AV could not drop you off and pick you up from a station without being operated by Metrolinx. The train is running when it is running and does not need to coordinate with AVs. Do you want the AV to circle the block and drop you off just before the train arrives? These things will be everywhere, and these companies will have a very good idea of where demand will be, even if you don't plan all the legs of your trip in an app.

The idea is that it is coordinated instead of having to order 2 Uber AVs and try to make sure that they arrive before the train leaves.

With a single app you select your current location and your destination and can schedule rides every week. The integrated transit network will then create a trip for you. A shuttle picks you up at your house at 8:03 and after picking up 2-3 more people arrives at Oakville GO at 8:31. You get off and the GO RER train arrives at 8:35. You get off at Kennedy GO and check the Metrolinx app to see that AV A803 is waiting for you at the PPUDO area and then it drops you off in front of your office at 9:21

Or as you travel home from your office job downtown, you check the Metrolinx app to see that AV B145 is waiting for you at King City GO.

By having Metrolinx manage the AV's we subordinate the AEV network to public transit, restraining AEV usage so that it won't hurt our public transit system.

And nothing about an AV oligopoly screams innovation to me. You think Robellus are competing and innovating to provide the most convenient and cost effective user experience?

Putting ourselves at the mercy of mega corporations is a good way to add another 1000$ a year of expenses to the average household's budget.