Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[logan5]

The Toronto/Ottawa route is another that driverless cars are perfectly suited for, and your door to door time would beat both plane and train.

Of course you would need autonomous only segregated lanes, but that would be relatively inexpensive to build, but once you have those lanes, autonomous vehicles would be able to travel at high speed.

These high speeds are possible because human error will be eliminated, and because of optimal battery placement, the vehicle is very stable. What the top speed of these vehicles would be is hard to say. 160 km/h is easily achievable. Higher speeds than even that are likely though.

A trip between Ottawa and Toronto in an autonomous vehicle could be done in under 3 hours, door to door.

[milomilo]

Fantasy.

Why would you build a ROW capable of carrying 160km/h vehicles, then waste it on the most inefficient way of carrying people? It would not be 'relatively inexpensive', it would be almost as expensive as a new railway.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by logan5

The Toronto/Ottawa route is another that driverless cars are perfectly suited for, and your door to door time would beat both plane and train.

Of course you would need autonomous only segregated lanes, but that would be relatively inexpensive to build, but once you have those lanes, autonomous vehicles would be able to travel at high speed.

I know this is way off topic but have you ever driven between Ottawa and Toronto? The shortest route, highway 7, is a winding, 2 lane highway with the occasional passing lane. The longer route, hwy 416 to 401, is mostly a 4 lane freeway. There are no extra lanes that could be sacrificed to dedicate for self driving cars without spending billions of dollars widening highways. Given how myopic Queens Park is, that will never happen (when you say Ottawa, they hear Oshawa ).

[logan5]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Fantasy.

Why would you build a ROW capable of carrying 160km/h vehicles, then waste it on the most inefficient way of carrying people? It would not be 'relatively inexpensive', it would be almost as expensive as a new railway.

When we're talking about intercity travel, rail lines are hugely expensive. Have you seen how much California HSR is costing? The proposed high speed rail line through Washington State, connecting to Vancouver would cost 10's of billions. A new freeway would cost far less.

Even if new freeways are not built to accommodate driverless cars capable of high speeds, there will come a time when driverless cars outnumber human operated cars. At that point you can dedicate lanes on existing freeways to driverless cars.

Once again, even if a train service offers higher speeds, the door to door service of a drivedrless vehicle will be very desirable.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

When we're talking about intercity travel, rail lines are hugely expensive. Have you seen how much California HSR is costing? The proposed high speed rail line through Washington State, connecting to Vancouver would cost 10's of billions. A new freeway would cost far less.

Same reason SkyTrain costs more than buses or streetcars - if we want more, we gotta pay more.

California's problems stem from NIMBYs and property values. Fortunately for us, trees don't lobby, not even in Vancouver.

Originally Posted by logan5

Even if new freeways are not built to accommodate driverless cars capable of high speeds, there will come a time when driverless cars outnumber human operated cars. At that point you can dedicate lanes on existing freeways to driverless cars.

1 train = 1000 people = 200 cars. That exclusive lane won't be going any faster than the regular lanes, and even slower than that in the city. Compare and contrast with breezing straight from one stop to the next, plus leg room and bathroom breaks.

Originally Posted by logan5

Once again, even if a train service offers higher speeds, the door to door service of a drivedrless vehicle will be very desirable.

Trolley buses also offer door-to-door service. Incredibly, people prefer to walk several blocks to an B-Line instead.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1 train = 1000 people = 200 cars. That exclusive lane won't be going any faster than the regular lanes, and even slower than that in the city. Compare and contrast with breezing straight from one stop to the next, plus leg room and bathroom breaks.

The driverless car industry is going to be huge. It will most definitely compete with airlines and train service for short haul trips. I can see a scenario where expressways are privately built for exclusive use by whoever are the leaders of the industry in order to stay ahead of the competition in the airline industry.

These vehicles will look nothing like todays cars. No steering wheel or traditional dashboard, or motor at the front of the vehicle. These cars will have much more interior room. Just as comfortable as a train, and certainly more comfortable than a plane ride.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by logan5

The driverless car industry is going to be huge. It will most definitely compete with airlines and train service for short haul trips. I can see a scenario where expressways are privately built for exclusive use by whoever are the leaders of the industry in order to stay ahead of the competition in the airline industry.

These vehicles will look nothing like todays cars. No steering wheel or traditional dashboard, or motor at the front of the vehicle. These cars will have much more interior room. Just as comfortable as a train, and certainly more comfortable than a plane ride.

Sounds like a script for a reboot of The Jetsons, where we have flying cars and nanny-bots, only that the cars are on autopilot. TBH, I feel better being on the wheel than having to deal with a glitch that will 🞵🞵🞵🞵 me over when it hits a pedestrian.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Sounds like a script for a reboot of The Jetsons, where we have flying cars and nanny-bots, only that the cars are on autopilot. TBH, I feel better being on the wheel than having to deal with a glitch that will 🞵🞵🞵🞵 me over when it hits a pedestrian.

Yes. And someday we will have hand held communication devices like on Star Trek.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

The driverless car industry is going to be huge. It will most definitely compete with airlines and train service for short haul trips. I can see a scenario where expressways are privately built for exclusive use by whoever are the leaders of the industry in order to stay ahead of the competition in the airline industry.

These vehicles will look nothing like todays cars. No steering wheel or traditional dashboard, or motor at the front of the vehicle. These cars will have much more interior room. Just as comfortable as a train, and certainly more comfortable than a plane ride.

That’s a long way off. Ever notice the testing always seems to be in dry places like Arizona and California? I can’t see them coping with our wet rainy nights, or whiteouts on the prairies.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That’s a long way off. Ever notice the testing always seems to be in dry places like Arizona and California? I can’t see them coping with our wet rainy nights, or whiteouts on the prairies.

They have testing in non dry climates. Every major player in the car industry is investing big dollars in to driver less and battery technology right now. Here where I am some 50 or so kms to the west of me BMW is building a driver-less car test track for a hundred million euros. And yes not only is the climate similar to most of populated Canada these test tracks are designed to test in all conditions hence being a bit pricey.

Once driver-less catches on the change will be rapid. More rapid then people realize.

Reading the posts here are quite funny as some of you are so hung up on cars = bad. Its not logical. Vehicles or capsules that move people are transit / transportation, the end. Very few inter city routes have such heavy use that "mass" transit would be more efficient then driver-less battery powered vehicles.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by cornholio

They have testing in non dry climates. Every major player in the car industry is investing big dollars in to driver less and battery technology right now. Here where I am some 50 or so kms to the west of me BMW is building a driver-less car test track for a hundred million euros. And yes not only is the climate similar to most of populated Canada these test tracks are designed to test in all conditions hence being a bit pricey.

Once driver-less catches on the change will be rapid. More rapid then people realize.

Reading the posts here are quite funny as some of you are so hung up on cars = bad. Its not logical. Vehicles or capsules that move people are transit / transportation, the end. Very few inter city routes have such heavy use that "mass" transit would be more efficient then driver-less battery powered vehicles.

Driverless cars could also significantly alleviate parking issues in congested areas; I would love to have my car drive me to work, drop me off, and run back home to the garage and sit there until it's close to the end of my day so I can summon it back to pick me up from work.

I won't ever have to pay for parking downtown, and I don't have to worry about people vandalizing or dooring my car. Just wear and tear and fuel costs.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by logan5

The driverless car industry is going to be huge. It will most definitely compete with airlines and train service for short haul trips. I can see a scenario where expressways are privately built for exclusive use by whoever are the leaders of the industry in order to stay ahead of the competition in the airline industry.

The problem with private highways is the high tolls price the average person off of them. Just look at highway 407 in southern Ontario as an example.

Then there is the question of where are we going to find the land to build all of these new, private, highways? I find it strange that you think expropriating land for double track is expensive but 2-3 times the land for multi-lane highways will be cheap.

These vehicles will look nothing like todays cars. No steering wheel or traditional dashboard, or motor at the front of the vehicle. These cars will have much more interior room. Just as comfortable as a train, and certainly more comfortable than a plane ride.

But how we will generate the power needed to propel billions of giant breadboxes at high speeds without scotching the earth? The force of fluid friction is proportional to the velocity.

The other big question is will people accept the technology. History has shown many ideas that were expected to be the next big thing to flop when it hits the market.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The problem with private highways is the high tolls price the average person off of them. Just look at highway 407 in southern Ontario as an example.

Then there is the question of where are we going to find the land to build all of these new, private, highways? I find it strange that you think expropriating land for double track is expensive but 2-3 times the land for multi-lane highways will be cheap.



But how we will generate the power needed to propel billions of giant breadboxes at high speeds without scotching the earth? The force of fluid friction is proportional to the velocity.

The other big question is will people accept the technology. History has shown many ideas that were expected to be the next big thing to flop when it hits the market.

EVs are already 2-3 times as efficient, so you have a little bit of overhead in how much energy can be directed that way.

We're not too far on some of these technologies. As far as robot maids go, roombas have been around for a while already.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

EVs are already 2-3 times as efficient, so you have a little bit of overhead in how much energy can be directed that way.

Efficient in terms of performance and energy use, but it has a horribly lower energy density compared to gasoline. A car with a 30L tank has more potential energy than an equivalent car with only Li-Ion batteries (of course, that’s not accounting for the inefficient design of the internal combustion engine). Not only that, gas is still really cheap in North America, so you really need a convincing sales pitch to switch to EVs, especially here up north, otherwise they’ll stick with the status quo.

***

Side note: is there a thread here specifically on EVs? We got to carried away from the main subject at hand.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

The driverless car industry is going to be huge. It will most definitely compete with airlines and train service for short haul trips. I can see a scenario where expressways are privately built for exclusive use by whoever are the leaders of the industry in order to stay ahead of the competition in the airline industry.

These vehicles will look nothing like todays cars. No steering wheel or traditional dashboard, or motor at the front of the vehicle. These cars will have much more interior room. Just as comfortable as a train, and certainly more comfortable than a plane ride.

Very short haul; Vancouver to Langley, for example. The smallest profitable vehicle for a 100km+ journey is Greyhound, and even they gave up.

I'll concede leg room. I'm still waiting for the bathrooms (very much needed for a 5-7 hour trip)... and for how Silicon Valley will make two cars fit in the same space, eight passengers fit in the same car, or otherwise innovate their way past the laws of physics. No matter how they program the AI, autonomous cars are going to have to get in and out of cities or across the border, and at that point they'll just be autonomous gridlock.

Originally Posted by cornholio

Reading the posts here are quite funny as some of you are so hung up on cars = bad. Its not logical. Vehicles or capsules that move people are transit / transportation, the end. Very few inter city routes have such heavy use that "mass" transit would be more efficient then driver-less battery powered vehicles.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Nobody in the last five pages has said cars are good or evil - they're just horribly inefficient as public transportation. There is no universe in which hundreds of small vehicles beat one big one.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The problem with private highways is the high tolls price the average person off of them. Just look at highway 407 in southern Ontario as an example. .

I'm assuming a scenario where privately owned vehicles are a thing of the past because it's far cheaper to pay for an Uber type service. Ride hailing will be so prolific and profitable that it will allow private companies, such as Uber or whoever takes the lead, to build their own infrastructure for intercity travel, if need be. Once out of the Cov, there is lots of cheap land. The land immediately parallel to our existing highways is probly all government land which would come fairly cheaply. The government would be quite happy to have nfrastructure like that built at no cost to them.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by logan5

Ride hailing will be so prolific and profitable that it will allow private companies, such as Uber or whoever takes the lead, to build their own infrastructure for intercity travel

HA! That's a good one, you almost had me going there...

[logan5]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

HA! That's a good one, you almost had me going there...

I don't know what you're getting at. That ride hailing services won't be hugely profitable, or that there's no possibility tjhat they won't build their own road infrastructure?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

I don't know what you're getting at. That ride hailing services won't be hugely profitable, or that there's no possibility tjhat they won't build their own road infrastructure?

The second point is dependent on the first. Assuming just $0.80 per km, that's $406 to break even on a trip to Portland - $101.50 with a group deal. Cars do not scale up well over long distances, let alone make enough money to create a second generation of railroad tycoons.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

EVs are already 2-3 times as efficient, so you have a little bit of overhead in how much energy can be directed that way.

True, but personal vehicles (such as self driving cars) are over an order of magnitude less efficient than mass transit (trains and buses) and they can also be electrically powered. If we are going to try and replace all mass transit with personal vehicles, we will be significantly increasing our power consumption. Also, that much of that savings is lost if the EV ends up deadheading back to your garage (as WestCoastEcho suggested) or, in the Uber case, back to where it came from to pick up another rider (the assumption that the car can pick up someone near where the previous person was dropped off doesn’t always work when most people are traveling in one direction).

Non of this addresses how we plan to generate all of this extra electricity. Charging mostly overnight doesn’t work so well for Uber, where they need to recharge multiple times a day.

We're not too far on some of these technologies. As far as robot maids go, roombas have been around for a while already.

In terms of electric motors, the technology is very mature and there isn’t much room to improve efficiency. I don’t see how EVs will become much more efficient than they are today.