High Speed Rail in Canada

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Driverless cars are going to be legislated to have an alert driver in them. You can't be sleeping or reading or playing chess. There's also the realities of wildlife, remoteness, and weather that make a network like that completely unfeasible in Canada.

Agreed.

I think once roads become snow covered in the wintertime, that most autonomous vehicles will lose their bearings and will no longer be able to station keep in their lanes. I also don't fully trust them to deal with slippery road conditions.

And, don't forget the potholes. How do you program these vehicles to avoid potholes?

Wildlife is also a huge issue........

HSR has none of these problems.

[itom 987]

In the beginning, yes but when everyone finally uses a driverless car the law will be changed. I wouldn't be surprised if the cars end up looking like mini motorhomes. Hazard detection technology is already there and will continue to improve so accidents due to outside factors will be a thing of the past.

[itom 987]

Furthermore, all this is already happening without much government investment.

[TownGuy]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Agreed.

I think once roads become snow covered in the wintertime, that most autonomous vehicles will lose their bearings and will no longer be able to station keep in their lanes. I also don't fully trust them to deal with slippery road conditions.

And, don't forget the potholes. How do you program these vehicles to avoid potholes?

Wildlife is also a huge issue........

HSR has none of these problems.

It all comes down to sensors. Ford already has pothole detection in some of their cars which adjusts the suspension for them, Jaguar (I would assume all manufacturers) working on technology that would allow the car to veer around them if possible. In terms of wildlife a driverless car would be far far superior to a human in reacting to unexpected wildlife, or anything, as the sensors are constantly monitoring and reacting to what's happening around the vehicle faster than any human can. It's not like the driverless cars are set on a static path, they are highly dynamic and reactionary.

I do agree things like snow covered roads will be an issue but that's definitely not insurmountable. It's not like humans drive well in the snow either.

[ScreamingViking]

Road capacity will remain an issue within the urban areas. AVs (once they have a dominant share of total vehicles) will be able to make more use of available lane space by driving more closely together, but I think congestion will remain an issue. So there will still be a case for higher capacity transit modes, even between cities.

And while higher-speed car travel may be possible with AVs, there will still be limits. High-speed rail or air travel will remain more attractive from a time perspective for many users.

I do think we'll see a new "equilibrium" in terms of mode shares across the transportation system, but the range of mode options will still exist.

[itom 987]

Road conditions due to weather will slow traffic but the traffic will still flow. A massive database on every road in the country will be developed just from cars sensors sensing the roads. Any changes will be noted as soon as a car witnesses it. Maintenance on said change will happen sooner than ever before. The existing driverless cars have what; 4 to 10 or more sensors? Us humans only have two eyes.

[itom 987]

^^ Traffic in cities, and all over the country for that matter will be managed by a computers. Traffic congestion will end up being much less than before because the computer would already know a road 5 blocks ahead is congested and will find alternative routes. That is something that us humans cannot see, traffic is usually the result of human limitations in seeing what is going on ahead.

[GlassCity]

But will automated cars be capable of doing 300 km/h? Or how about 500-600 the way maglev trains can. Speed will still be a factor in going places, especially since nothing's stopping you from sleeping on a high speed train either. Besides, driving from Windsor to Quebec is like 12 hours. You'd be awake that entire time anyway, but just going slower than a train. I guess I don't really get how sleeping at the wheel has any bearing on car vs. train. Otherwise, your argument implies that continental air travel will become obsolete too.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by itom 987

^^ Traffic in cities, and all over the country for that matter will be managed by a computers. Traffic congestion will end up being much less than before because the computer would already know a road 5 blocks ahead is congested and will find alternative routes. That is something that us humans cannot see, traffic is usually the result of human limitations in seeing what is going on ahead.

I agree. But road space is still going to be finite, especially in built up areas. Automation will allow for much more efficient movement, and we may see the whole parking system change too (e.g., less need for on-street parking may increase capacity of urban roads, if cars drop people off then move on by themselves to another user or to some central stacked parking facility), but I really don't think it's going to be the all-encompassing solution that you seem to feel it will be.

Of the impacts on other modes, I think local bus service will be affected the most.

[itom 987]

Probably not 300 km/h but definitely 160km/h on highways. Time is the most valuable commodity we all have. We waste so much if when sleeping that it's a no-brainer to travel while sleeping. Lets say you take the HSR from Toronto to Montreal, the ride took only an hour but then you have to take transit or a rent-a-car to get to your final destination. Keep in mind that you also have to travel to the HSR rail station as well before taking the ride. Your total trip time ends up being longer when everything else is factored in. Alternately, you can hop into your driverless vehicle that is parked in your driveway. Relax, sleep, eat, chat etc. and end up at your final destination at a suburban outpost somewhere near Montreal. The trip time would be about the same as HSR. Yes, I have mentioned before that continental air travel is in trouble. Perhaps it will be used for freight.

[itom 987]

Also, on the trip to Montreal, you actually have to plan it out. Whereas taking a driverless vechcle requires no planning at all, just tell the car where you want to go.

[GlassCity]

I guess we'll see in the next few years as automated vehicles enter the mainstream. I'll admit I'm generally much more skeptical of their ability to radically change travel the way that many have claimed.

[MolsonExport]

The widespread diffusion of driver-less cars is rather like Cold Fusion and major advancements on containing cancer. Always 5 years away.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by itom 987

^^ Traffic in cities, and all over the country for that matter will be managed by a computers. Traffic congestion will end up being much less than before because the computer would already know a road 5 blocks ahead is congested and will find alternative routes. That is something that us humans cannot see, traffic is usually the result of human limitations in seeing what is going on ahead.

Except the bulk of the alternative streets will probably have 'local traffic only' laws implemented pretty quickly when suddenly all these automated cars want to drive past them. People already complain massively about traffic during construction and other detour events, when self driving cars start deciding to swarm down 2 lane residential side streets there will be push back. Also add in the existence of various unavoidable choke points like highway on/off ramps, bridges, one way streets, etc., and I really think people overestimate how much of a change self driving cars can manage.

Likely just replacing stop and go with very slow go. Which is good for the wear and tear of your vehicle, but not a huge time saver.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by itom 987

Yes, I have mentioned before that continental air travel is in trouble. Perhaps it will be used for freight.

Air travel will remain popular for some time. There is simply nothing that approaches the speed of air travel over long distances.

High speed rail would likely hurt air routes like Ottawa-Toronto and Montreal-Toronto. It would be similar in a sense to Amtrak high-speed service on the Northeast Corridor in the US - taking the train between NYC and Washington, DC is far more convenient than driving or taking an airplane.

For a travel time of less than 3 hours, the percentage of time required to deal with all the hassle of airports often isn't worth it.

[MolsonExport]

Airports suck donkey's balls. I hate Pearson. Problem is, I hate most American hub airports even more. Assholery abounds.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I guess we'll see in the next few years as automated vehicles enter the mainstream. I'll admit I'm generally much more skeptical of their ability to radically change travel the way that many have claimed.

The dynamics of travel within a city will not change much, even with automated vehicles. Sure, travel speeds might increase on limited-access highways, but at the end of the day the limitations of using steel boxes headed to all points of the compass (especially when they all decide to do it at once) will not suddenly disappear. The best thing about automation is that it hopefully will cut down on accidents cause by inattentiveness, which really makes for traffic troubles.

As for long distance travel, automation will allow for higher speed, but realistically, I'd imagine that a 50% increase is about the intergalactic limit. A vehicle uses much more fuel at high speed and still operated within the bounds of physics - stopping from high speed uses lots more room than lower speeds.

[SF Thomas]

Originally Posted by wave46

The dynamics of travel within a city will not change much, even with automated vehicles.

I'm inclined to agree. I've never really bought into the argument some people have been making that driverless cars are going to completely usurp traditional public transit or inter-city rail transit.

Within cities road capacity will still remain an issue, especially in larger urban regions like the GTA. The price tag will continue to remain a barrier as well, it will still be more expensive to own a self-driving car and parking will remain limited. Also if we can manage self-driving cars and tucks, self-driving buses and a wider application of automated trains probably wouldn't be far behind. This would mean the cost for public transit would probably remain lower than the individual fare for Uber or Lyft if they start managing a fleet of automated cars. For municipal governments public transit would also remain more cost-effective for moving people, less taxing on road infrastructure and probably more environmentally friendly.

If anything for inter-city travel self-driving cars might actually be an encouragement for high speed rail. HSR would still be a lot faster to travel between cities than car. Self-driving Ubers though would reduce a lot of the inconvenience of not having your own car to get around when traveling within a different city, reduce the extra cost of a cab and the difficulty taking luggage on public transit.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Toronto to Kitchener is doable.

Windsor and London, I don't see the justification.

Why not London?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I really think that the number of people paying attention to this is in the hundreds. If HSR was a real issue with real exposure, PC candidates along the proposed line could easily dredge up the 2013 proposal and show that this is just the Wynne government making empty promises to win votes.

The PCs aren't saying anything, because they are probably going to run on a platform of less transit investment. Why would they draw attention to a worse policy platform for mass transport?

Originally Posted by itom 987

In the beginning, yes but when everyone finally uses a driverless car the law will be changed. I wouldn't be surprised if the cars end up looking like mini motorhomes. Hazard detection technology is already there and will continue to improve so accidents due to outside factors will be a thing of the past.

The replacement cycle for a car is 10 years at least. And before you get automation, realistically, you are going to have to have electrification. Bloomberg says that the tipping point (where EV sales accelerate and gas sales decrease) will be somewhere between 2023 and 2030. And that's just the tipping point. From there you'd have to see when EV sales start exceeding car sales. And then add the replacement cycle in. Best case scenario would be 2040 for the majority of cars to be fully automated.

And after you get all that automation, how are you going to handle the other finite constraint: roadspace (including) parking. There just isn't enough. And with millions more future residents, the competition for roadspace will be higher. Automation will help. But it won't negate the reality of more cars, less space. For driving and parking.

Lastly, climate change. Even EVs will never be as efficient as public transit and high speed rail. So if Canada is actually serious about making a dent on its emissions, High Speed Rail is a must.