News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
There shouldn't really be any question that driverless vehicles are coming.

The question should be what level of market penetration of driverless vehicles will occur, and, how desirable driverless vehicles actually are from an employment, land uses, environmental and urban planning perspective. (Not to mention debate on liability, security and ownership of the wireless communication network on the technological side.)

The benefits of removing the human factor to driving is probably inarguable when it comes to safety. My problem is that driverless vehicles don't disprove decades of development of New Urbanism ideas. I have massive worries that driverless vehicles will lead to a rennaissance of urban sprawl and auto-centric land-uses, built-form and lifestyle (and consequential environmental, health and mental concerns derived from them) over my lifetime, which I personally deplore as a direction for society. Especially when I think we are finally looking to get things right with the tenets of New Urbanism.
 
WislaHD said:
development of New Urbanism ideas. I have massive worries that driverless vehicles will lead to a rennaissance of urban sprawl and auto-centric land-uses, built-form and lifestyle (and consequential environmental, health and mental concerns derived from them) over my lifetime, which I personally deplore as a direction for society. Especially when I think we are finally looking to get things right with the tenets of New Urbanism
Click to expand...
I worry about that too. I also worry about the 1000s that could be out of work.
 
WislaHD said:
There shouldn't really be any question that driverless vehicles are coming.

The question should be what level of market penetration of driverless vehicles will occur, and, how desirable driverless vehicles actually are from an employment, land uses, environmental and urban planning perspective. (Not to mention debate on liability, security and ownership of the wireless communication network on the technological side.)

The benefits of removing the human factor to driving is probably inarguable when it comes to safety. My problem is that driverless vehicles don't disprove decades of development of New Urbanism ideas. I have massive worries that driverless vehicles will lead to a rennaissance of urban sprawl and auto-centric land-uses, built-form and lifestyle (and consequential environmental, health and mental concerns derived from them) over my lifetime, which I personally deplore as a direction for society. Especially when I think we are finally looking to get things right with the tenets of New Urbanism.
Click to expand...
I share your fears.
 
WislaHD said:
My problem is that driverless vehicles don't disprove decades of development of New Urbanism ideas. I have massive worries that driverless vehicles will lead to a rennaissance of urban sprawl and auto-centric land-uses, built-form and lifestyle (and consequential environmental, health and mental concerns derived from them) over my lifetime, which I personally deplore as a direction for society. Especially when I think we are finally looking to get things right with the tenets of New Urbanism.
Click to expand...

If those driverless cars are electric battery-powered, many of the disadvantages of urban sprawl will disappear.

I can imagine a transportation model that has people using very light/efficient electric car models (more like furniture store carts than real cars) to travel 2-5 km from their houses to an "assembly station", where their carts are hooked together to form a train. The train makes the bulk of the trip under centralized / AI control, then gets disassembled close to the destination, and the riders again use their cars/carts to travel the final 2-5 km. That solves the "last mile" problem.

Of course, if the destination is in downtown or another dense area, they will just store their cars/carts and walk to the office / school / shopping centre.

In a way, this model will re-enable sprawl, as people will not need to live within walking distance from a public transit stop in order to use public transit.

The implications should be analysed, but if the only remaining problem is that New Urbanists dislike the physical separation between the people, then obviously it is impossible to force people to live close together just to satisfy those tastes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMO
WislaHD said:
There shouldn't really be any question that driverless vehicles are coming.

The question should be what level of market penetration of driverless vehicles will occur, and, how desirable driverless vehicles actually are from an employment, land uses, environmental and urban planning perspective. (Not to mention debate on liability, security and ownership of the wireless communication network on the technological side.)

The benefits of removing the human factor to driving is probably inarguable when it comes to safety. My problem is that driverless vehicles don't disprove decades of development of New Urbanism ideas. I have massive worries that driverless vehicles will lead to a rennaissance of urban sprawl and auto-centric land-uses, built-form and lifestyle (and consequential environmental, health and mental concerns derived from them) over my lifetime, which I personally deplore as a direction for society. Especially when I think we are finally looking to get things right with the tenets of New Urbanism.
Click to expand...
Something we have to consider in Canada is snow. Sub-divisions can be designed with dedicated paths for driverless 'last mile' vehicles, but one serious snowfall, and we could be in trouble. A similar debate on driverless vehicles is occurring in the TTC forum, and as much as I still 'distrust' driverless (I also look at skyscrapers and think "That's going to fall over") doubtless it's at least a good part of the future. Still not solved is snow, not just for blocking the path, but rendering false visual cues to the vehicle's senors.

The 'last mile' problem must be solved, but we're not there yet. At the end of the day, the cost of roads and parking, let alone the many other environmental and societal costs of driving, will be the downfall of the car as the primary transportation vehicle in crowded cities.
 
Probably, the first step would be a driver-assist technology that would automatically watch out for jay-walkers at stops and stations, and motor vehicles crossing the tracks at intersections. Unfortunately, it would probably not happen first in Toronto, but elsewhere first. Why? Because money is more important than safety.
 
APTA-2048 said:
I worry about that too. I also worry about the 1000s that could be out of work.
Click to expand...
It will be positions that will not be fill by employees as they retire or change positions, since this not going to happen over night. Line 4 could become the first line to be driver-less, but still need someone around encase something goes wrong at a lower pay scale.

Its the future where human will have less involvement since they makeup the largest cost in operation, man hours lost and so on. TTC employees are only joining the long list where workers have been replace by robotics and computers.

As we move into the 22nd century, up to 25% of the population will never hold a job unless we start creating new skill jobs, as technology changes in the come decades. Work week most likely will change as we know it today to employ these 25% people.

One only has to look to see how many people were employ in various industries up to a 100 years ago and compare it today employment. Then, look at the number of industries that don't exist today as well the ones in decline due to change in the market as well other things to see the decline ratio. Look at the number of TTC personal rebuilding intersections decades ago and you will find is doing the same work with 75% less personal. Some of those lost jobs are being done by 3rd party under the city control, but still a large number of less employees.

Within 10 years, TTC could have 10% of the existing workforce off their books.

This will cost the Union lost revenue without increasing union dues to pay retire members, since they are living a lot longer than 50 years ago. Longer someone lives regardless where they were employ, longer the payout is, unless there is a good sound pension fund in place. A number of pension funds have dry up, including non union ones. I have 2 dead plans before retiring already.
 
Any trepidations about the impacts of driverless buses is of no concern for Torontonians. Seriously, Toronto can't even get it's head around the idea of automated trains on completely grade separated lines.
 
Thank you for your service, TBM Don.

IMG_20170320_171222.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20170320_171222.jpg
    IMG_20170320_171222.jpg
    1,005.5 KB · Views: 474
Here's something that confuses me: Why is Downsview -> Sheppard West while Eglinton West -> Cedarvale. I understand the confusion with Downsview Park, but why not be consistent?
 
Leo_Chan said:
Here's something that confuses me: Why is Downsview -> Sheppard West while Eglinton West -> Cedarvale. I understand the confusion with Downsview Park, but why not be consistent?
Click to expand...
Ask the TTC commissioners, im sure they'll be able to answer for their stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top