[1overcosc]

"However, a computer and the software program that runs it is not going to be physically able to go out check to see if the pedestrian that was just struck at a crossing is still alive and initiate CPR to resuscitate them is it? Furthermore a software program/computer is not going to be able to physically unjam a door, respond to passenger alarms, intervene in on-board disputes between passengers, immediately respond to medical emergency's such as saving a passenger who's having a heart attack by using a defibrillator, go out onto the tracks to throw a switch that is physical jammed by an object or manually operate a defective power controlled switch, check to see if there is a dragging object under the train after striking an object or receiving an alarm for such, dislodging any object stuck underneath or in front of the train, replacing a damaged hose bad(flexible air pipe) connecting coaches."

They can do all these things. You're underestimating the power of computers. Anything a human can do, a computer can do better. In about a decades time, that will be true for everything--even things like writing poetry or composing music.

ATC technology only costs that much because of all the silly regulations we have which mandate all these extra things be done that don't have to be done. The government is afraid of computers.

Again, we're only a few years away from having cars that drive themselves. Trains are less complex (from an AI standpoint) than operating cars in mixed traffic on roadways.

 

[diminutive]

It's not only a political issue but also a liability issue. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's a single completely automated (i.e. no railway personal at all on the train) heavy railway system in the entire world. Not talking about metro's or maglev's here which are not only completely grade separated but are also well protected from trespassers, which is quite different from the typical heavy railway corridor. Aside from that, the current costs of such automation would far outweigh any benefits.

I think the Rio Tinto railway in Australia will be the first fully automated mainline rail line, with lots of crossings and such.

I don't think your costs here are necessarily fair. Modernizing a 50year old signalling system would have been hugely expensive regardless of automation. I don't think the marginal cost difference from allowing automation and the alternatives would be anywhere near the whole cost of the project.

In the Rio Tinto case, automating the entire line is apparently to cost 500million, for 1,500km of track. I'm sure that project is non-comparable to GO operations in a dozen different ways, but clearly some forms of automation cost far less than the TTC's per km costs.

After Megantic I seriously doubt GO will really bother looking into it, and given current frequencies I doubt it would work out financially anyways. If Metrolinx/Queen's Park is serious about increasing train frequencies though it could make sense financially.

It does seem a little counter-intuitive and bizarre that we may start seeing partially or fully automated cars before railways.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

"However, a computer and the software program that runs it is not going to be physically able to go out check to see if the pedestrian that was just struck at a crossing is still alive and initiate CPR to resuscitate them is it? Furthermore a software program/computer is not going to be able to physically unjam a door, respond to passenger alarms, intervene in on-board disputes between passengers, immediately respond to medical emergency's such as saving a passenger who's having a heart attack by using a defibrillator, go out onto the tracks to throw a switch that is physical jammed by an object or manually operate a defective power controlled switch, check to see if there is a dragging object under the train after striking an object or receiving an alarm for such, dislodging any object stuck underneath or in front of the train, replacing a damaged hose bad(flexible air pipe) connecting coaches."

They can do all these things. You're underestimating the power of computers. Anything a human can do, a computer can do better. In about a decades time, that will be true for everything--even things like writing poetry or composing music.

Oh ok, you know of a software program/computer out there that can physically leave a train and provide CPR to a person. I'd love to see that. And clearly you don't know much about railway operations, computers already operate many things, such as the train doors and track switches. But guess what, they fail in the real world. So until we have humanoid robots out there that can accuratly mimic human behavior, don't cost excessive amounts and require minimal maintance, they're not going to replace a human. I know that day is coming, but that day is obvious not today nor will it be here anytime soon.

ATC technology only costs that much because of all the silly regulations we have which mandate all these extra things be done that don't have to be done. The government is afraid of computers.

Sounds like a conspiracy!
rolleyes

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I don't think your costs here are necessarily fair. Modernizing a 50year old signalling system would have been hugely expensive regardless of automation. I don't think the marginal cost difference from allowing automation and the alternatives would be anywhere near the whole cost of the project.

In the Rio Tinto case, automating the entire line is apparently to cost 500million, for 1,500km of track. I'm sure that project is non-comparable to GO operations in a dozen different ways, but clearly some forms of automation cost far less than the TTC's per km costs.

After Megantic I seriously doubt GO will really bother looking into it, and given current frequencies I doubt it would work out financially anyways. If Metrolinx/Queen's Park is serious about increasing train frequencies though it could make sense financially.

It does seem a little counter-intuitive and bizarre that we may start seeing partially or fully automated cars before railways

I'd argue the reason why cost are comparatively low for Rio Tinto is more because of the type of service rather than the heavy vs subway distinction. Frieght operations are completely different ballgame from passenger service, operating at a consistent speed with much greater spacing between trains, not making frequent stops and above all else not hauling people. I don't believe their system is anywhere near as complex, usually freight lines have only 1 or 2 tracks nor are they likely to be running on lines with mixed traffic and of course our climate creates added difficulties.

Though that report doesn't say whether they are removing the train crews altogether. It only says the train will drive itself, reducing the number of drivers by 400 and a potential savings of 100$ million a year. There are still many things that can go wrong with a freight train on route. They would be pretty stupid to have no one available to rectify the issue in those situations.

Anyways, as you said after Lac Megantic there won't be a large rush to reduce crewing. But obvious one day when(and if) train frequencies start to approach metro volumes and once the technology has matured ATC will absolutely make senses.

 

[1overcosc]

Paramedic robots are being tested at universities in Japan. It's not as crazy as you think.

Also, while computers do get glitches and errors, they statistically are much less likely to screw up than a human being.

 

[rbt]

Again, we're only a few years away from having cars that drive themselves ...

... in ideal weather.

Current visual/radar navigation technology is absolute shit when visibility is encumbered in any way (heavy rain, snow, airborn debris from heavy winds in a sandy/leafy area, ...).

Train automation, which is responsible for thousands of lives per train, needs to work in all circumstances. Vehicle automation is still one of those things that you would override on anything but a clear day. Incidentally, Google only cares to photograph streets on good weather days so it works pretty damn well for their use-case.

Anyway, government will be slow to adapt for trains for the same reason that buses stop and open their doors when crossing a railway. Nobody blinks when someone dies in a car accident (deaths occur daily, how many do you hear about?) but a bus load or trainload of passengers being taken out is huge news.

In late February there was a 100-car pileup near the GTA; where was it? In 1995 there was a subway accident; where was it? How many here know the location of the subway event and not the highway event?

 

[justindw]

They can do all these things. You're underestimating the power of computers. Anything a human can do, a computer can do better. In about a decades time, that will be true for everything--even things like writing poetry or composing music.
.

Oh. Link to a computer that can do these things?

Or, you know, a quick retraction would be awesome.

 

[W. K. Lis]

"However, a computer and the software program that runs it is not going to be physically able to go out check to see if the pedestrian that was just struck at a crossing is still alive and initiate CPR to resuscitate them is it? Furthermore a software program/computer is not going to be able to physically unjam a door, respond to passenger alarms, intervene in on-board disputes between passengers, immediately respond to medical emergency's such as saving a passenger who's having a heart attack by using a defibrillator, go out onto the tracks to throw a switch that is physical jammed by an object or manually operate a defective power controlled switch, check to see if there is a dragging object under the train after striking an object or receiving an alarm for such, dislodging any object stuck underneath or in front of the train, replacing a damaged hose bad(flexible air pipe) connecting coaches."

They can do all these things. You're underestimating the power of computers. Anything a human can do, a computer can do better. In about a decades time, that will be true for everything--even things like writing poetry or composing music.

ATC technology only costs that much because of all the silly regulations we have which mandate all these extra things be done that don't have to be done. The government is afraid of computers.

Again, we're only a few years away from having cars that drive themselves. Trains are less complex (from an AI standpoint) than operating cars in mixed traffic on roadways.

From the 17th century until the 1950's, computers actually were human. See link.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Move the GTHA polls results. See link to coderedto.com.



From the
Results of Poll on Transportation Investment



at this link:

Angus Reid Forum conducted a poll between April 4 and 7, 2014 on a wide range of topics about transportation investment in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The poll was on behalf of Move the GTHA, a collaborative group of organizations working together to support investment in the GTHA transportation system.
Below is a summary of key finding from the result. Additionally, a full listing of poll results are available here.
Method
Conducted by Angus Reid Forum, one of Canada’s leading online research panels, the poll was based on a random sample of 1,042 GTHA residents within the panel (which is comprised of over one hundred thousand Canadians nationwide), proportional to age/gender/region.
Travel Behaviour and Demographics
Consistent with expectations, 62% of respondents used a car most often to travel, ranging from 83% in Durham to 45% in Toronto. The mean one-way travel time to work or school was 44 minutes, with the longest times being in Durham, Peel and York Regions.
Most respondents (77%) were homeowners and almost all (89%) had access to a car.
Prioritization of Transportation Investment
a) There was a clear consensus across all groups (87% strongly or somewhat agree) that public transit and road/bridge/highway infrastructure should be a regional spending priority
b) Residents recognize that transportation investments produce shared benefits (challenging the “driver vs. transit user†narrative)

• When asked who benefits from improvements to the GTHA’s transportation systems 80% of residents responded “everyone.†Only 6% responded that improvements primarily benefit drivers, and 13% replied that improvements primarily benefit transit users.

c) There is clear demand for political leadership on new funding for transportation improvements

• 59% of residents would be more likely to support a political leader who brought in new funding sources that directly supported improvements to their community’s transportation options. Only 12% responded they would be less likely to support a leader with such an agenda, with 29% indicating a mixed opinion. Support was highest in Peel region (62%), Toronto (60%), and York Region (59%).

d) A majority of residents are willing to support an increase in taxes and fees in order to improve our transportation system

• 60% of respondents stated they would support an increase in taxes and fees to improve public transit infrastructure, with 60% also indicating support for an increase to improve road, bridge, and highway infrastructure in the GTHA. In both cases, there was good support from all regions across the GTHA.

Support for Key Principles
The majority of respondents were more likely to be supportive of new revenue sources if:
a) Funds were put into a dedicated fund that would only be used for transportation (83%);
b) Some of the money was spent on roads and bridges (91%); improving existing transit service (86%); improving walking and cycling (61%)
c)They could see system benefits right away (82%)
Support for Individual Revenue Tools
The levels of support for specific tools for investment in transit and in roads/bridges/highways were almost identical. The Table below shows the percentage of respondents supporting specific tools for transit investment.
Support for Individual Revenue Tools for Transit Investment, Ranked by Level of Support
(% very acceptable or acceptable, % unacceptable or very unacceptable, % don’t know)

As expected, there were some regional, gender and age differences in the levels of support for the various tools, but these differences typically were not large.
Recognizing that all new taxes and fees are controversial with the public, there were a number of tools that achieved a good degree of support from residents, including increasing corporate income tax, increasing developer charges, implementation of HOT lanes and implementing a business-owner parking levy.

 

[muller877]

Here are the full results.

http://movethegtha.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/MoveTheGTHA_data_tables_region.pdf

Observations:

- about 100 people in other regions outside of the City of Toronto. I don't think this is enough data to form a valid sample
- everyone agrees that money should be spent on everything (roads, transit, etc). Duh!
- don't tax me, tax someone else! (ignoring any economic realities that taxes will eventually end up in the hands of the consumer. "I believe that if every parking lot owner is levied $1 than they won't pass it on to me. And I believe my own employer won't do the same. Oops...I forgot...even if my employer didn't this will cost me additional taxable benefits). I was actually surprised at the size of the unlikely for the corporate tax rate changes.
- big assumption in their question...all new revenue goes to transit. There is a big disconnect between this and expectation of politicians.


Just like any poll. You ask the right questions, you get the right answers.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

○ Aviation tax
○ Future HOV lanes - TBD
○ Expanding the Gas Tax
§ 1.3 billion dollars from the provincial portion of the gas tax

○ 15 billion in transit money for the GTHA (Transit dedicated fund)
○ Ontario portion of the HST to transit fund - 130 million dollars
Budget.

 

[Adjei]

Looking like we will be going to the polls.

 

[rbt]

Poking through the 424 page budget (http://www.scribd.com/document_down...source=embed&uahk=vPqaRojK1A/gegXJHIh/x44R1TM), I came across this paragraph under the heading "Allocating the Dedicated Funds":

"Proceeds from the dedicated fund for the GTHA would be invested exclusively in public transit priorities that address congestion and improve mobility throughout the region. Proceeds would be used to build priority projects included in Metrolinx’s regional transportation plan, The Big Move, and for other potential projects that support economic development and improve mobility, such as the East Bayfront Light Rail Transit (LRT) project on Toronto’s waterfront. This would build on the first wave of projects, such as the Eglinton Crosstown LRT line and Union Pearson Express, and the Bloor‐Danforth subway extension in Scarborough."

I don't believe Murray mentioned that one. From the perspective of increasing future provincial revenue, East Bayfront appears on the surface to be a solid candidate.

Most of the rest of what I'm seeing has been mentioned. Agreement to buy 53km of track between Kitchener and Georgetown, additional Kitchener trains by 2016, 2-way all day service EA's to be started, etc.

 

[innsertnamehere]

whelp, looks like we are heading to the polls.

 

[gweed123]

whelp, looks like we are heading to the polls.

Let's just hope Tea Party Tim can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory a second time... Otherwise all of this talk of revenue tools is pretty much useless.