• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

MindzEye said:
Yes

I don't agree with Zeke on the bit about cities buying them for people. More likely would be cities putting autonomous ride share companies in monopoly positions like they did for Taxi cabs, and using the additional revenues they're saving from not needing some of the programs Zeke mentioned to develop next generation public transit systems, as well as prioritizing smart system adoption for municipal parking, traffic management, etc.
Click to expand...
If prices drop by 50% or so that companies like Uber currently charge, which is not wholly unrealistic given how much of their revenues does go to drivers, and adding in some more efficiencies in new cars, then a fleet of autonomous vehicles is virtually a mass transit system. You could basically replace buses with like a minivan Uber-pool model, have it point to point, and it's not even more expensive than a TTC token.

So yeah, maybe some families can't afford their own cars, but the thing with these vehicles is that you don't have to have your own car anymore. It will move to a system where only the wealthiest people will have their "private" car.
 
crunch the numbers. it's ridiculous.

any smart city will do the math and see that it saves them tons of money tp buy everyone robocars - and any car company will realize that they have every reason to make an effective and cheap basic model available to large cities making these kinds of large purchases.
 
the cost of traffic congestion alone in Toronto is estimated at somewhere around $6-10 billion. that's just congestion. billions more are spent on traffic enforcement, emergency services, road signs, parking, and on and on and on. $2b on the TTC.

buying everyone robocars is a bargain.
 
zeke said:
the cost of traffic congestion alone in Toronto is estimated at somewhere around $6-10 billion. that's just congestion. billions more are spent on traffic enforcement, emergency services, road signs, parking, and on and on and on. $2b on the TTC.

buying everyone robocars is a bargain.
Click to expand...

Invest in mass transit expansion and you pay the construction tab once. User fees will cover the cost of maintainence and operations for the most part for decades into the future. Buy everyone "robo cars" and you're paying out the ass forever. Far lower life expectancy on a personal vehicle than on say, a train line, or even on individually purchased train cars, far higher cost of maintaining automobile infrastructure, etc, etc, etc. Dollar for dollar nothing beats mass transit. It's not even close.

No level of government will need to purchase cars for their citizens, there are more than enough economic incentives (positive and negative) for to buy a "robocar" when they're in mass production and available on every car lot in the country.
 
UWHabs said:
If prices drop by 50% or so that companies like Uber currently charge, which is not wholly unrealistic given how much of their revenues does go to drivers, and adding in some more efficiencies in new cars, then a fleet of autonomous vehicles is virtually a mass transit system. You could basically replace buses with like a minivan Uber-pool model, have it point to point, and it's not even more expensive than a TTC token.
Click to expand...

Even reducing the cost of an Uber type service is still pretty premium in cost. It's entirely unlikely that any individualized transportation option will ever get you from Kipling to Kennedy for 3 bucks. The cost of fuel alone is higher than that. Shit, even assuming that every vehicle on the road at the time is electric, you're still in the range of 2 cents per km just in electricity. 80 cents in just electricity, then amortize in the cost of the production of the vehicle per trip (basically, assuming a vehicle cost of 30,000 CAD and an effective life cycle of 300,000km...which is optimistic.....that's another 10 cents a KM, so 4 dollars in our Kipling to Kennedy run...now add maintenance costs, administration, etc, etc, and you're probably looking at a pure provider cost of almost 10 bucks for that kind of trip. Mass transit will always be able to significantly beat that)

So yeah, maybe some families can't afford their own cars, but the thing with these vehicles is that you don't have to have your own car anymore. It will move to a system where only the wealthiest people will have their "private" car.
Click to expand...

If we try to project far enough ahead, I think this sort of true but not entirely. I still think there will be a certain utility in private vehicle ownership, and I don't think that the cost of ownership will be a meaningful barrier for the middle class and upwards. What will become more costly are things we take for granted right now. Parking, for example, is the biggest waste of valuable space in modern life. Autonomous vehicles will basically do away with the need for somewhat uniformly dispersed parking lots. Large public buildings (malls, stadiums, etc) will be able to fit on smaller parcels on land than are currently used, parking will be able to be done off site in more efficient parking structures. Charge stations will become more of a luxury (especially with the longer charge times we're likely to see for a couple generations of EV's) rather than a quick dash staple of automotive life. What parking there will be at large public buildings will likely be premium in nature (free charging) and will come at a cost, as opposed to now where it's just expected for any large mall to provide expansive amounts of free parking.

So yeah, I think it will be less common than today (private vehicle ownership), but I don't think it will slip into the realm of the elite. That will be personal aviation transportation imo. But I think we're looking decades down the line for that.
 
zeke said:
crunch the numbers. it's not remotely close.
Click to expand...

I agree. But not in the direction you're claiming.

There are 1.1 million vehicles registered to Toronto addresses (let's just assume that they build a ****ing wall to keep the 905 and 705'ers out for a moment and they get nothing). At a cost of 15,000 per units (which is mother****ing generous), that's 16.5 Billion dollars . The entire Toronto budget (operations and capex) is about 13 Billion a year.

Just the borrowing alone (~4% municipal bond rate....also generous as ****, but okay) is 660 million a year in interest on the financing. That's not paying off the 16.5 Billion dollars borrowed to start the program. That's just paying the interest. So yeah, 5% of Toronto's total budget from now until mother****ing forever would be interest on the bonds sold to finance the program.

You're out of your ****ing mind.

On the other hand, if you let market economics do what it will do over the adoption curve of the new technology, and invest the money saved (as you've pointed out, there will be significant savings in traffic enforcement, etc, etc, etc) in a mixture of subway and LRT expansion over the course of the ~decade long adoption curve, you can let economic forces sort things out for you, and come out of it with the "cadillac" of mass transit systems for about the same cost, except you've paid it over a decade instead of more or less all at once, and you've paid for a solid chunk of it out of savings found elsewhere, meaning significantly less borrowing.
 
Last edited:
MindzEye said:
I agree. But not in the direction you're claiming.

There are 1.1 million vehicles registered to Toronto addresses (let's just assume that they build a ****ing wall to keep the 905 and 705'ers out for a moment and they get nothing). At a cost of 15,000 per units (which is mother****ing generous), that's 16.5 Billion dollars . The entire Toronto budget (operations and capex) is about 13 Billion a year.

Just the borrowing alone (~4% municipal bond rate....also generous as ****, but okay) is 660 million a year in interest on the financing. That's not paying off the 16.5 Billion dollars borrowed to start the program. That's just paying the interest. So yeah, 5% of Toronto's total budget from now until mother****ing forever would be interest on the bonds sold to finance the program.

You're out of your ****ing mind.

On the other hand, if you let market economics do what it will do over the adoption curve of the new technology, and invest the money saved (as you've pointed out, there will be significant savings in traffic enforcement, etc, etc, etc) in a mixture of subway and LRT expansion over the course of the ~decade long adoption curve, you can let economic forces sort things out for you, and come out of it with the "cadillac" of mass transit systems for about the same cost, except you've paid it over a decade instead of more or less all at once, and you've paid for a solid chunk of it out of savings found elsewhere, meaning significantly less borrowing.
Click to expand...

you are making mistakes all over the place.

1.new vehicles do not have to be purchased every year for everyone.
2.the vast majority of people will buy their own nice cars and not just take the cheapest one.
3.you are ignoring massive costs outside the city budget - like the $6-10 billions annual economic hit estimated from congestion alone.
4.you are ignoring massive provincial and federal funding subsidizing many of these expenses
5.robocars from other cities will merely log on to the city network. if you don't have a robocars, you have to park and take a robocab.
5."market forces" working gradually don't provide the massive savings that a planned robocar ecosystem does in all sectors of the economy.


smart cities will figure this out.
 
zeke said:
you are making mistakes all over the place.

1.new vehicles do not have to be purchased every year for everyone.
Click to expand...

That was a one time purchase, to replace vehicles currently registered in Toronto. 16.5 Billion

2.the vast majority of people will buy their own nice cars and not just take the cheapest one.
Click to expand...

Or they'll take the cheap one, and then buy a second, nicer vehicle. Not many people are going to turn down free.

3.you are ignoring massive costs outside the city budget - like the $6-10 billions annual economic hit estimated from congestion alone.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. First thing is that though congestion will be optimized, it won't evaporate. Second is that number is the entire GTA (including surrounding municipalities) and not just Toronto. Third is that number represents about 2% of Toronto's GDP, so while the government would see a very slight increase in overall revenues from a decrease in congestion, it's not something that will simply show up in the coffers of any level of government in any real way. So it's a good thing absolutely, but it just gets plugged into GDP.

4.you are ignoring massive provincial and federal funding subsidizing many of these expenses
Click to expand...

Yeah, good luck with that. That's a tough sell politically for either level.

5.robocars from other cities will merely log on to the city network. if you don't have a robocars, you have to park and take a robocab.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not a shitshow waiting to happen.

5."market forces" working gradually don't provide the massive savings that a planned robocar ecosystem does in all sectors of the economy.
Click to expand...

Listen, I think I've proven over the years that I'm not one of these "the government can't do anything right" people. I think that there are certain aspects of modern life that approrpriate public planning is vital to achieving, but the undertaking of what you're talking about is a complete nightmare from financing to implementation to operation. They simply aren't the right people to be picking the right technology to use, the right way to implement it, etc. Market forces are going to be the right way to go there where the best, most efficient tech wins out.


smart cities will figure this out.
Click to expand...

Smart cities haven't figured out how to dig tunnels efficiently.
 
BG said:
Isn't mass transit already a better investment?
Click to expand...

Excellent option.
Build a top of the line system, which includes long distance rapid transit, micro systems which are able to produce and function for the landscapes designed.
A mass work project that could take many people iff the welfare rolls.
Taxes filling the coffers and helping to pay for this system.
Spike the cost of fuel to nudge more of the public into using this system.
I am sure there would be many more positives than negatives as long as they took the system above the landscape than below.
Going under ground creates to many problems and issues for the public and businesses.
You will never eliminate traffic when having 1 million individual cars on the road, in an area as small as Toronto.
Go one step further ..... if most are working and paying taxes, make the system free to use.... allowing even more people the opportunity to use it. The wear and tear on the roads, as well as the enviromental costs involved with private vehicles would make allowing free passage a money saver.
 
MindzEye said:
That was a one time purchase, to replace vehicles currently registered in Toronto. 16.5 Billion
Click to expand...

yep, a bargain multi-year investment.


Or they'll take the cheap one, and then buy a second, nicer vehicle. Not many people are going to turn down free.
Click to expand...

fairly simple exercise not to give free cars to people who already have or eventually purchase their own.


No, I'm not. First thing is that though congestion will be optimized, it won't evaporate.
Click to expand...

actually, it would completely evaporate. it's amazing how most traffic would be eliminated simply by having one central system driving all the cars. technically, you wouldn't even need traffic lights or stopping at intersections (though that may or may not be optimal I'm not sure). and then factor in removing street parking and streetcar lanes etc etc. and then, eventually, even better you can start designing roads precisely to optimize automated traffic.

Second is that number is the entire GTA (including surrounding municipalities) and not just Toronto. Third is that number represents about 2% of Toronto's GDP, so while the government would see a very slight increase in overall revenues from a decrease in congestion, it's not something that will simply show up in the coffers of any level of government in any real way. So it's a good thing absolutely, but it just gets plugged into GDP.

Yeah, good luck with that. That's a tough sell politically for either level.
Click to expand...

as said, smart cities will figure it out the golden investment. dumb ones will catch on eventually.


Yeah, that's not a shitshow waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

nah. super simple. eventually it would be a seamless network everywhere, but in the short term, cars literally aren't able to get into the city without logging on to the network first.


Listen, I think I've proven over the years that I'm not one of these "the government can't do anything right" people. I think that there are certain aspects of modern life that approrpriate public planning is vital to achieving, but the undertaking of what you're talking about is a complete nightmare from financing to implementation to operation. They simply aren't the right people to be picking the right technology to use, the right way to implement it, etc. Market forces are going to be the right way to go there where the best, most efficient tech wins out.

Smart cities haven't figured out how to dig tunnels efficiently.
Click to expand...

the thing is this doesn't need government planning.

government just has to partner with google or tesla or whoever and implement the entire network, and that company would jump at the chance to offer super cheap basic models when it guarantees them a market of that scale.

it will start in some small towns first. in fact, it's already happening. it's inevitable.
 
Last edited:
Hey, just found an awesome new reason for human controlled cars.

Just had to rush my three year old to the hospital, and I am super glad that

A) I own my own car

B) that I can go faster than the posted speed limit for an emergency
 
A) you would still own your own car

B) a robocar would get your kid their even faster, and there would be no speed limits, and you wouldn't have to worry about killing yourself en route.
 
Altair said:
Hey, just found an awesome new reason for human controlled cars.

Just had to rush my three year old to the hospital, and I am super glad that

A) I own my own car

B) that I can go faster than the posted speed limit for an emergency
Click to expand...
How's your kid?
 
Damn. Kids gulp down the weirdest things sometimes.

If it's any comfort, one of my younger cousins once thought it was a great idea to drink a can of paint thinner when she was a toddler. With quick medical attention, she ended up being 100% OK in the end.

Hoping this has the same end.
 
Altair said:
Hey, just found an awesome new reason for human controlled cars.

Just had to rush my three year old to the hospital, and I am super glad that

A) I own my own car

B) that I can go faster than the posted speed limit for an emergency
Click to expand...

She okay?
 
Habsy said:
Oh wow. I remember those days.

They pumping her stomach?
Click to expand...

No, they are monitoring her breathing and how much oxygen she's getting.

The past two hours of projectile vomiting should have taken care of whatever she swallowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top