Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Highway 401 Widening - Highway 8 to Townline Road
(05-21-2020, 11:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(05-21-2020, 11:33 AM)clasher Wrote: I doubt that self-driving cars are safer than humans right now, Autonomous vehicle safety myths and facts. The blog is full of great information and analysis of whatever solid data the author can find. In that link near the bottom is a little blurb about Tesla autopilot and a flawed study the NHTSA. There is a link on the sidebar to the 2020 numbers, and a lot of other interesting stuff that I don't really understand since I'm not a tech person.

Elon Musk said a few years ago we'd have self-driving cars in 2020, so did a lot of people in 2010 and 1995, and so on. It's been "coming" for a long time apparently but it's still not here and probably won't be for decades.

The article you linked is at the URL: https://blog.piekniewski.info/ which is a big tip off that this is not a rigourous evaluation. The author has basically just assumed that a self driving car, when it requires the driver to take over, would instead have crashed, this is clearly a nonsense assumption, since the vehicle could instead have "stopped".

The author talks about he came up with that comparison, it's right in the link here, quoted so you can actually read what it says instead of making an assumption:
Quote:Nevertheless even if we take the number in which Waymo admits there would have been a crash, we get a crash every 635868/9 = 70652 miles. If we conservatively assume that every 100th disengagement for the rest of the pack would have lead to an accident, we get between 1760-63800 miles driven before a crash. If moreover equally conservatively we assume that 1/10 of these crashes would have lead to a fatality, we get a death in between 17600-706520 miles. Admittedly there are many assumptions here, but I try to be actually very favorable for the self driving cars. Hence we are off between two to four orders of magnitude in terms of safety as compared to humans. In this context the often repeated statement that "humans are such bad drivers" seems like a joke.

I know that is from 2018 but the data for 2020 is in another link on that site and it doesn't seem like there is a massive improvement, certainly not enough to say that autonomous cars are safer than people driving in all conditions, which is what matters.

Comparing the miles that autonomous cars have driven in largely favourable conditions to the entirety of human-driven miles driven in all conditions seems kind of disingenuous to me. Autonomous cars might work alright in sunny places that don't get rain and snow, and have more roads that are car-friendly than we do here... but they've gotta be able to handle winter and rain before we let them lose on the streets.

Even if autonomous cars hit the road in a few years, they're likely to be confined to using the 401 and other limited-access highways in auto-mode, and as you pointed out a few months ago, highway driving is already the safest kind of driving.
Reply


(05-21-2020, 12:49 PM)tomh009 Wrote: The post above, though, was pointing out that diverting substantial freight traffic to rail is not feasible today.

Of course it’s not feasible to “just do it”. But it’s perfectly feasible to start doing things that would allow more freight to move by rail in the future, rather than doing the things that will allow more freight to move by road in the future.

Arguably future demand is the easiest to shift: if we set a policy that most new demand shall be handled by rail and public transportation, then everybody can plan for that. And any new demand that cannot be so handled can fit into the space currently occupied by demand which currently uses roads but could easily shift.
Reply
The problem with freight rail now compared to the past is that a lot of businesses order everything Just In Time. Previously businesses would warehouse a lot of goods or materials and a large freight order makes sense. With JIT things are expected really quickly and the coordination for a large freight order would be harder. A train would normally need to have goods for many separate businesses. Not that it can't be done, the mindsets that JIT is better would have to change.
Reply
(05-21-2020, 02:27 PM)neonjoe Wrote: The problem with freight rail now compared to the past is that a lot of businesses order everything Just In Time. Previously businesses would warehouse a lot of goods or materials and a large freight order makes sense. With JIT things are expected really quickly and the coordination for a large freight order would be harder. A train would normally need to have goods for many separate businesses. Not that it can't be done, the mindsets that JIT is better would have to change.

This kind of thing comes back to economics, because freight and manufacturing, much more than individual choices, is driven almost exclusively by economics.

When inefficient transportation by trucks is basically just as cheap to the user as rail freight because it's massively subsidized by the public, then we end up with this situation, because JIT does save money in warehousing and inventory.
Reply
(05-21-2020, 02:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(05-21-2020, 02:27 PM)neonjoe Wrote: The problem with freight rail now compared to the past is that a lot of businesses order everything Just In Time. Previously businesses would warehouse a lot of goods or materials and a large freight order makes sense. With JIT things are expected really quickly and the coordination for a large freight order would be harder. A train would normally need to have goods for many separate businesses. Not that it can't be done, the mindsets that JIT is better would have to change.

This kind of thing comes back to economics, because freight and manufacturing, much more than individual choices, is driven almost exclusively by economics.

When inefficient transportation by trucks is basically just as cheap to the user as rail freight because it's massively subsidized by the public, then we end up with this situation, because JIT does save money in warehousing and inventory.

With proper infrastructure almost all the trucks on the 401 could be replaced by trains carrying standard containers. Transfer to truck for final delivery. In the past every two bit manufacturer had a rail siding; we’re not getting that back quickly, but a transfer terminal in every city to move containers between truck and rail is perfectly reasonable.

That reminds me of something I read once which I just looked up again. Take a look at this table of trade between Canada and Mexico:

https://www144.statcan.gc.ca/nats-stna/t...AN-eng.htm

In particular, for the most recent year shown, for some reason 2008, 12 years ago, so I don’t know what happened to the last 12 years’ data, but note these numbers:

Total trade: 22,287
Rail: 3,805
Road: 13,503

What is going on here? You might be able to convince me that it’s harder than it looks to put stuff going from, say, Waterloo to Toronto on a train rather than on the 401. But it is absolutely inconceivable that it makes sense from a broad perspective to move stuff from Mexico, through the United States, to Canada, on a truck. That’s absurd. Clearly, road transport is massively subsidized, because those importers and exporters are not choosing roads because they just hate trains: they’re choosing the most cost effective for their operations.
Reply
(05-21-2020, 07:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: In particular, for the most recent year shown, for some reason 2008, 12 years ago, so I don’t know what happened to the last 12 years’ data, but note these numbers:

Total trade: 22,287
Rail: 3,805
Road: 13,503

What is going on here? You might be able to convince me that it’s harder than it looks to put stuff going from, say, Waterloo to Toronto on a train rather than on the 401. But it is absolutely inconceivable that it makes sense from a broad perspective to move stuff from Mexico, through the United States, to Canada, on a truck. That’s absurd. Clearly, road transport is massively subsidized, because those importers and exporters are not choosing roads because they just hate trains: they’re choosing the most cost effective for their operations.

For automotive, which is a huge chunk of the trade, it's almost certainly JIT, which is quite hard to do (in North America) by rail today.

For other things, it depends also on rail cost (multiple rail lines involved), the speed of delivery (ditto), the available capacity, and the available rail connections. The rail network coverage in North America really is quite pathetic.

[Image: na_intermodal_map-1.png?width=600&name=n..._map-1.png]
Reply
(05-21-2020, 02:27 PM)neonjoe Wrote: The problem with freight rail now compared to the past is that a lot of businesses order everything Just In Time. Previously businesses would warehouse a lot of goods or materials and a large freight order makes sense. With JIT things are expected really quickly and the coordination for a large freight order would be harder. A train would normally need to have goods for many separate businesses. Not that it can't be done, the mindsets that JIT is better would have to change.

Is JIT going to be hit by COVID, though? International supply chains sound like they should be under some stress right now.
Reply


(05-21-2020, 08:36 PM)tomh009 Wrote: For automotive, which is a huge chunk of the trade, it's almost certainly JIT, which is quite hard to do (in North America) by rail today.

For other things, it depends also on rail cost (multiple rail lines involved), the speed of delivery (ditto), the available capacity, and the available rail connections. The rail network coverage in North America really is quite pathetic.

[Image: na_intermodal_map-1.png?width=600&name=n..._map-1.png]

Again, that explains why the shippers and logistics people are not being stupid when they use trucks.

None of that in any way explains how it makes sense to have thousands of trucks all individually travelling through the US at the same time with one driver per load rather than collecting hundreds of them together and having two people drive them as a train.
Reply
(05-22-2020, 09:29 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(05-21-2020, 08:36 PM)tomh009 Wrote: For automotive, which is a huge chunk of the trade, it's almost certainly JIT, which is quite hard to do (in North America) by rail today.

For other things, it depends also on rail cost (multiple rail lines involved), the speed of delivery (ditto), the available capacity, and the available rail connections. The rail network coverage in North America really is quite pathetic.

[Image: na_intermodal_map-1.png?width=600&name=n..._map-1.png]

Again, that explains why the shippers and logistics people are not being stupid when they use trucks.

None of that in any way explains how it makes sense to have thousands of trucks all individually travelling through the US at the same time with one driver per load rather than collecting hundreds of them together and having two people drive them as a train.

It's probably more efficient to just pay truckers to truck stuff for the whole journey rather than pay one trucker to drive it to a depot, then pay more people to load/unload trains, then pay more at the other rail depot, then pay again for loading/unloading, then pay another trucker to do the last leg of the journey. There's also the cost of the time it takes to do all this, and railways are going to wait until they have a really long train to reduce their labour costs as low as possible. I know that road travel in North America is subsidized a lot differently than it is in other parts of the world so that explains the shift away from rail, along with the "containerization" of freight that makes shipping anything less than a container much less practical for smaller companies and/or different destinations.

The rail network in North America is the best freight rail network in the world and it's optimized to move the stuff that makes the most sense to move by rail: large volumes of bulk cargo like iron ore, coal, lumber, finished automobiles, steel coils, etc. as well as intermodal containers and anything that isn't time-sensitive. Trucks are good for the last mile and stuff that doesn't go into sea-cans.

Europe moves more freight by road than it does by rail. They use their rail network for more passenger service but from what I've seen they still have traffic jams on their highways... anyone that's driven the autobahn has seen the permanent signs for "stau" that light up when traffic jams up.
Reply
(05-22-2020, 11:17 AM)clasher Wrote:
(05-22-2020, 09:29 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Again, that explains why the shippers and logistics people are not being stupid when they use trucks.

None of that in any way explains how it makes sense to have thousands of trucks all individually travelling through the US at the same time with one driver per load rather than collecting hundreds of them together and having two people drive them as a train.

It's probably more efficient to just pay truckers to truck stuff for the whole journey rather than pay one trucker to drive it to a depot, then pay more people to load/unload trains, then pay more at the other rail depot, then pay again for loading/unloading, then pay another trucker to do the last leg of the journey. There's also the cost of the time it takes to do all this, and railways are going to wait until they have a really long train to reduce their labour costs as low as possible. I know that road travel in North America is subsidized a lot differently than it is in other parts of the world so that explains the shift away from rail, along with the "containerization" of freight that makes shipping anything less than a container much less practical for smaller companies and/or different destinations.

The rail network in North America is the best freight rail network in the world and it's optimized to move the stuff that makes the most sense to move by rail: large volumes of bulk cargo like iron ore, coal, lumber, finished automobiles, steel coils, etc. as well as intermodal containers and anything that isn't time-sensitive. Trucks are good for the last mile and stuff that doesn't go into sea-cans.

Europe moves more freight by road than it does by rail. They use their rail network for more passenger service but from what I've seen they still have traffic jams on their highways... anyone that's driven the autobahn has seen the permanent signs for "stau" that light up when traffic jams up.

It's only more "economical" (we aren't talking 'efficiency' here at all) because of economic choices, if truck drivers were paid more, this would easily change.

I believe WRT Europe you mean that they move a lower percentage of their freight ton-miles by railway than we do.  I'm not sure either continent moves the majority of freight ton-miles by rail, but I'm not really sure.
Reply
(05-22-2020, 11:43 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(05-22-2020, 11:17 AM)clasher Wrote: It's probably more efficient to just pay truckers to truck stuff for the whole journey rather than pay one trucker to drive it to a depot, then pay more people to load/unload trains, then pay more at the other rail depot, then pay again for loading/unloading, then pay another trucker to do the last leg of the journey. There's also the cost of the time it takes to do all this, and railways are going to wait until they have a really long train to reduce their labour costs as low as possible. I know that road travel in North America is subsidized a lot differently than it is in other parts of the world so that explains the shift away from rail, along with the "containerization" of freight that makes shipping anything less than a container much less practical for smaller companies and/or different destinations.

The rail network in North America is the best freight rail network in the world and it's optimized to move the stuff that makes the most sense to move by rail: large volumes of bulk cargo like iron ore, coal, lumber, finished automobiles, steel coils, etc. as well as intermodal containers and anything that isn't time-sensitive. Trucks are good for the last mile and stuff that doesn't go into sea-cans.

Europe moves more freight by road than it does by rail. They use their rail network for more passenger service but from what I've seen they still have traffic jams on their highways... anyone that's driven the autobahn has seen the permanent signs for "stau" that light up when traffic jams up.

It's only more "economical" (we aren't talking 'efficiency' here at all) because of economic choices, if truck drivers were paid more, this would easily change.

I believe WRT Europe you mean that they move a lower percentage of their freight ton-miles by railway than we do.  I'm not sure either continent moves the majority of freight ton-miles by rail, but I'm not really sure.

Yeah wages play a huge part of it too, railway workers are still unionized and I dunno how much of the trucking industry is, aside from the teamsters... and no idea what amount of freight the teamsters move vs. everyone else. My uncle was in the teamsters and drove for Yellow IIRC.. mainly drove from Chicago to SLC. I still think with most companies operating with as much JIT as possible they would still move stuff by truck for the other reasons I mentioned like containerization.

Here's some stats about tonnage from a wiki article, so probably there's more to it than just bulk tonnage, and anecdotally I was surprised by how many big rigs I saw on the roads in rural France when I cycled from Paris to Brest.
Reply
It looks like work is started in the southeast corner of Hespeler Rd. and Hwy 401. I wonder if they're replacing the Hespeler Rd. overpass?
Reply
(10-13-2020, 07:16 AM)jamincan Wrote: It looks like work is started in the southeast corner of Hespeler Rd. and Hwy 401. I wonder if they're replacing the Hespeler Rd. overpass?
Replacing the hespeler rd bridge as well realigning the Franklin rd interchange are both parts of the planned widening
Reply


(10-13-2020, 05:17 PM)Bjays93 Wrote: Replacing the hespeler rd bridge as well realigning the Franklin rd interchange are both parts of the planned widening

Franklin Rd has already been done.
Reply
(10-19-2020, 03:40 PM)Bytor Wrote:
(10-13-2020, 05:17 PM)Bjays93 Wrote: Replacing the hespeler rd bridge as well realigning the Franklin rd interchange are both parts of the planned widening

Franklin Rd has already been done.
Franklin Rd bridge yes. The interchange has not though. It will be all directions following the reconstruction. Right now it only has an on ramp westbound and a off ramp eastbound. 

(That is unless plans have changed recently)
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links