North America

All Transit Articles

Some of these ideas are much sillier than others. I’ll leave you to decide:

Transit Oases
The Bus Train Bike Lane: A Bus-Bike Lane for the Smartphone Era
Car-Sharing Vehicles Doubling as Sheltered Bus Stops
Game of Thrones’ Lessons for Cycling Advocates
The Three Card Monty 
Next Man Up: The Passenger-Driven Bus 
Bus-Bike Lanes: Can I Interest You in a Time-Share? 
Trolley-Trucks and Autonomous Cargo Handling 
Like Night and Day (E-Commerce Transit)
An Electric Car/Bike Lane Plan, for Cities like Toronto 
Toronto’s Railways to Nowhere (Semi-Autonomous Cars)  
The Witching Hour 
RoRoRo Your Car 
Superhighway in a Box 
Numerology and Public Transit 
The Private Sector
The Intersection of Yonge and Danforth
Devil’s Advocate: Elon Musk 
Travel by Hibernacula 
Night Moves 
Chutes and Ladders 

Coming Soon (Hopefully):
The Roombus
Facelift
Tortoise v. Hare, 2K19
The Wine Cellar
The Lucky Bus
Unferries
The Parkway
Double-Decker Buses for Short People
Gaga For Gondolas
Customs-Built Transit

 

Standard
North America

The Car-Sharing Sheltered Bus Stop and Seasonal Bike Lane

In recent years there have been two excellent new technologies, car apps and transit apps, which have nevertheless been unable to successfully solve traffic problems. Transit apps, which tell you when buses or trains are coming and, in some cases, tell you how crowded each bus is*, are useful but are still no antidote to challenges such as getting to and from bus stops or waiting for buses in bad weather. Car apps, which can summon lifts or carpools or make it easy to rent a car, tend to do little or nothing to alleviate traffic jams, and can also be relatively costly or inconvenient, especially in bad weather when there are no vehicles nearby, or when demand for lifts outstrips supply.

*This is very useful because buses tend to bunch fairly close together, and the front bus in each grouping tends to be much more crowded than the buses behind them. With this information, people can simply wait a tiny bit longer to get on a less crowded bus, without taking the risk that the bus further behind will be just as crowded or will not arrive any time soon.

What might be needed, therefore, is a way to use these new technologies to get to and from transit, especially in bad weather, and make it easier to wait for buses in bad weather, and do so without adding to traffic jams that block more efficient modes of transportation such as buses or streetcars or (in good weather) bikes.

Here, then, is a possible solution: have car-sharing cars double as sheltered bus stops in bad weather.

car2go-berlin-carsharing-smart-ladestationen-charging-stations-01-pixabay.png

Such a system could have a number of advantages:

  1. In suburban areas where people do not live near bus stops and where streets are not designed well for pedestrians, the car-sharing cars could be used to help people get to and from bus stops.
  2. In the event of an unexpected delay in the bus or streetcar system (e.g. a subway line is temporarily shut down or a streetcar line is temporarily obstructed, leading buses to become overcrowded) or if there is a sudden change in the weather (e.g. a sudden rainstorm), or if you have a personal emergency (e.g. you really have to go to the bathroom and your bus is late) you could have the option of simply paying to drive a car-sharing car to your destination
  3. the car-sharing car would not necessarily need to be a conventional car, but could instead be a tiny one-seater car, or an electric-assist pedal-car, or even an enclosed bicycle or tricycle. This would work very well on streets where there is a bike lane or a street-parking lane. Indeed, this would be ideal for a street in which a bike lane becomes a parking lane during winter. People in the winter want street parking so that they don’t have to worry about slipping on ice, and want sheltered bus stops where they can stay warm while they wait (often for a long time, since bus delays are more common in winter). When the weather is nice, on the other hand, people do not need street parking or sheltered bus stops, so the parking lane could instead become a bike lane. This bike lane could then be used not just by regular bicycles, but also by the car-share enclosed bicycles and tricycles and pedal-cars and one-seaters.
  4. The cars would not contribute too much to traffic jams or air pollution, as the cars would be used mainly to get to and from buses, and as most of the cars could be very small, lightweight, and possibly electric or pedal-powered or both.
  5. If they are electric, the car-sharing bus stop parking spots could perhaps double as charging stations. A car-sharing sheltered bus stop charging station might be an ideal charging station from both an economic and environmental point of view, because slow-charging batteries is better than fast-charging and as lightweight vehicles are far better than conventional electric cars
  6. The cars could perhaps also be vehicles that would facilitate carpooling. You could, for instance, have a car-sharing van or minibus that would serve as a sheltered bus  stop but could also be driven itself (if the bus or streetcar was running late, etc. etc.), if the passengers were willing to split the cost of driving it and if one of the passengers is willing and registered to drive it and then drop it off at another bus stop

It is not just car-sharing technologies that could make this idea viable, but also transit apps.

By having the cars equipped with these apps, people will able to use them as sheltered bus stops without needing to have a clear view of the horizon to see if a bus is approaching. Even though these cars would ideally be located immediately next to bus stops, the ability to know in advance when a bus is coming means that if necessary they could be located a bit further away from the bus stops, on an adjacent side street, without the risk of people missing their bus.

That might not even be needed though, since the car-sharing bus stops might not need to take up much more space than the current public bicycle-sharing systems often do, particularly if one-seaters or pedal-cars are used. (In Toronto, there are already 360 public bicycle-sharing stations, even though few people use them in the winter or during heat waves). People would then be able to use their transit passes to unlock the car’s door by prepaying their bus fare, so that the cars would not be misused too much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard
North America

The Intersection of Yonge and Danforth

–  (This is an unpleasant article, sorry) – 

On the anniversary of the Yonge street van attack which killed ten people a year ago, Canadian media has been debating whether or not city streets should put in place more barriers to help keep pedestrians safe in the event of any future van attacks. This seems to be missing the point: Toronto had not one but two terrorist attacks in the past year, the Yonge van attack and the Danforth gun attack. Luckily – in the relative sense only – no more than thirteen people were killed. But one does not need to be a neurotic to consider what might have occurred if, instead of Yonge and Danforth, they had attacked Yonge-and-Danforth: Canada’s most crowded subway station.

If we have learned anything about terror attacks in the 21stcentury, it is that they are simple to imagine ahead of time (9-11, for instance, was neither the first quadruple airplane hijacking nor the first significant attempt to destroy the World Trade towers nor the first attempt to crash a hijacked airplane into a major Western landmark nor even the first major attack carried out by Al Qaeda that week), possible to prevent (hardening cockpit doors, for example), and can have secondary consequences nearly as damaging as, or plausibly even far more damaging than, the terrorist attack itself.

Now think back to Toronto. An attack at Yonge-Bloor station is frighteningly easy to imagine: a gunman, or gunmen, at rush hour, just as a train or trains are pulling into the station, videos of the result circulating online immediately afterwards. Aside from any damage such an attack might cause directly, it would potentially have even graver secondary impacts in the form of copycat attacks, car accidents, air pollution, political consequences, etc., not just in Toronto but also nationwide and beyond.

The point here is not to ask Canadian media to debate how to make areas like Yonge-Bloor safe from gunmen – that is not a discussion we would ideally need or want to carry out publicly. Rather, Canada’s intelligence agencies and governments should perhaps immediately address the problem. Waiting until a decade from now, when a relief subway line will hopefully be built and Yonge-Bloor will be expanded, may be taking a very big risk. Indeed, the station expansion may even increase crowding during construction for several years.

There could, maybe*, be relatively simple ways of reducing this threat. For example:

  1. Create a rush hour bus-only lane on certain streets (Yonge, the DVP, Don Mills, etc.), to reduce crowding on the Yonge subway in the years before a new subway line is built
  2. Do not allow able-bodied people to enter Yonge-Bloor station from the street during rush hour; widen pedestrian space on Yonge to make it easier for these able-bodied people to walk (or, perhaps, take a bus on Yonge) to get to neighbouring subway stations Wellesley, Sherbourne, Rosedale, or Bay. This would reduce crowding in Yonge-Bloor not only by reducing the number of people who use the station, but also because, with no able-bodied people entering the station during rush hour, staircases would be much clearer, and crowds would therefore disperse more quickly following the arrival of every subway train.

*I will admit: despite what I have written above, I know basically nothing about the risk of an attack of this kind, or how that risk should be addressed. [I will even cop to the fact that I may to some degree be using the fear of such an attack manipulatively, as a way to promote transit-friendly or pedestrian-friendly policies that I would want even if no such risk existed…]. I would, therefore, be very interested to learn what people who are actually knowledgeable think about this issue.

In any event, these two suggestions seem unlikely to occur; many would see them as (to quote Doug Ford) “a war on the car”. Yet maybe seeing them as a war on terror would be much more accurate.

 

 

 

Standard
North America

The Three Card Monty: A Bus, Bike, and One-Seater Car plan for cities like Scarborough

One-seater electric automobiles may be on the rise, thanks to vehicle-sharing apps and range improvements in batteries. It is possible that these one-seaters will be a slothful and anti-social mode of transportation, like they are in Wall-E. Perhaps more likely, however, is that one-seaters will facilitate transportation that is actually more healthy and social than our existing four-wheel-dominated system. One-seaters may promote cycling, either via velomobiles (one-seater lightweight pedal-cars with an electric motor so that cyclists don’t have to break a sweat going uphill) or via the creation of more bike lanes in cities with relatively extreme climates (lanes which one-seaters would have mostly to themselves whenever the weather is not friendly to bicycles). One-seaters may also promote transit ridership, by making it easier to get to or from stations.

How then should cities prepare for one-seaters? While it would be nice if streets had three separate lanes for buses, bicycles, and one-seaters, this is not likely to be politically viable any time soon. Cities may need to be more creative, and more compromising, in seeking ways to promote one-seaters as an alternative for normal cars without unduly limiting transit or bicycle usage.

One possible way of doing this would be a sort-of seasonal three card monty, using a bus lane and an adjacent bike lane. When the weather is bad – say, during winter or a long heat wave – one-seaters would share the bus lane with buses and use the bike lane as a parking lane. This would allow a senior citizen to park close to his or her destination (or his or her bus stop), to avoid slipping on ice. It would also allow one-seaters to overtake buses at bus stops: if the bus pulls up to the curb at stops, a one-seater could pass the bus on its left. Similarly, it would give one-seaters the option of pulling over to let a bus overtake them.

When the winter or heat wave ends, the one-seater-parking lane would become a bike lane, usable by bicycles and one-seaters both. This would create less traffic for buses, at a time when the weather is nice enough to make walking to and waiting at bus stops a convenience. One-seaters and cyclists would however also be able to use the bus lane in order to overtake slower cyclists ahead of them, and to overtake buses at bus stops. Indeed, at times when buses do not run too frequently (nights, weekends), the bus lane would be left more or less open for one-seaters and the bike lane more or less open for bicycles.

It is true that bicycles would, comparatively, be the losers in this relationship. They would have to give up their bike lanes during the winter (or, in very hot climates, during the summer), and share them with one-seaters during the rest of the year. Nevertheless, given how few streets currently have bike lanes, cyclists might still benefit hugely from this relationship, particularly in climates in which bicycling tends to be a seasonal pursuit.

Picture12

Let’s use a real-world example of where such a system could maybe be effective: Scarborough, Ontario. Scarborough is a suburb of Toronto, where the weather and distances people travel can be difficult for cyclists in the winter – and often in summer as well.

Unlike Toronto’s other suburbs, the shape of Scarborough’s coastline is slanted, giving the city’s main cycling path, the Gatineau hydro corridor (image above, map below), a diagonal shortcut route through the fairly strict grid pattern of the city’s streets. In a few years this corridor will be linked with the city’s newest half-subway line, the Eglinton Crosstown. The hydro/cycling corridor already connects, more or less, to a another subway line (at Kennedy Station), a hospital, a university, and, via the Don Valley, to downtown Toronto.

scarb

Another, narrower diagonal hydro corridor, meanwhile, which nearly links up perpendicularly with the Gatineau around Lawrence East SRT station (which may eventually become a SmartTrack GO Train station, even if the SRT rail line is closed and is not replaced with an LRT along the same route), could become a shortcut route in another direction.

If one-seater lanes were built in these diagonal hydro corridors, and if a three card monty bus/bike/one-seater system were implemented on a number of Scarborough’s main streets intersecting these corridors, then the suburb’s transit, cycling, and driving might be significantly improved. Ideally, it will one day become easy to ride a bicycle or a velomobile from U of T Scarborough campus all the way to U of T in the heart of downtown T.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard
North America

Time-Sharing Toronto Transit

Fighting for bike lanes, pedestrian spaces, HOV/bus lanes, and right-of-way streetcar lanes is difficult in Toronto. Much of Toronto’s population is suburban, and much of Toronto’s tax revenues are controlled by an Ontario government that is partially influenced by Ontario’s largest industry, car manufacturing.

Still, most of this fight has focused only on how to share road space. In my opinion, what we should be pursuing instead is a plan to share road-use time, in order to reflect the fact that the needs of Toronto — especially as it relates to bike lanes — are very different in summer than in winter. The political compromise we should be pursuing should be to make Toronto a great city for transit, cycling, and pedestrians during the warmer, brighter half of the year, while allowing cars to continue to be the dominant form of transportation during the colder, darker half of the year.

In the winter, most people do not want to bike, fewer people want to walk to transit stops or wait at outdoor transit stops, and more people want to have street parking so they do not have to walk far to get to and from their parked cars. This will only become true as Baby Boomers get older, as the risk of their slipping and falling on ice becomes more significant. In summer, on the other hand, more people want to bike, people do not mind walking further to and from their parking spot as much, and people do not mind walking to or waiting at a transit stop as much either.

In summer there are also more tourists in the city, who want to use transit (or taxis), and walk or bike. Summer tourism is likely to increase in the future as technology makes it easier for people to travel more, given that many other cities in North America (and the world) are unbearably hot in summer, and given Toronto’s proximity to the lakeside cottages and camping sites of the Canadian Shield.

There are also smog issues during the summer, which could be reduced by using cars less often.

But, you might ask, if we give over most of our road space to transit, cycling, and pedestrians during the good-weather half of the year, what will we do with all of our cars? And woudn’t we have way too few busses and streetcars to facilitate this huge seasonal increase in transit ridership? (And if we buy more busses and streetcars in order to solve this problem, wouldn’t they then be underused during the car-dominated colder half of the year?)

The solution to this problem may, at least in part, be a seasonal form of car-sharing. Torontonians could have the option to make a profit by doing one of the following things:

—not own a car

—renting their car to an Uber driver (or a service like Uber) during the warmer half of the year, so that it could be used as an UberPool vehicle in an HOV lane shared with ttc busses

— renting their car to Car2Go (or a service like Car2Go) during the warmer half of the year, in order to help people travel the first-mile/last mile to and from transit stations

—using their car in cottage country. Or, renting their car to a service like Car2Go in cottage country, so that people could take the train or bus to get to and from cottage country, so that we reduce the economically and environmentally damaging practice of clogging up the highways to Muskoka with cars every weekend

—rent the cars to towns in Northern Canada during the warmer half of the year, since the seasonal changes that Toronto experiences are nothing compared to those Northern Canada does

maybe, partner with US Sunbelt cities. If they do a reverse version of the seasonal system we do (in other words, if they become transit, cycling, and pedestrian friendly in the winter, when they have great weather, but then go back to being car-friendly in the summer when their weather is way too hot) then Torontonians could perhaps save money by sharing a car with a Southerner, with the Torontonian using the car in winter and the Southerner using the car in summer

Of course, most people won’t rent out their car like this for half the year. But as long as some do, it should be sufficient, given how much more utility can be gotten out of a single car when used as an Uber/UberPool/Car2Go type of vehicle, as compared to when used as a conventional car that mainly sits idle all day and night.

So, instead of fighting for transit-only/cycling/pedestrian/carpool lanes, we should advocate for transit/cycling/pedestrian/carpool seasons. 

Standard
North America

Light Rail and Autonomous Vehicles in Toronto

Light rail systems are often a Goldilocks-style compromise between the flexibility of automobiles and the efficiency of trains. The problem is, nobody likes Goldilocks.

If, for instance, Doug Ford is elected premier of Ontario this spring, it is not unlikely that he will cancel the Hamilton, Hurontario, and Sheppard LRTs, leaving only the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West projects that are already underway. And Toronto’s mayor and city council already voted last year in favour of the suburban Scarborough Subway Extension, over an alternative plan to build that line as an LRT and then use the money saved to help fund an Eglinton East LRT.

On the autonomous vehicles front, meanwhile, a number of significant barriers to entry remain. These include: LIDAR (still very expensive, and still struggles with snow); LIABILITY; the fact that people already own conventional cars; the fact that autonomous cars (even electric ones) still cause traffic and environmental harm; and the risk of autonomous vehicles being used in a terrorist attack (for e.g. if driverless cars are common, a single bombmaker might be able to load numerous vehicles with explosives, and detonate all of them simultaneously at a crowded urban location). And of course there may also be a societal hesistancy to adopt widespread driverless cars.

Because of these barriers, it seems plausible that the partial use of autonomous vehicles will occur before they become fully adopted. Consider, for example, two potential partial usages: autonomous parking lots, and autonomous overnight cargo deliveries. Both of these may not be subject to the barriers listed above:

—LIDAR may not be a challenge for autonomous parking lots, as within a relatively small, mapped area equipped with sensors (the parking lot), cars could drive autonomously without LIDAR. Overnight delivery vehicles might also be able to run without LIDAR, as they could drive at a very slow speed, and stick to running a relatively small number of high-demand routes
—Liability may not be a challenge either, as the parking lot could have no pedestrians or human drivers in it, and its cars could drive at slow speeds. Overnight delivery vehicles could also drive at slow speeds.
—the fact that people already own conventional cars is not a barrier to overnight cargo deliveries, and may not be a barrier to parking lots either. Some companies are even attempting to develop vehicles that can, in effect, tow a conventional car autonomously to and from parking spots
—the fact that autonomous cars still cause traffic and environmental harm may not be a barrier: autonomous parking lots can reduce traffic and pollution if they are located at (for example) train stations, thereby making it more convenient for suburbanites to use transit. And overnight deliveries might cause fewer diesel trucks getting stuck in daytime traffic jams, which create air pollution and other costs
—restricting autonomous vehicles mainly to limited areas like special parking lots, or special times like very late at night, could make it much more difficult for them to be used in a major terror attack (whether a car-bomb/truck-bomb attack or driving a vehicle into pedestrians, involving multiple vehicles simultaneously) as it would then remain suspicious for a driverless truck to be loitering in a crowded urban area
—special autonomous parking lots, and perhaps also overnight autonomous cargo deliveries, are much less likely to be subject to a societal hesitancy towards their adoption

LRTs in particular may benefit from autonomous parking lots and/or autonomous overnight delivery vehicles. Autonomous parking lots may promote transit usage in general, if the parking lots were located at transit stations. But perhaps LRT would benefit from them more than heavy rail would, as the flexibility of LRT relative to heavy rail could allow LRTs to directly access more of these parking lots.

For overnight cargo deliveries, LRTs could be the ideal vehicle to be used autonomously. LRTs are electric and therefore relatively quiet, and being quiet is crucial for overnight usage in cities. Also, electricity prices are cheaper at night than they are in the day (particularly in Ontario, given that the province’s nuclear and wind power cannot shut off at night). And, of course, they are much cleaner than non-electric (or even electric) trucks. In addition, an LRT, unlike heavy rail, could more often travel directly into a building or parking lot to load/unload its cargo.

One main problem that has prevented cargo light rail in the past (outside of a few exceptions, for example in Dresden where a cargo tram has run) has been that trains have less surface friction than wheeled vehicles, so it is difficult for an LRT carrying a heavy amount of cargo to accelerate and decelerate constantly in cities in order to stop for red lights, passenger stops, and — if the LRT is not operating in its own separated lane — cars. At night, however, there are far fewer cars or passenger LRT stops, and green light-red light cycles could be made to run for far longer lengths of time in order to minimize the number of times an LRT has to stop.

With autonomous vehicles, then, LRTs may no longer be only a compromise between heavy rail and autonomobiles, but instead might excel at complementing autonomous parking lots, or being used autonomously to deliver cargo.

What does this mean for Toronto? Well, as mentioned earlier, it is possible that all but the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West LRT plans may be cancelled as a result of the coming election. The Eglinton and Finch LRTs, as it turns out, have something in common that could be relevant to this discussion: they are next to the city’s two major hydro corridors, the Finch Corridor and the Gatineau Corridor. These corridors could be used as autonomous parking lot systems that are directly accessible to passengers using the LRTs, as well as accessible to passengers using other corridor-adjacent transit stations like Finch Station and Kennedy Station. They would also be accessible to cyclists using the bicycle paths that already exists within these two hydro corridors.

hydro corridor map

Finch Station Parking Lot

If you look at Finch subway station (map above, picture below), you will see that it already has a large parking lot, 1.3 km long and 90 metres wide, within the Finch hydro corridor to both its west and its east. I propose that this lot be extended much longer, to reach north of the Finch West LRT, as an autonomated parking lot corridor. This corridor would mostly remain separate from road traffic and pedestrians, though not entirely separate: it would have to cross north-south streets, and would also have to use bridges on Finch in order to cross topographical barriers like G Ross Lord Park. But that would still be much less of a challenge than a widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles. The Finch corridor is about 210 metres north of Finch in most places, and in some places (such as west of Jane, or west of Bathurst, or between Dufferin and Keele) it widens to connect to Finch Avenue directly.

finch station parking lot.png

Finch Subway Station (Yonge and Finch)

The Gatineau Corridor, meanwhile, intersects with the Eglinton Crosstown just west of Victoria Park, and also (via the narrower Scarborough RT corridor; see bottom image below) at the Crosstown’s terminus station, Kennedy Station (which is also a station on the Bloor-Danforth subway, Scarborough RT, and Stoufville GO train). If the Eginton East LRT extension to the Crosstown is built, its terminus would also be by the Gatineau corridor, at U of T Scarborough campus.

Where Eglinton Crosstown and East LRTs meet hydro corridor.png

Above: 3 Locations Where Gatineau Corridor Meets Eglinton (or Eglinton East) LRT; Below: Kennedy Station

Kennedy Station .png

The corridor could be relatively quiet, since the cars parking in it could travel slowly. It would not be an eyesore; or at least, not more of an eyesore than the hydro towers are themselves. It would also, ideally, be “parking lot neutral”; in other words, by creating more parking on the hydro corridor, it would allow you to convert some existing parking lots elsewhere into buildings/parks/etc. It would promote an increase in transit ridership. And the corridor could also be used, seasonally, as a “bicycling highway” that would be usefully located next to the autonomous parking lot. This could be acheived by simply having a portion of the hydro corridor’s lanes be designated for cycling instead of parking during the warmer months of the year. This could be a transit option that both the suburban, car-driving Ford Nation and the latte-drinking downtown bicycle-lovers could enjoy.

Standard
North America

The Double Double LRT – Make Hamilton Great Again

In 1870, Hamilton had a population half as large as Toronto’s. If it were to have kept that up, Hamilton would today be the 3rd largest Canadian city. The Bulldogs might be competing for the Stanley Cup right now.

Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo Populations

But, Hamilton has been held back by two processes. One was the move from water transport to land transport. Hamilton’s main advantage was its port, which is still by far the busiest among Canadian ports in the St Lawrence/Great Lakes network. But in the modern era dominated by land transportation, Hamilton has been limited when compared to Toronto, as it is somewhat blocked in by the Hamilton Harbour or Niagara Escarpment (or, more distantly, by Lake Erie) on all sides.

Hamilton port

The other was the move move away from manufacturing, and towards service-oriented metropolises. This too has held back Hamilton relative to Toronto, as Hamilton’s port (and its position between Lake Ontario and Erie, near the Welland Canal) had made it a manufacturing leader.

But things may be changing again:

  1. Many services that cities like Toronto specialize in may face outsourcing or automation
  2. As industry continues to automate, it may allow some “re-shoring” to high-wage countries like Canada. (And, if services are automated or outsourced, wages may fall in countries like Canada, relative to other countries)
  3. If fuel prices (or pollution concerns) increase, it may lead water transportation (for cargo) or re-shoring manufacturing to become more important
  4. If machines remain unable to compete with the dexterity of human hands, manufacturing may need to remain located in cities, with human workers operating alongside machines
  5. E-commerce and automated warehousing may free up some urban commercial real estate for industry

In other words, it is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that mid-sized port cities like Hamilton, and large service cities like Toronto, will both reindustrialize to a certain degree going forward.

Indeed, cities in Ontario may be particularly well-suited for (partially) automated industry. Ontario has the highest disparity between surplus overnight power (generated by nuclear plants and wind farms, which cannot turn off at night) and relatively expensive daytime power. This disparity automated factories might be able to take advantage of, as machines can run overnight.

What follows is a joint transportation plan for both Hamilton and Toronto, aimed at transporting people during the day and transporting cargo during the day and night, while maximizing fuel-efficiency in both cases.

The Double-Double

Cargo is heavy, and so requires a lot of energy to transport. Luckily, as mentioned above, Ontario has a lot of surplus nighttime electricity (especially on windy nights). Overnight is also the best time to transport cargo, because there is no traffic on the roads and because green light-red light cycles can last far longer than they can during the day. This is important for transporting cargo in a fuel-efficient manner, as the weight of the cargo means that acceleration and deceleration requires a lot of fuel. Being able to drive at a constant speed without having to constantly stop and start because of traffic jams or red lights is a big benefit. Today overnight transport is held back because it is expensive to pay workers to drive vehicles, or to load and unload vehicles, overnight. But if machines are doing the driving and loading/unloading, that could change.

Electric vehicles are ideal for overnight transportation, not only because of Ontario’s surplus overnight electricity, but also because electric vehicles are quiet — and being quiet is obviously very important overnight. But electric trucks are simply not efficient enough. Light rail would be better.

Overnight transportation can help solve one of the main challenge faced by light rail/streetcars: namely, the fact that are less efficient at accelerating and decelerating than wheeled vehicles are (because there is less surface friction for rail than road), so having to stop and start constantly because of traffic and red lights makes light rail/streetcars much less efficient than they would be at night when there is no traffic and far longer green lights. This is particularly true of longer, heavier LRTs that would otherwise be more efficient, for example those that will be used by the Eglinton Crosstown (which will be able to handle three of the new long Toronto LRT vehicles strung together to create a really long LRT train). Longer LRTs are also slower at turning; overnight, however, they could turn slowly without causing a traffic jam of cars waiting behind them.

Cargo LRTs could also capitalize on one of light rail’s main advantages over heavy rail: flexibility. LRT tracks can branch off of the main route to travel directly into an industrial building, in order to be directly loaded or unloaded. a

But what about the daytime? How do you maximize light rail efficiency when a vehicle in the daytime would have to stop constantly for red lights, or stop to drop off/pick up passengers, or stop (if it is forced to share a lane with cars) because of traffic jams? Toronto’s answer to this question has been the Eglinton Crosstown tunnel. But Hamilton obviously cannot afford a subway like the Crosstown. It’s possible that even Hamilton’s surface LRT plan will soon be cancelled by Doug Ford.

In theory, there are two ways to maximize LRT fuel-efficiency. One is an express method: allow an LRT to run quickly in its own lane (not shared with cars), and have as few red lights and pickup/drop-off spots for passengers as possible. This is obviously difficult to do in a downtown setting in the daytime, without a Crosstown-like tunnel. Moreover, unless you have two lanes in each direction, to allow an express LRT to overtake a non-express LRT, the lack of pickup/dropoff spots on the express LRT would mean that the LRT might be less accessible and cost-efficient.

The other method would be to have the LRT travel as slowly as possible, in order to reduce the amount of fuel need to constantly accelerate and decelerate, and allow it to share its lane with cars. But here too, while fuel-efficiency might be maximized, travelling at a slow speed might also reduce cost-efficiency, since it would carry many fewer passengers per hour than a faster service.

The solution to these daytime challenges (if there is one), would seem to me to be to do the following: have two parallel LRT lines on the same street, one a Really Fast Lane and the other a Really Slow Lane.

The Really Fast Lane would run express in the middle lanes of the street, and would not have to share its lane with cars. It would make all of its passenger pick-up/drop-off stops in the Really Slow Line, so that trains in the fast lane would be able to minimize their stops by running express routes. (Overnight, having two lanes would also allow for one of the lanes to be used for loading/unloading cargo, without causing backups).

The Really Slow Lane, on the other hand, would overcome its slowness problem by doing the following: share its lane with cyclists, with cars, and allow cars using the Really Slow Lane to drive autonomously. By driving at really slow speeds, you can allow for autonomous driving without having to pay for LIDAR (and LIDAR has challenges with snow anyway) and with a reduced chance that fatal accidents involving autonomously-driving vehicles will occur, and you can allow cyclists and cars to share the same lane safely and comfortably. As such, you can potentially make a slow lane not only more fuel-efficient than a normal lane, but also cost-efficient.

So, that’s the basic idea behind the Hamilton Double-Double: one Really Fast Lane, for express LRTs carrying passengers or cargo, and one Really Slow Lane, shared by LRTs travelling slowly, fast-lane LRTs making stops to pickup/droppoff passengers or (at night) cargo, cyclists, cars, and autonomous (/advanced cruise control) cars.

For downtown Toronto, however, where the density of red lights and passenger stops is so high that even a Double-Double would not be able to maximize fuel-efficiency (let alone cost-efficiency), since the fast lane would still have to stop too much, while the slow line would be too crowded by traffic, a somewhat different plan could work: a plan more similar to the Crosstown.

Okay, this idea is pretty crazy, I admit, but here it goes:

The problem with subway tunnels in downtown Toronto has been one of expense: they would (unlike the Crosstown) have to tunnel through bedrock, and avoid a lot of underground utility lines and nearby buildings that exist. But what if, instead of having one subway lane in each direction, you only have one lane? What if, on Queen Street, you have 2 surface LRT lanes (one really slow lane and one really fast lane), and one underground lane (travelling in the opposite direction as the surface lanes)? Not only would you have half as much tunnelling as a conventional subway, and more easily avoid underground utilities and buildings, but you would also then have room underground to create turning lanes, so that the underground LRT could branch off to go directly into nearby buildings for the loading/unloading of cargo overnight. So long as the two surface lanes were fast enough to prevent the tunnel lane from being underutilized, maybe this could work….?

Finally, a last crazy idea: connect the LRT systems of Hamilton and Toronto, by having LRTs that can drive directly on and off ships travelling between the Hamilton port and Toronto Port Lands.

Standard