I disagree. Robots are the future as robots will make more robots to make everything including cars. We need to be robot independent.
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
105 points (93.4% liked)
Canada
10345 readers
697 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm surprised there's no mention in this report of the possibility of electrifying and developing public transit across Canada. There is still too much emphasis on individual vehicles, which are very wasteful regardless of the energy source.
Agreed. The fundamental problem with cars has nothing to do with oil or climate change. It's that building a city around cars will ALWAYS fuck up your city in the long run, because cars and roads just take up too much physical space, and you just can't make them any more space efficient.
Diagram stolen from here, original source NACTO
I can't emphasize enough that this has nothing to do with altruism. Your city will suck if you build it for cars because nobody will want to go anywhere due to it all being far apart and accessible by car. Some people make the argument that we need to move away because of the climate, and I agree, but I just don't think it's a very convincing argument.
The vehicles it should be producing are electric bicycles.
And very fast trains.
We don't really have places to put them domestically, until we do a buttload of complicated and expensive land acquisition, and I wouldn't want to try and sell HSR abroad built in a country that doesn't really have much.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy that. Canada built its original rail system coast to coast in the 19th century with a population of 4 million and a highway coast to coast in the 60's with a population of 20 million. We can make HSR happen today with a population of 40 million. We just need some vision.
Do I really need to mention who was in the path of the original railway? That being said, a single, coast-to-coast line actually does make sense, and is one of those projects under serious consideration at the federal level. But, it's going to compete with airlines, not cars. If you want to go from Regina to Saskatoon or Calgary to Drumheller neither that nor an ebike are going to help.
Have a look at just about any public works project around and how they go, if you actually interested in or care about this. You're going to have to demolish homes and restructure communities along the way. It can be done, and it has, but it's slow and terrible, and a lot of people will hate it. I would assume the trans-Canada highway reused a lot of existing road and still was like that.
Vancouver area is expanding the skytrain, its not HSR, but it will make the 60km commute a breeze. And my one coworker drives 5 hours from his residence to Vancouver area every few weeks. So a rail route would compete with a car. There is a plane route, but with getting to airport, security and waiting or delays, driving is a more pleasant option.
We could build two right now - one in Ontario and one in Alberta (parallel to QEII) - on existing land grants. Instead, we just keep making the highways wider.
Yes, it still is a good idea to do some. The QEII plan looks like it would be crammed in there pretty tight, but it's worth it; then again, our current government is crazy and likes to blow up projects already underway because their cousin would have a view ruined, or whatever.
Switching overnight from building cars to rail stock is quite something else.
I was in Calgary or Edmonton, I forget it was a work trip blur. The train was right down the middle of the road. You could reach out your car window and touch it. If you want something there are ways to make it fit
At high speed, you're not going to run a track streetcar style. Safety and strong gusts to the surrounding area aside, they have really shit turn radius. (Edit: Like, kilometers)
IIRC the QEII line would be raised in the margin between the two traffic directions. The stations would be trickier, and I'm not sure if a solid plan even exists, although, yes, it can be done somewhere somehow. And come to think of it, I'm not sure how they're planning to run it through the existing overpasses, either.
It doesn't even have to be highspeed, anything is faster than bumper to bumper traffic
and compact vehicles, both electric and combustion. but compact.
sometimes a car is required. make it economical and inoffensive so that people have a choice and can rightfully be held accountable when they buy a massive brand new Highlander to transport their groceries and newborn while endangering literally everybody else, and themselves, by driving a massive heavy object that blinds everybody in front of it
and stop making roads bigger, that just encourages more people to drive
Fund alternatives to cars, not Lada. Global car manufacturers are doing a fine job of the new car aspect.
There are a lot of fine options indeed, but nowhere near the affordability they could achieve today IMHO. EVs can be made very cheaply and every month the price of LiFePo4 (the cheaper and more robust, slightly less dense type) batteries is going down. Very few small cheap BEV cars are available. A Citroen Ami is like ~8-10k€; that (very cute) thing should cost maybe half of that.
It's not an industry with huge margins. There's no way Citroen is making 100%.
It takes a lot of batteries, and with EVs they're always playing at the edge of the maximum weight for a vehicle of the class, so just moving to a different chemistry might not be the silver bullet you're thinking, either.
Bikes and micromobility devices are the future of affordable transportation, so we need to focus there. They end up saving or making money for municipalities in the long run.
Getting more people in cars hurts everyone, even if it's an EV.
In northern Canada, it gets so cold that bikes aren’t viable. Try biking a couple miles in -20C and black ice on the road before you make blanket statements like this.
I rode -20 on a bicycle regularly. You wear layers, because after a few KM you are making so much body heat you have to unzip for airflow.
You moisturize your skin before going out to prevent wind chap.
You buy a snowmobile style breather, it warms the air coming in by pulling it through a flap down by your neck.
You buy Schwalbe Snow studded tires, they have tungsten carbide studs in various arrangement. (I rode up hills that cars where all stuck at the bottom spiining tires)
Ebikes would do all this too, but you need a plugin vest heater and heated hand grips like after marjet motorcycles acceasories
Or just generally anything happening outside of a dense urban area where bikes are fast enough. We actually do need to occupy the spots in between the cities where all the natural resources and transport corridors are. You should also consider people who are any degree of frail.
If we want to move to public transit quickly, it's gotta be busses, with moves towards walkability and bikeability where appropriate. Anything else will take decades of rebuilding our communities.
People bike year round in Finland. It's not the weather it's the total absence of infrastructure and maintenance in Canada.
Try biking in a couple miles in -20C and black ice on the road
Its easy to conveniently ignore that other countries in Europe have developed cycling infrastructure to combat the negatives of biking in the winter.
Its just called prioritising bike infrastructure on par with cars, i.e. clearing snow and bike paths that aren't reliant on car infrastructure in the first place.
Ignore that dude, I rode -20 in Canada. I just had layers, studded tires, and moisturizer for any exposed skin to stop it drying out
Its easy to conveniently ignore that other countries in Europe have developed cycling infrastructure to combat the negatives of biking in the winter.
Countries in Europe are also a lot more densely populated. Towns and cities are a lot closer to each other. The distances most people have to travel are shorter.
Yes, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from Europe and other places, but not every solution will work universally.
Very convenient, for you, to ignore that there's more than a single solution to the issue.
If you build the infrastructure, make it safe, reliable, and more importantly useful, people will come.
Distance also becomes much easier to deal with when you build usable neighbourhoods with working transit solutions mixed use neighbourhoods reduce car use because the cornerstone, now created and only a block or two away from you, sells your food, the train/tram/subway is just a bit further, that takes you elsewhere in your town or city.
This isn't rocket science, the reason Canada is so car dependant is that we cater our business to large stores with larger parking lits to satisfy car based businesses rather than anything else.
You don't need density to create viable transit infrastructure, you need a will to move beyond cars as the default and only perspective. You don't need a universal, one size fits all solution (this is what cars are touted as), you need a solution that suits the environment that its created within.
You don't need a universal, one size fits all solution
And I wasn't suggesting one.
But by the same arguement, bikes or mass transit are not a practical solution for every situation either. They ought to be an available and a usable enough option that people will want to choose them when they make sense, but they are also not a one size fits all solution.
Studded tires exist, alongside winter riding helmets and pocket heaters
Not that I'm saying everyone should necessarily, and things are different in the far north, but I used to ride my bike to work in Thunder Bay. So I can tell you that bicycles do in fact keep working at -20°. You'll want some winter tires and warm gloves.
I started winter bike commuting last year, and it was great. Studded winter tires, bar mitts, and warm shoes; helmet / goggles are great. Very little "traffic" on my ~40min commute.
I start getting cold toes below -22C or so, so maybe I need some better boots, but honestly, the people who say you can't bike in the winter have probably either never tried it, or are dressed inappropriately. Summer is definitely more forgiving if you get a flat tire though.
It's not for everyone, because there's some fitness requirement, and equipment isn't cheap (but neither are cars), but I'm stoked to get ~70-80 minutes of exercise daily on my way to/from work.
Sure, I've done the same in the city. Doesn't work that well in rural settings.
Yeah definitely a difference there. Rural is also often further travel distances - so that's a thing as well.
Snow clearing is pretty good in the city (generally), and the studs work well on the ice. Hardest biking days are usually 12-24h after a snowfall when its not fresh, but just a mess to ride through.
The north should be embracing ultra high density urban planning more than anywhere else. It makes sense to minimize travel times as much as possible with temperatures like that (or even lower). You could make it work if you plan the city around making it work.
FWIW, I bike all year, including in snow and double-digit cold. Overheating is more of a problem in the winter than being too cold.
A cheap EV would fare much worse in those conditions, and thankfully the vast majority of drivers aren't in northern Canada, nor do they drive very far per trip. Most roads safety orgs say not to drive when conditions include black ice.
Let's not make excuses based on a very, very, small demographic who may very well need a car. The majority do not.
It’s not a small minority who cannot manage as pedestrians, with active or even better public transportation.
Easily said, for a healthy young adult who doesn’t have to support young children.
Having been entirely car free until we had young children, it was a true eye opener to have to confront how difficult it is to get kids to medical appointments and activities without a car.
Urban design doesn’t provide infrastructure for families in the core. It’s not just a transportation choice issue. Cities would need to be designed very differently and greater physical and social accommodations for children and persons with disabilities and neurodivergence would be needed.
When kids became part of our lives, we deliberately chose to live as close to the core and public transit as we could and still be near schools, community centres and hospitals. It still put us in a semi-suburban style older neighborhood where some reliance on a car became necessary.
Unreliability of public transit is much more problematic when you have to transport young children who chill quickly when not moving in deeply cold weather.
Also, many children cannot consistently meet the behavioural expectations adults on public transit or elsewhere.
Adults aren’t shy to tell parents that they shouldn’t bring their kids into public spaces when they can’t meet behavioural expectations, but getting a kid having a meltdown home or a sick kid to a physician or hospital without a car is nearly impossible.
We made the choice to be a single car family to limit our environmental impact but that in itself was very challenging.
By the time our kids were independent teens, we found our own physical limitations with ageing reduced the viability of active transportation as our main approach. We could choose to move to another area but not without pushing our kids out to find their own housing.
You're saying that as if I don't understand, I have a physical disability, as well as kids and now grandkids, and being able to bike offers greater freedom than the financial burden of a car, most people cannot handle the financial burden of a car, including one that costs $5000 + ongoing insurance premiums.
Stats Canada says that the majority of people are only using their cars for very short trips. We're talking less than 15 minutes. Some use it for less than a half hour and even fewer use it for an hour or longer. The problem is we've gotten used to taking the car for everything, including those less than 15 minute trips. Even if you weren't physically able to be a pedestrian, you still have options, and if not, we should make those options available rather than restricting movement to car owners.
We have so many examples of this being accomplished all over the world and it's such a disservice to our country and our municipalities to say that it can't be done. Clearly it can be done with effort and that effort has to come from the ground roots all the way up to our municipal provincial and federal governments.
Most of what you're describing is car dependency, quite literally. We can change that as a society, but not if we continue to resign ourselves to cars.
I don’t think we’re that far apart in views but we are very different in terms of who we think needs to lead the change.
I’m putting the onus on societal level changes in the built environment and acceptance of children and persons with disabilities.
You seem to be putting the onus on individuals to drive the change by personally overcoming barriers.
You are proudly talking about how you personally have overcome barriers but not everyone can. With 30% or the adult population identifying with at least one disability, it’s not a small or isolated issue.
As is said in the disability community, not everyone has the spoons and certainly not every day. Don’t shame others for what they may not be able to accomplish that you can.
The 15 minute journey problem is primarily evidence of a problem with where stores and services are located in relation to residences.
Affordability notwithstanding, bike and public transit as a person with visual, hearing or mobility limitations remain deeply challenging in most communities.
Wonderful that your children and grandchildren have been able to meet expectations or haven’t faced needs that couldn’t be accommodated. Most persons or families experiencing disabilities wouldn’t have your experience or might put their limited spoons to other priorities.
I don’t think we’re that far apart in views but we are very different in terms of who we think needs to lead the change.
I’m putting the onus on societal level changes in the built environment and acceptance of children and persons with disabilities.
You seem to be putting the onus on individuals to drive the change by personally overcoming barriers.
I think that both can co-exist, especially if you want to accelerate progress.
It is a shame that a great deal of the population is simply "ignored" or at least, treated as second-class, and I'm always pushing local council members, and the Regional office my municipality is in, to improve accessibility and equity for these minority groups.
It's not easy, mostly because change on a societal level can take years or decades, and I don't have enough time to wait for that.
So, I have to empower myself whenever and wherever possible. And yes, I completely understand that not everyone is in the position to do that. I don't want to undermine or downplay their struggles or needs.
I do acknowledge these challenges that you have brought up, and I strongly believe that having more options available for moving people is better than having limited options.
But my point specifically is addressing the millions of single-occupancy, short trip rides, initiated by healthy individuals. These people dominate the roadways and we really need to persuade them to get out of their cars, for everyone's sake. And the more who do, the faster infrastructure will be built that can accommodate all needs, for all ages.
City planners (at least where I live) seem to really lean on the motto that: "we build where the demand is". And even though it's painfully obvious that demand will remain low for cycling and pedestrian infrastructure if people feel unsafe, or unable to access certain infrastructure, anyone who is able to "just do it", will have an impact on the decisions of city planners moving forward.
It's maddening when I see communities where their elderly are quite literally forced to walk on the road, because no sidewalks exist. How the hell does anyone find it OK to have enough space to park idle vehicles, but not enough for kids and elderly?
Thanks for the thoughtful conversation. I hope that you and yours have a wonderful day.
Usually that kind of thing is a bad idea, and leads to the Bricklin.
If Trump insists on blowing up the integrated industry, that would be a rare case where it's justifiable, just to keep people and machinery working on our side of the border. It also dovetails nicely with our local mineral resources.
We have one of the largest land mass in the world that requires roads to be built. It only makes sense to build up an EV industry.
K but the V = trains.
Agreed and long overdue. I personally love taking trains - I’ve been on Euro hi-speed and Japan Shinkansen trains. Both marvelous modes of transport 👍🏼 However, I’m also not naive in saying lots of people prefer to drive too. Just sayin’ 🙂
Yes.