Most Popular
How Gunter's chain forever changed our cities
The bank robbery capital of the world
China is estimated to have nearly 25% of the entire US building stock under construction right now
Uber's seed investors made this much money
A template for opposing new housing
It has now been over 4 weeks since New York City started charging motorists to enter Manhattan so that they pay for a portion of the impact they have on roadways in the city. And the data overwhelmingly supports that travel times have fallen as a result. Transit ridership also appears to be increasing, despite what some critics will tell you, and trains and buses appear to be moving more efficiently as well (via Fast Company):
More commuters are opting for buses to cross Manhattan, and those buses are now traveling more quickly, too. Weekday bus ridership has grown 6%, while weekend ridership is up 21%, compared to January 2024. (Subway ridership has also grown by 7.3% on weekdays and 12% on weekends, part of a larger trend in ridership growth happening since the fall, per the MTA. Anecdotally, some subway riders have said they’ve seen more packed trains on their morning commutes.) Buses entering Manhattan from Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx are saving up to 10 minutes on their route times, which also makes their arrivals more reliable.
Also noteworthy is that polls suggest that the majority of Manhattan commuters (~66%) now support the congestion relief zone. They are experiencing the benefits and probably doing the mental math that the time they are personally saving is worth at least $9. However, one figure that hasn't changed all that much is that about half of voters across New York State still oppose the congestion charge (though it has dropped by a few percentage points compared to earlier polls).
Paul Krugman speculates (in this recent post) that this negative view is, therefore, coming from people living in upstate NY, which is interesting, because how many of these voters will actually end up paying this charge and/or experiencing its benefits? That's the thing about being asked to spend money that you didn't have to spend before; if you can't clearly see the value in doing so, then you're not going to like the idea.
At the same time, it can be hard to win political battles with facts, figures, and rational arguments alone. Krugman also argues that there are other reasons for why this congestion relief zone is being opposed by many people and why Trump, in particular, wants to kill it:
...maybe the biggest reason for Trump’s desire to kill the congestion charge is a phenomenon I identified the last time I wrote about this: the rage some Americans obviously feel at any suggestion that people should change their behavior for the common good. What we’re seeing with regard to the congestion charge is that some Americans feel that rage even when they themselves aren’t being asked to make changes.
As I have said before, this is an important policy to follow because its success, or failure, will naturally set a precedent for the rest of North America. If transit-rich NYC can't make a congestion relief zone work, then who can? However, my optimistic view continues to be that it will ultimately stick. And already we are seeing positive sentiment from the people who it directly affects/benefits.
Today was day 4 of skiing and snowboarding on Hokkaido. We did a "cat day" with Type Two Three, which is a guided backcountry day using a snow cat. It was incredible and we were up to our waists in the fresh stuff. Our guides were two former US Navy SEALs and our driver (pictured above in the middle of the group photo) was a professional snowboarder who competed in the men's half pipe event at the 2006 Winter Olympics (in Torino) for Japan. His name is Fumiyuki Murakami and, if you're into snowboarding, I would encourage you to give him a follow on Instagram. He's a fantastic snowboarder and a very nice man.
Today was a great day in the mountains.
I have a bias toward pedestrian-oriented cities. Being able to walk everywhere and take trains in a city like Paris or Tokyo is, in my opinion, a great luxury. But another important reason is that I have yet to find a big global city that is both designed around the car and that moves people efficiently. If any of you can prove me wrong with an example, I would welcome that. But I honestly can't imagine a world where the 40 plus million people who live in Greater Tokyo are able to move around as easily using cars as they do with trains.
It is for these reasons that when we take on new development projects in Toronto, we are looking for opportunities that will support a more pedestrian and transit-oriented future. This means saying no to sites that are unlikely to support this kind of built environment in the near term and aiming to build as little parking as possible, among other things. Put more simply, we want to build well-designed density next to transit. The two go hand in hand. Now, this may sound obvious, but keep in mind that the vast majority of the Toronto region is not built in this way; it's oriented around the car.
The Avenues Map that I blogged about yesterday depicts an urban structure that does not yet exist in Toronto, at least not in its entirety. It is a forward-looking planning document, which is what it should be. One of our goals as developers is to do our part in helping to build out this vision for the future. Because in our view, it's a better one.