This is an interesting piece by Bloomberg summarizing the current state of autonomous vehicles and in particular the (supposed) dominance of Waymo (Alphabet’s self-driving vehicle arm). Many believe they will be the first real entrant into the market.

The company is currently running an “Early Rider” program in 25 cities. But its Phoenix trials are the furthest along, which isn’t at all surprising given the city’s car orientation and suburban fabric. Already Waymo has started offering passenger rides without a backup driver in the car.

Overall, the company has come forward with four main business priorities:

• Ride hailing
  

• Trucking
  

• Personal vehicles
  

• Public transit
  

But I still think that we’ll see a blurring of these priorities, if not outright cannibalization, as the cost per mile plummets. I mean, why own a personal vehicle if it is flat out easier and cheaper to just hail a robotaxi? 

Here is an excerpt from the article talking about pricing:

Tasha Keeney, an analyst at ARK Invest, says that Waymo could choose to offer an autonomous ride-hailing service today at around 70 cents a mile—a quarter of the cost for Uber passengers in San Francisco. Over time, she says, robotaxis should get even cheaper—down to 35 cents a mile by 2020, especially if Waymo’s technology proves sturdy enough to need few human safety monitors overseeing the autonomous vehicles remotely. “You could see software-like margins,” Keeney says.

I can’t wait to be driven around for cents on the dollar. Click here to read the full article.

Toronto can’t make up its mind right now as to whether it would like to invest in additional cycling infrastructure. 

Of course, we have a history of vacillating on topics like this. And I think it’s because we’re at a tricky inflection point. We are weaning ourselves off of the car, but most parts of the city remain underserved by transit and heavily dependent on the car.

So today I thought I would share some numbers from a research study that was published last year by Stefan Gössling of Lund University and Andy S. Choi of the University of Queensland. It’s called, Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles.

Much of the focus of the paper is on the cost-benefit analysis that the City of Copenhagen uses to make its cycling investment decisions. Here is an excerpt from ScienceDaily:

“If the costs to society and the costs to private individuals are added together, the impact of the car is EUR 0.50 per kilometre and the impact of the bicycle is EUR 0.08 per kilometre.

The study by Stefan Gössling and his colleague also shows that if we only look at costs/benefits for society, one kilometre by car costs EUR 0.15, whereas society earns EUR 0.16 on every kilometre cycled.

“The cost-benefit analysis in Copenhagen shows that investments in cycling infrastructure and bike-friendly policies are economically sustainable and give high returns,” says Stefan Gössling.”

So there you have it. Now I thought we could debate this in the comment section. Your thoughts?

P.S. The images at the top of this post were taken by me using my new GoPro bicycle handlebar mount.

In grad school, I was fortunate enough to be a teaching assistant for a class called Urban Real Estate Economics, which was taught by Dr. Richard Voith. It was one of my favorite classes. So if you ever find yourself at the Wharton School, I would highly recommend it.

Richard is also the President of a consulting firm in Philadelphia called Econsult Solutions. And I think a lot of what they focus on would be of interest to the audience of this blog. Their focus is on urban economics, real estate economics, transportation, public policy, and – you get the idea.

Recently, he wrote a post called, Moving Cities: Berlin, where he outlines some of the transportation decisions that West and East Berlin made in the second half of the 20th century. 

What I found most interesting was how the trams of East Berlin were stigmatized to represent communism and a centrally planned economy. On the other hand, West Berlin was all about the free market, and the symbol for that was none other than the automobile. That meant that the trams had to go. 

Here is a quote that he shares from B.R. Shenoy, first published in August 15th, 1960:

“The main thoroughfares of West Berlin are near jammed with prosperous looking automobile traffic, the German make of cars, big and small, being much in evidence. Buses and trams dominate the thoroughfares in East Berlin; other automobiles, generally old and small cars, are in much smaller numbers than in West Berlin. One notices cars parked in front of workers’ quarters in West Berlin… In contrast with what one sees in West Berlin, the buildings [in East Berlin] here are generally grey from neglect, the furnishings lack in brightness and quality, and the roads and pavements are shabby…”

My favorite line: “…jammed with prosperous looking automobile traffic.”

Of course, Berlin wasn’t the only city to eschew trams in the 20th century. Detroit and Los Angeles both did exactly the same thing. But in Berlin, this philosophy wasn’t applied equally across the urban fabric. And that’s what makes it a particularly interesting case study.

I don’t know Berlin well enough to comment specifically, but Richard writes about how parts of East Berlin remained quite pedestrian friendly compared to West Berlin. That makes intuitive sense, given that it didn’t reorient itself towards the car in the same way that the West did. That being the case, I am curious to what extent those parts of the city may be benefiting today.

In any event, you should also give Richard’s article a read. You can do that here.

This is an interesting piece by Bloomberg summarizing the current state of autonomous vehicles and in particular the (supposed) dominance of Waymo (Alphabet’s self-driving vehicle arm). Many believe they will be the first real entrant into the market.

The company is currently running an “Early Rider” program in 25 cities. But its Phoenix trials are the furthest along, which isn’t at all surprising given the city’s car orientation and suburban fabric. Already Waymo has started offering passenger rides without a backup driver in the car.

Overall, the company has come forward with four main business priorities:

• Ride hailing
  

• Trucking
  

• Personal vehicles
  

• Public transit
  

But I still think that we’ll see a blurring of these priorities, if not outright cannibalization, as the cost per mile plummets. I mean, why own a personal vehicle if it is flat out easier and cheaper to just hail a robotaxi? 

Here is an excerpt from the article talking about pricing:

Tasha Keeney, an analyst at ARK Invest, says that Waymo could choose to offer an autonomous ride-hailing service today at around 70 cents a mile—a quarter of the cost for Uber passengers in San Francisco. Over time, she says, robotaxis should get even cheaper—down to 35 cents a mile by 2020, especially if Waymo’s technology proves sturdy enough to need few human safety monitors overseeing the autonomous vehicles remotely. “You could see software-like margins,” Keeney says.

I can’t wait to be driven around for cents on the dollar. Click here to read the full article.

Toronto can’t make up its mind right now as to whether it would like to invest in additional cycling infrastructure. 

Of course, we have a history of vacillating on topics like this. And I think it’s because we’re at a tricky inflection point. We are weaning ourselves off of the car, but most parts of the city remain underserved by transit and heavily dependent on the car.

So today I thought I would share some numbers from a research study that was published last year by Stefan Gössling of Lund University and Andy S. Choi of the University of Queensland. It’s called, Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles.

Much of the focus of the paper is on the cost-benefit analysis that the City of Copenhagen uses to make its cycling investment decisions. Here is an excerpt from ScienceDaily:

“If the costs to society and the costs to private individuals are added together, the impact of the car is EUR 0.50 per kilometre and the impact of the bicycle is EUR 0.08 per kilometre.

The study by Stefan Gössling and his colleague also shows that if we only look at costs/benefits for society, one kilometre by car costs EUR 0.15, whereas society earns EUR 0.16 on every kilometre cycled.

“The cost-benefit analysis in Copenhagen shows that investments in cycling infrastructure and bike-friendly policies are economically sustainable and give high returns,” says Stefan Gössling.”

So there you have it. Now I thought we could debate this in the comment section. Your thoughts?

P.S. The images at the top of this post were taken by me using my new GoPro bicycle handlebar mount.

In grad school, I was fortunate enough to be a teaching assistant for a class called Urban Real Estate Economics, which was taught by Dr. Richard Voith. It was one of my favorite classes. So if you ever find yourself at the Wharton School, I would highly recommend it.

Richard is also the President of a consulting firm in Philadelphia called Econsult Solutions. And I think a lot of what they focus on would be of interest to the audience of this blog. Their focus is on urban economics, real estate economics, transportation, public policy, and – you get the idea.

Recently, he wrote a post called, Moving Cities: Berlin, where he outlines some of the transportation decisions that West and East Berlin made in the second half of the 20th century. 

What I found most interesting was how the trams of East Berlin were stigmatized to represent communism and a centrally planned economy. On the other hand, West Berlin was all about the free market, and the symbol for that was none other than the automobile. That meant that the trams had to go. 

Here is a quote that he shares from B.R. Shenoy, first published in August 15th, 1960:

“The main thoroughfares of West Berlin are near jammed with prosperous looking automobile traffic, the German make of cars, big and small, being much in evidence. Buses and trams dominate the thoroughfares in East Berlin; other automobiles, generally old and small cars, are in much smaller numbers than in West Berlin. One notices cars parked in front of workers’ quarters in West Berlin… In contrast with what one sees in West Berlin, the buildings [in East Berlin] here are generally grey from neglect, the furnishings lack in brightness and quality, and the roads and pavements are shabby…”

My favorite line: “…jammed with prosperous looking automobile traffic.”

Of course, Berlin wasn’t the only city to eschew trams in the 20th century. Detroit and Los Angeles both did exactly the same thing. But in Berlin, this philosophy wasn’t applied equally across the urban fabric. And that’s what makes it a particularly interesting case study.

I don’t know Berlin well enough to comment specifically, but Richard writes about how parts of East Berlin remained quite pedestrian friendly compared to West Berlin. That makes intuitive sense, given that it didn’t reorient itself towards the car in the same way that the West did. That being the case, I am curious to what extent those parts of the city may be benefiting today.

In any event, you should also give Richard’s article a read. You can do that here.