Blitz by Tristan O'Tierney on 500px
Back in 2011, the The Pembina Institute published a report called, Building transit where we need it. And in it they quite clearly outlined the population densities that are needed to make various types of transit investment cost effective.
For subway they specify a minimum population density of 115 people per hectare and for light rail (LRT) they specify a minimum population density of 70 people per hectare.
And the reason for this is because there’s a strong correlation between population density (i.e. land use) and transit ridership. The two go hand in hand and should not be decoupled. If population densities are too low (as they are, for example, along the Sheppard subway line here in Toronto), people don’t take transit. They drive.
Here’s a chart from the report showing the current and projected population densities for Toronto’s existing and proposed routes (keep in mind this is from 2011).
So what does this chart tell us?
Subways don’t make a lot of sense in many parts of the city. LRT will do just fine.
The Sheppard subway line is an under-utilized asset. Even by 2031 we’ll barely be reaching the requisite population densities.
The Bloor-Danforth corridor could use more intensification.
The Yonge-University-Spadina line is going to need to relief.
Unfortunately, transit decisions are often made based on politics instead of data. And that results in subways in places that don’t make a lot of sense. That’s unfortunate because it means less riders, less revenue, and more subsidies.
The other challenge with running subways through low density neighborhoods is that it then creates tension when the city and developers go to intensify those neighborhoods through transit-oriented development. (See #DensityCreep.)
But if we’re going to be fiscally irresponsible about where we deploy our transit capital, the least we could do is upzone the surrounding areas and impose minimum population densities.
In fact, here’s what I think we should do: Land use should be bundled with the transit decision.
Instead of asking where the subway station should go, we should be asking where the subway station should go and all the density needed to bring the area up to a certain minimum population density. And if that second criteria for whatever reason can’t be met, then we don’t build the line.
I wonder if we framed the question in this way if it would change where subway lines get approved. What do you think?
I’m a big believer in public transportation. I generally believe that the only way to build a big, efficient, and sustainable city is on the backbone of a good transit system. But at the same time, I’m open to fresh ideas. And I’m concerned with the inability of most cities to actually build transit in a way that meaningfully responds to demand.
So what are the alternatives?
The first thought that comes to mind is the delivery system itself. Some cities, such as Hong Kong, have successfully combined transit delivery with real estate development as a way to improve the economics behind building transit. And I think that makes a lot of sense.
But my other thought is that maybe the solution to urban mobility is something completely new. Maybe Google is on to something with their driverless cars. Is that the future? Many would disagree.
We’ve established that cars don’t work all that well for getting people around in big congested cities. So what difference would it make whether or not the cars have a driver or not? Well, I was thinking about this last night and there are some meaningful differences.
A network of driverless cars would give us perfect information about all to the cars on the road. Similar to to how Google’s Waze navigation app feeds off user input (both active and passive), we’d know the exact number of cars on the road and the precise point in which additional cars would cause a drop in efficiency (i.e. a reduction in vehicle speeds).
At the same time, it could enable a powerful sharing economy. In a recent study done by MIT’s Senseable City Lab, it was found that roughly 80% of New York cab rides could be shared. That is, 80% of the time there’s somebody else who’s also traveling from roughly the same point A to the same point B.
So here’s what I’m thinking.
You use Google’s driverless car technology and the perfect information you get from the networked vehicles to create a fluid and ever-evolving transit network. What I’m imagining is that the driverless vehicles don’t operate based on a model of individual mobility; they instead operate on a principle of batched mobility.
Let’s say for example that there are critical mass of people who want to leave Liberty Village between 8:00am - 8:30am to travel to the Financial District. What they would do is enter this itinerary and then a “station” would get formed somewhere nearby. Users would get notified of the station’s location, which would be determined based on proximity to the highest concentration of “riders.”
The driverless cars would then get notified and would begin assembling the appropriate number of vehicles at the selected station location. As is the case with conventional forms of public transportation, most people would need to walk to the station. But never that far.
In essence, it would function as a cross between private and public transportation. You would get the economies of scale generated by public transit, with some of the individual conveniences of private transportation.
How does that sound?
If you’ve ever ridden a busy Toronto streetcar, you’ll know this story:
You’re waiting outside in the cold for a streetcar. When one–actually 4–finally arrive all bunched up together, they’re so packed with people that you’re not actually able to get on. You try one anyways and the driver makes an announcement for everyone to “move back” so that more people can onboard via the front door. After a few minutes of people shuffling to try and get further back, you’re finally able to squeeze on–even if you are virtually sitting on the driver’s lap. You then travel about 2 blocks before the streetcar stops and the same thing repeats. The result is an absolutely infuriating mobility experience that usually makes walking the preferred choice. Who said that downtown already has enough subways?
Over the weekend, I was watching this TED talk with Charlie Rose interviewing Larry Page of Google. One question that Rose asks Page is about why he’s so fascinated with transportation and mobility. That is, why is Google so committed to driverless cars? Page then talks about his experience of waiting for buses when he was a student at the University of Michigan and how he would think about all the inefficiencies in the system. He also talks about how half of the urban fabric of Los Angeles is made up of roads and parking lots and that this is a terrible outcome of the mobility choices made in that city.
I’ve said before that transportation is one of the biggest challenges facing Toronto today. And I truly believe that. But that’s probably the case in most, if not all big cities. Getting people around a city efficiently is such a fundamental need. It stimulates economic growth and it improves quality of life. And those are typically the reasons why people choose to live in cities: to make money and to have a better life.
Now, I’m a big proponent of public transportation, but I’m also excited by the advances being made outside of mass transit. With driverless cars, electric cars, networks such as Uber and Hailo, and the emergence of the sharing economy, you could easily imagine a bunch of different ways in which mobility could be improved in our cities. Take, for my example, my own driving patterns. I probably drive my car 2, maybe 3 hours per week these days. That translates into a weekly utilization rate of roughly 1.2%! (2 hours / 168 hours week). That’s terribly inefficient. We can do better. And I think we will.