Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Here's an unproven hypothesis that you can all challenge me on: many or most people only care about the environment while it is convenient to do so. Said oppositely, once it becomes inconvenient to care about the environment, we tend to start prioritizing other objectives.
The example I have in my mind right now is parking. Now, to be clear, cars are not the best mobility solution for the environment. But let's assume for a minute that you need parking and you have only two available options: below-grade parking or above-grade parking.
The former is worse for the environment. If you were to look at the embodied carbon in below-grade parking versus above-grade parking, it would be higher. So from an environmental perspective, you want above-grade parking.
It also makes for more flexible spaces. It's hard to convert below-grade parking to much else. Again, this strengthens the environmental case, because now you're building something that can be repurposed in the future.
However, unless you're forced to only build above-grade parking (as is the case in Miami), many/most cities tend to shun it. The most common objectives are (1) that it's unsightly, and therefore needs to be wrapped with occupiable spaces, and (2) that it kills street life.
What this suggests is that (1) and (2) are seen as being more important than the environment. And I think this is noteworthy in its own right. But here's the other thing: this is arguably a false dichotomy. I mean, does above-grade parking necessarily kill street life?
The above two street view images are from 1111 Lincoln Road in Miami Beach. It's a parking structure and area of the city that I have visited many times. And I have to say, the street life seems fine to me. What do you think?
This is a shocking report from Smart Growth America on traffic fatalities in the US. Since 2010, the number of pedestrians struck and killed has increased by almost 75%. As of 2022, this number sat at just over 7,500 fatalities per year:
Here are also the top 20 most deadly metro areas:
It has become fairly common to blame Uber (and ridesharing in general) for increased traffic congestion. I hear it all the time: "If only there weren't so many Ubers on the road, traffic would flow more freely." While there are studies suggesting that "deadheading" miles do have a negative impact and that Uber can draw people away from public transit (that's bad), I think it's important to consider the bigger picture here. So let's try and do that today.
Firstly, let's think about who traffic congestion directly impacts (indirectly it's everyone). If you're a pedestrian, you don't care about traffic congestion. In fact, maybe you gain satisfaction from seeing other people stuck in it. (There's even a German word for this feeling.) Similarly, if you're riding the subway, taking any form of transit on its own right-of-way, or riding a bike, you likely also don't care about traffic congestion. It doesn't directly impact you.
Where you do care about congestion is if you're in something like a bus that is stuck in traffic or if you're driving. In the former case, you're probably thinking, "hey why can't these people take the bus like me. Then we'd have less traffic!" And in the latter case you're probably thinking, "if only there weren't so many Ubers and bike lanes, then I wouldn't be stuck in traffic!" Ironically, this is arguably the biggest segment of people who feel they are being impacted by Ubers.
Secondly, let's think about how Uber vs. driving might impact traffic congestion differently. In both cases, I would think that the majority of use cases involve one person (excluding drivers in the case of Uber) going to their desired destination. So from a raw space per person perspective, they both take up a similar amount of urban space.
The differences are that the Uber likely had some amount of deadhead miles. In other words, it spent time driving around looking for its next passenger. And it likely targeted already busy areas because that's where it was more likely to find someone. Individual drivers don't do this. They go from point A to point B.
However -- and this is a big however -- drivers do require parking once they get to where they're going. Ubers don't. This both takes up more space and oftentimes requires some amount of circling around. This is a significant difference and it begs the question: which is worse? Deadhead miles or all of the parking that cars generally require? I would argue the latter.
Where I'm going with all of this is that I think the criticism of Uber is misdirected. It doesn't get at the real underlying problem. If traffic congestion exists, it is because they are too many cars for a finite amount of road space. This includes the people who choose to drive themselves around. In fact, you could argue that they're the most impactful to cities. The way you solve this is simple: you price congestion and you encourage alternative forms of mobility.
Everything else is just a distraction.
Here's an unproven hypothesis that you can all challenge me on: many or most people only care about the environment while it is convenient to do so. Said oppositely, once it becomes inconvenient to care about the environment, we tend to start prioritizing other objectives.
The example I have in my mind right now is parking. Now, to be clear, cars are not the best mobility solution for the environment. But let's assume for a minute that you need parking and you have only two available options: below-grade parking or above-grade parking.
The former is worse for the environment. If you were to look at the embodied carbon in below-grade parking versus above-grade parking, it would be higher. So from an environmental perspective, you want above-grade parking.
It also makes for more flexible spaces. It's hard to convert below-grade parking to much else. Again, this strengthens the environmental case, because now you're building something that can be repurposed in the future.
However, unless you're forced to only build above-grade parking (as is the case in Miami), many/most cities tend to shun it. The most common objectives are (1) that it's unsightly, and therefore needs to be wrapped with occupiable spaces, and (2) that it kills street life.
What this suggests is that (1) and (2) are seen as being more important than the environment. And I think this is noteworthy in its own right. But here's the other thing: this is arguably a false dichotomy. I mean, does above-grade parking necessarily kill street life?
The above two street view images are from 1111 Lincoln Road in Miami Beach. It's a parking structure and area of the city that I have visited many times. And I have to say, the street life seems fine to me. What do you think?
This is a shocking report from Smart Growth America on traffic fatalities in the US. Since 2010, the number of pedestrians struck and killed has increased by almost 75%. As of 2022, this number sat at just over 7,500 fatalities per year:
Here are also the top 20 most deadly metro areas:
It has become fairly common to blame Uber (and ridesharing in general) for increased traffic congestion. I hear it all the time: "If only there weren't so many Ubers on the road, traffic would flow more freely." While there are studies suggesting that "deadheading" miles do have a negative impact and that Uber can draw people away from public transit (that's bad), I think it's important to consider the bigger picture here. So let's try and do that today.
Firstly, let's think about who traffic congestion directly impacts (indirectly it's everyone). If you're a pedestrian, you don't care about traffic congestion. In fact, maybe you gain satisfaction from seeing other people stuck in it. (There's even a German word for this feeling.) Similarly, if you're riding the subway, taking any form of transit on its own right-of-way, or riding a bike, you likely also don't care about traffic congestion. It doesn't directly impact you.
Where you do care about congestion is if you're in something like a bus that is stuck in traffic or if you're driving. In the former case, you're probably thinking, "hey why can't these people take the bus like me. Then we'd have less traffic!" And in the latter case you're probably thinking, "if only there weren't so many Ubers and bike lanes, then I wouldn't be stuck in traffic!" Ironically, this is arguably the biggest segment of people who feel they are being impacted by Ubers.
Secondly, let's think about how Uber vs. driving might impact traffic congestion differently. In both cases, I would think that the majority of use cases involve one person (excluding drivers in the case of Uber) going to their desired destination. So from a raw space per person perspective, they both take up a similar amount of urban space.
The differences are that the Uber likely had some amount of deadhead miles. In other words, it spent time driving around looking for its next passenger. And it likely targeted already busy areas because that's where it was more likely to find someone. Individual drivers don't do this. They go from point A to point B.
However -- and this is a big however -- drivers do require parking once they get to where they're going. Ubers don't. This both takes up more space and oftentimes requires some amount of circling around. This is a significant difference and it begs the question: which is worse? Deadhead miles or all of the parking that cars generally require? I would argue the latter.
Where I'm going with all of this is that I think the criticism of Uber is misdirected. It doesn't get at the real underlying problem. If traffic congestion exists, it is because they are too many cars for a finite amount of road space. This includes the people who choose to drive themselves around. In fact, you could argue that they're the most impactful to cities. The way you solve this is simple: you price congestion and you encourage alternative forms of mobility.
Everything else is just a distraction.
Not surprisingly, these hot spots tend to be in the south, as opposed to in older northern cities. And that's because these tend to be car-oriented places. As the name of the report suggests, they are "dangerous by design." If you optimize for cars, it means you're making trade-offs in other places.
Charts: Smart Growth America
Not surprisingly, these hot spots tend to be in the south, as opposed to in older northern cities. And that's because these tend to be car-oriented places. As the name of the report suggests, they are "dangerous by design." If you optimize for cars, it means you're making trade-offs in other places.
Charts: Smart Growth America
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog