This is going to be old news to many of you, but this past week I experienced Tesla's self-driving capabilities for the first time. And I must say that I was very impressed. It did everything from navigate stop-and-go city traffic to navigate lane changes on the highway. Overall, it makes my five-year old car feel pretty quaint. The software is that much more sophisticated and one has to assume that all of this autonomy stuff will only get significantly better as LIDAR becomes common place in production vehicles.
In other car news, North America appears to be narrowing in on an EV charging plug standard. It is Tesla's plug, but it is now appropriately called the North American Charging Standard (NACS) plug. And last week, Electrify America -- which is the largest non-Tesla, fast-charging network in the US -- announced that it would be adding the plug to its network. The company also happens to be owned by Volkswagen. So big and important companies seem to be coalescing around this plug type.
Lastly for today, here's a post by Fred Wilson talking about (1) bi-directional EV charging, (2) the apartment buildings he and his wife are developing, and (3) our ongoing transformation away from a centralized electrical grid to a decentralized one. What he talks about in his post is something that we are actually piloting in a few of Slate's office buildings right now. It's still early days, but I think it's really exciting. Tech seems to be enabling a broader shift toward decentralization. And in the case of our electrical grid, it's going to lead to a more resilient one.
I love cycling. And I have been using Toronto's bike share system to get around over the last few weeks (both for work and personal stuff). There's no better way to get around when the city is busy. But it was also a reminder that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to cycling infrastructure.
Here are a few observations:
The Bike Share mobile app has got to be the worst app that I have ever used. First of all, it's called PBSC. I think this was a deliberate choice so that it's impossible to remember and impossible to locate on your phone. Because once you do find it, it's an awful experience.
I struggled to make it from downtown up to midtown a few days ago. Can I blame the Bike Share bike instead of my lack of physical conditioning? I can't see the majority of people wanting to do this sort of ride. This is where e-bikes and e-scooters come in.
Many of the bikes have something wrong with them.
We don't have enough bike lanes and bike-friendly streets. I know that some you don't want to hear this. But it's the truth. There are a lot of streets in Toronto where it is terrifying to be on a bicycle. This is true even in the center of the city.
So I guess I was wrong. I thought "The Line" in Saudia Arabia was never going to be built -- at least not in its current incarnation. But apparently it is now under construction, and it is still planned to be 170 km long and house some 9 million people when it's complete. I suppose something could happen between now and when all 170 km are complete, but I'm happy to accept that, for the time being, I was wrong.
Now it's time to ask ourselves what a 170 km long city would even be like. To answer that, here is a fascinating article from npc Urban Sustainability describing how mobility and urban interactions are likely to work in this kind of a linear city. And it turns out that a line is actually an optimal urban form if you're trying to both maximize commute times and maximize the average distance between inhabitants:
One of the most critical aspects related to The Line is distance. If its 9 million inhabitants are homogeneously distributed in the city, each km will have roughly 53,000 people. If we randomly pick two people from the city, they will be, on average, 57 km apart. Although The Line occupies only 2% of the surface of Johannesburg, if we pick two random people in Johannesburg, they are only 33 km apart.
This is going to be old news to many of you, but this past week I experienced Tesla's self-driving capabilities for the first time. And I must say that I was very impressed. It did everything from navigate stop-and-go city traffic to navigate lane changes on the highway. Overall, it makes my five-year old car feel pretty quaint. The software is that much more sophisticated and one has to assume that all of this autonomy stuff will only get significantly better as LIDAR becomes common place in production vehicles.
In other car news, North America appears to be narrowing in on an EV charging plug standard. It is Tesla's plug, but it is now appropriately called the North American Charging Standard (NACS) plug. And last week, Electrify America -- which is the largest non-Tesla, fast-charging network in the US -- announced that it would be adding the plug to its network. The company also happens to be owned by Volkswagen. So big and important companies seem to be coalescing around this plug type.
Lastly for today, here's a post by Fred Wilson talking about (1) bi-directional EV charging, (2) the apartment buildings he and his wife are developing, and (3) our ongoing transformation away from a centralized electrical grid to a decentralized one. What he talks about in his post is something that we are actually piloting in a few of Slate's office buildings right now. It's still early days, but I think it's really exciting. Tech seems to be enabling a broader shift toward decentralization. And in the case of our electrical grid, it's going to lead to a more resilient one.
I love cycling. And I have been using Toronto's bike share system to get around over the last few weeks (both for work and personal stuff). There's no better way to get around when the city is busy. But it was also a reminder that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to cycling infrastructure.
Here are a few observations:
The Bike Share mobile app has got to be the worst app that I have ever used. First of all, it's called PBSC. I think this was a deliberate choice so that it's impossible to remember and impossible to locate on your phone. Because once you do find it, it's an awful experience.
I struggled to make it from downtown up to midtown a few days ago. Can I blame the Bike Share bike instead of my lack of physical conditioning? I can't see the majority of people wanting to do this sort of ride. This is where e-bikes and e-scooters come in.
Many of the bikes have something wrong with them.
We don't have enough bike lanes and bike-friendly streets. I know that some you don't want to hear this. But it's the truth. There are a lot of streets in Toronto where it is terrifying to be on a bicycle. This is true even in the center of the city.
So I guess I was wrong. I thought "The Line" in Saudia Arabia was never going to be built -- at least not in its current incarnation. But apparently it is now under construction, and it is still planned to be 170 km long and house some 9 million people when it's complete. I suppose something could happen between now and when all 170 km are complete, but I'm happy to accept that, for the time being, I was wrong.
Now it's time to ask ourselves what a 170 km long city would even be like. To answer that, here is a fascinating article from npc Urban Sustainability describing how mobility and urban interactions are likely to work in this kind of a linear city. And it turns out that a line is actually an optimal urban form if you're trying to both maximize commute times and maximize the average distance between inhabitants:
One of the most critical aspects related to The Line is distance. If its 9 million inhabitants are homogeneously distributed in the city, each km will have roughly 53,000 people. If we randomly pick two people from the city, they will be, on average, 57 km apart. Although The Line occupies only 2% of the surface of Johannesburg, if we pick two random people in Johannesburg, they are only 33 km apart.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
If you're not familiar with Toronto, you won't get this point. But Queens Quay is a seemingly complicated street for many people to navigate. Cycling along here in peak summer is an exercise in dodging people as they meander across the bike lane.
We need dockless bikes. I'm sure that the team is doing their best to load balance across the network, but it is often a challenge to find an available dock at the end of a trip. There are ways to do this that avoid bikes being left everywhere.
Keeping the surface fixed, a line is the contiguous urban form that maximises the distance between its inhabitants.
In The Line, people are as far away from others as possible. Considering that a walkable distance is 1.0 km, in The Line, only 1.2% of the population is at walking distance from others. Active mobility is not viable in The Line since distances are too long. The plan for The Line has no cars but also gets rid of most active mobility. Although in The Line, basic needs could be satisfied within 5 min, most journeys to school, work, leisure or visiting other people will depend on public transport.
So what would be better? Well if you're trying to minimize the average distance between people and increase urban interactions, then the optimal form is generally the one that cities have been using ever since they were first created:
We can think of a city called The Circle, where we take the same tall buildings as in The Line but put them next to each other, forming a circular shape. A circle that occupies the same surface as The Line (34 km2) has a radius of only 3.3 km. In The Circle, the expected distance between two random people is only 2.9 km. In The Circle, a person is at a walking distance of 24% of the population (and within 2 km, they could reach 66% of the destinations), so most of their mobility could be active. In The Circle, a high-speed rail system is unnecessary since people could walk or cycle to most places, and buses could supply the rest of the journeys. The Circle occupies roughly the same surface as Pisa, Italy, but has 50 times its population. A round urban form is the most desirable since it reduces commuting distances and the energy required for transport.
This is one of the challenges with building large scale cities from scratch. It's easy to become enamoured with a particular plan or symbol; whereas in reality, cities don't care about these kinds of visual representations. They don't care that, in plan, the city may look like an eagle (see "Helicopter Urbanism", a term that was supposedly coined by Jan Gehl). What matters is how interactions between humans play out at street level.
If you're not familiar with Toronto, you won't get this point. But Queens Quay is a seemingly complicated street for many people to navigate. Cycling along here in peak summer is an exercise in dodging people as they meander across the bike lane.
We need dockless bikes. I'm sure that the team is doing their best to load balance across the network, but it is often a challenge to find an available dock at the end of a trip. There are ways to do this that avoid bikes being left everywhere.
Keeping the surface fixed, a line is the contiguous urban form that maximises the distance between its inhabitants.
In The Line, people are as far away from others as possible. Considering that a walkable distance is 1.0 km, in The Line, only 1.2% of the population is at walking distance from others. Active mobility is not viable in The Line since distances are too long. The plan for The Line has no cars but also gets rid of most active mobility. Although in The Line, basic needs could be satisfied within 5 min, most journeys to school, work, leisure or visiting other people will depend on public transport.
So what would be better? Well if you're trying to minimize the average distance between people and increase urban interactions, then the optimal form is generally the one that cities have been using ever since they were first created:
We can think of a city called The Circle, where we take the same tall buildings as in The Line but put them next to each other, forming a circular shape. A circle that occupies the same surface as The Line (34 km2) has a radius of only 3.3 km. In The Circle, the expected distance between two random people is only 2.9 km. In The Circle, a person is at a walking distance of 24% of the population (and within 2 km, they could reach 66% of the destinations), so most of their mobility could be active. In The Circle, a high-speed rail system is unnecessary since people could walk or cycle to most places, and buses could supply the rest of the journeys. The Circle occupies roughly the same surface as Pisa, Italy, but has 50 times its population. A round urban form is the most desirable since it reduces commuting distances and the energy required for transport.
This is one of the challenges with building large scale cities from scratch. It's easy to become enamoured with a particular plan or symbol; whereas in reality, cities don't care about these kinds of visual representations. They don't care that, in plan, the city may look like an eagle (see "Helicopter Urbanism", a term that was supposedly coined by Jan Gehl). What matters is how interactions between humans play out at street level.
