Apple's self-driving system and/or car project has been in the news again recently. Last month, Bloomberg reported that the company was hoping to start production by as early as 2024. But this week, projections were revised and we're probably looking at least 5 years. The details are pretty limited at this stage, as is typical of Apple (although Hyundai has been saying things). It's also not clear whether the company is set on developing both an electric vehicle and a self-driving system, or just the latter. But the company has been hiring lots of engineers to work on the project, including a bunch of ex-Tesla employees. Supposedly, Apple now has "several hundred engineers
Apple's self-driving system and/or car project has been in the news again recently. Last month, Bloomberg reported that the company was hoping to start production by as early as 2024. But this week, projections were revised and we're probably looking at least 5 years. The details are pretty limited at this stage, as is typical of Apple (although Hyundai has been saying things). It's also not clear whether the company is set on developing both an electric vehicle and a self-driving system, or just the latter. But the company has been hiring lots of engineers to work on the project, including a bunch of ex-Tesla employees. Supposedly, Apple now has "several hundred engineers
" working on this initiative, most of whom are focused on the self-driving system part. Who really knows how and when this all unfolds, but I would bet that
Earlier this month, Vancouver City Council approved a plan that will have staff developing a "transport pricing" strategy for the city's core. (Transport pricing is just another term for road pricing or congestion pricing.) The plan is for staff to go away and work on this and then report back to Council with a pricing strategy sometime in 2022. At that point Council will look to approve the plan and it will all get implemented by 2025. Or at least that's the plan. I remain somewhat skeptical because Vancouver certainly isn't the first Canadian city to look at pricing its roads and congestion. Toronto has tried and failed. And so if Vancouver does end up doing this, they'll likely be the first city in the country.
So why are they doing this, or least trying to do this? Well, if you're a regular reader of this blog you'll know that I've been a supporter of road pricing for many years. Lots of old posts over here. But in the case of Vancouver, their stated goals are really as follows: 1) They want to reduce congestion and encourage people to use other forms of mobility; 2) they want to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and 3) they want another revenue stream that can be used to fund things like transit and active transport. Put differently, it's about pricing/taxing the things that we want less of and then using that money to pay for the things we want more of.
Some of you might be wondering whether this is a good idea at a time when the centralizing pull of cities is being called into question. But I think it's important to keep in mind that Vancouver thinks it needs at least five years to implement its transport pricing. We'll be living through the roaring twenties by then. I am also a firm believer that cities are going to snap back significantly faster than most people think.
" working on this initiative, most of whom are focused on the self-driving system part. Who really knows how and when this all unfolds, but I would bet that
Earlier this month, Vancouver City Council approved a plan that will have staff developing a "transport pricing" strategy for the city's core. (Transport pricing is just another term for road pricing or congestion pricing.) The plan is for staff to go away and work on this and then report back to Council with a pricing strategy sometime in 2022. At that point Council will look to approve the plan and it will all get implemented by 2025. Or at least that's the plan. I remain somewhat skeptical because Vancouver certainly isn't the first Canadian city to look at pricing its roads and congestion. Toronto has tried and failed. And so if Vancouver does end up doing this, they'll likely be the first city in the country.
So why are they doing this, or least trying to do this? Well, if you're a regular reader of this blog you'll know that I've been a supporter of road pricing for many years. Lots of old posts over here. But in the case of Vancouver, their stated goals are really as follows: 1) They want to reduce congestion and encourage people to use other forms of mobility; 2) they want to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and 3) they want another revenue stream that can be used to fund things like transit and active transport. Put differently, it's about pricing/taxing the things that we want less of and then using that money to pay for the things we want more of.
Some of you might be wondering whether this is a good idea at a time when the centralizing pull of cities is being called into question. But I think it's important to keep in mind that Vancouver thinks it needs at least five years to implement its transport pricing. We'll be living through the roaring twenties by then. I am also a firm believer that cities are going to snap back significantly faster than most people think.
There is data to suggest that on-demand (OD) mobility services -- such as Uber -- are increasing vehicle kilometers traveled (i.e. causing greater traffic congestion) by inducing people away from public transit and other forms of urban mobility. This is potentially even more of an issue right now with most urban transit agencies looking at massive budget shortfalls.
But there's potentially another way to look at this problem. A recent study led by Dániel Kondor of the MIT Senseable City Lab has looked at not only vehicle kilometers traveled but also something that the team calls the "minimum parking problem." What is the minimum amount of parking that you need assuming a world with more on-demand mobility, and eventually autonomous vehicles?
To try and answer this problem the researchers looked at the small city-state of Singapore. With a population of about 5.6 million people and somewhere around 1 million vehicles, Singapore actually has one of the lowest number of private vehicles per capita in the developed world. Even still, it has some 1.37 million parking spaces taking up valuable room.
What the team found was that on-demand mobility could reduce parking infrastructure needs in Singapore by as much as 86%. This is the absolute minimum number, which would take the current estimate of 1.37 million spots down to about 189,000 -- a significant reduction.
However, the tradeoff is that it could increase vehicle kilometers traveled by about 24%. Without ample parking, their model assumes that these on-demand vehicles would need to "deadhead" between trips. That is, drive around aimlessly while they wait for their next passenger. Demand isn't usually neat and tidy.
However, it's worth noting that the above percentage increase assumes that if people were instead driving themselves around that they always found a parking spot as soon as they arrived at their destination. This, as we all know, is not often the case, and so this increase is probably a worst case scenario.
Nevertheless, the team did also find that a 57% reduction in parking could be achieved with only a modest 1.3% increase in vehicle kilometers traveled. This, to me, is meaningful because it says that you could, in theory, cut parking supply in at least half and not much would happen in the way of traffic congestion.
It would, however, free up a bunch of space for things like bicycle lanes, green space, and other valuable urban amenities. Now, if on-demand vehicles are pulling people away from transit, then maybe we're no better off. But if the alternative is people driving and parking everywhere they go, then it would seem that there are much better uses for that space.
There is data to suggest that on-demand (OD) mobility services -- such as Uber -- are increasing vehicle kilometers traveled (i.e. causing greater traffic congestion) by inducing people away from public transit and other forms of urban mobility. This is potentially even more of an issue right now with most urban transit agencies looking at massive budget shortfalls.
But there's potentially another way to look at this problem. A recent study led by Dániel Kondor of the MIT Senseable City Lab has looked at not only vehicle kilometers traveled but also something that the team calls the "minimum parking problem." What is the minimum amount of parking that you need assuming a world with more on-demand mobility, and eventually autonomous vehicles?
To try and answer this problem the researchers looked at the small city-state of Singapore. With a population of about 5.6 million people and somewhere around 1 million vehicles, Singapore actually has one of the lowest number of private vehicles per capita in the developed world. Even still, it has some 1.37 million parking spaces taking up valuable room.
What the team found was that on-demand mobility could reduce parking infrastructure needs in Singapore by as much as 86%. This is the absolute minimum number, which would take the current estimate of 1.37 million spots down to about 189,000 -- a significant reduction.
However, the tradeoff is that it could increase vehicle kilometers traveled by about 24%. Without ample parking, their model assumes that these on-demand vehicles would need to "deadhead" between trips. That is, drive around aimlessly while they wait for their next passenger. Demand isn't usually neat and tidy.
However, it's worth noting that the above percentage increase assumes that if people were instead driving themselves around that they always found a parking spot as soon as they arrived at their destination. This, as we all know, is not often the case, and so this increase is probably a worst case scenario.
Nevertheless, the team did also find that a 57% reduction in parking could be achieved with only a modest 1.3% increase in vehicle kilometers traveled. This, to me, is meaningful because it says that you could, in theory, cut parking supply in at least half and not much would happen in the way of traffic congestion.
It would, however, free up a bunch of space for things like bicycle lanes, green space, and other valuable urban amenities. Now, if on-demand vehicles are pulling people away from transit, then maybe we're no better off. But if the alternative is people driving and parking everywhere they go, then it would seem that there are much better uses for that space.
