Category: Mobility

• Walkable archipelagos are emerging across the US

  We have spoken before about how walkable urban communities punch above their weight. In the US, only about 1.2% of land is, on average, designed and built for walkability. And yet, walkable neighborhoods in the top 35 metro areas account for about 19.1% of total US real GDP.

  At the same time, because walkable communities are a rarified commodity, they usually come at a premium. According to some sources, it’s to the tune of 30-40% when you look at home prices and rental rates. This again suggests that humans actually like and want this type of urbanism.

  Which is probably why there’s a growing interest in building more of it. Here’s a recent article from Bloomberg CityLab and here’s a photo of Culdesac’s new completely car-free community under construction in Tempe, Arizona (this doesn’t look like the Arizona I know):

  

  But in addition to just giving people more of what they want, there are also real economic benefits to stripping out parking and to overall more compact development. Charlotte-based Space Craft is another developer focused on car-light and transit-oriented apartments, and they have seemingly managed to make their projects more affordable as a result:

  “Our product offered lower rents to residents, $100 to $200 below our competitors, and was the best product in the market because we were able to reinvest some of the savings from parking,” said [Harrison] Tucker, who sees walkable urban neighborhoods becoming their own real estate investment class. “The economic case was just very strong.”

  This also flies in the face of the common argument that developers will always profit maximize and charge whatever the market will bear for their spaces. So why even bother trying to make it easier and cheaper to build? But this is not true! Lower development costs, as we see here, can and will translate into lower rents and higher quality buildings.

  I also agree with Tucker that we will see walkable urban neighborhoods, and their associated building typologies, become an important real estate asset class. For all of the reasons that we talk about on this blog, this is where our cities are headed.

  However, it’s going to take some time. I like the metaphor (mentioned in the above article) that, right now, we are creating “walkable archipelagos” or walkable islands in seas of cars. With the right connectivity (transit, micromobility, and so on), these islands can do just fine. But over time, I suspect we’ll see a lot more land reclamation. Good.

  2023.03.18

• Sleeper trains — what’s old is popular again

  One of the great promises of autonomous vehicles is that, one day in the future, you’ll be able to get into your car, fall asleep, and then wake up refreshed at your destination. This would be a nice luxury, and it would almost certainly reshape the geography of our cities.

  But at the same time, it’s worth a reminder that “sleeper cars“, or bed carriages as they were originally called, are definitely not a new thing. Possibly the first example of a sleeper car was in England in the 1830s. Trains, of course, don’t take you exactly where you want to go like a car, but a sleeper train does allow you to travel while you sleep.

  And so it is interesting to see that sleeper trains are apparently seeing a resurgence in popularity across Europe. To the point that the trains are full and rail operators can’t seem to get their hands on new carriages. I can’t recall ever travelling in a sleeper train, but I have to say that this looks like a highly civilized way to move around:

  

  Image: ÖBB (Austria’s national rail operator)

  2023.03.11

• Why Utah wants to build the world’s longest and most expensive urban gondola

  If you drive around the Cottonwood Heights neighborhood in Salt Lake City, which I have done multiple times over the last year, you will invariably see lawn signs shouting for “no gondola!” And the reason for this is that last summer, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) came forward with its preferred solution to traffic congestion in Little Cottonwood Canyon: an eight-mile long gondola all the way up and into the mountains. If built, this would apparently be the longest and most expensive urban gondola in the world.

  To try and explain why this is being recommended, I’ll give the example of what happened to us when we were there last week. We drove into Little Cottonwood Canyon on Tuesday morning when it was not snowing. We left Park City around 8am, passed through the valley (Salt Lake City), and arrived at Snowbird (resort) in around 45 minutes. This is normally how long it takes. But on the way up it started snowing, and it didn’t stop all day. (Nice!) So our drive home took significantly longer and looked like this (we were going 8-10 miles per hour all the way down):

  

  This is what happens when it snows in the canyons. Which is why a wise bartender at one of the resorts advised us that, “on powder days, you need to leave the valley at 6AM. Because at some point, some asshole is going to think they can get up the canyon in a Tesla, and they will ruin it for everyone. It’s better to nap in your car at the resort than white knuckle for 2-3 hours.” During our drive home, we learned that he was not at all joking. This is what happens. And it is why UDOT wants to build one really long urban gondola.

  There are, however, some very good reasons why urban gondolas aren’t really that common. Portland has one. Medellín has one. And apparently both are quite successful. But other than these examples, they generally aren’t thought of as the most effective tool in the transportation arsenal:

  Gondolas are low-capacity vehicles that quickly get cramped if turned into high capacity ones. They don’t work well for multiple stops. As a result, they are a point-to-point transportation method with low capacity. They are also expensive, especially relative to how many people they might serve, making them financially unattractive options for most applications. At their best, gondolas work when traversing difficult terrain with a consistent but low ridership, which is why they’re most often deployed on ski resorts.

  But this situation is maybe a bit unique. It’s kind of urban transport, but really it’s for people to get up the canyon and shred deep powder. Here’s more on how it might work:

  The Cottonwood Canyon gondola would be a hybrid of sorts between urban transportation solution and resort-based gondola. The proposal is to build a massive 2,500-spot parking garage at the base of the canyon, about 20 miles from downtown and the airport, where people will park. They will then ride the gondola for 27 minutes to Snowbird or 37 minutes to Alta, a trip duration which has no parallel in the urban or resort gondola scene (the Snowbird tram, one of the most famous in the world, fits more than 100 people per tram but takes less than 10 minutes to ride). Even though the gondola would serve two ski resorts, it belongs more to the urban gondola concept because it is being proposed and recommended by the state’s transportation department as a solution to a recurring traffic problem.

  As a snowboarder, this sounds great. But it is, of course, complicated. Conservation groups are objecting, and some/many taxpayers don’t want to pay for a gondola that will largely benefit two ski resorts. Especially one that doesn’t permit snowboarders (I made this part up). So we’ll see. A final decision is expected by UDOT this summer. In the meantime, if you’re interested in urban gondolas, check out this recent article in Vice Magazine by Aaron Gordon (quoted above). He does a good job explaining both sides of this debate. And if you are interested in this topic, I’d be curious to hear whether you think this is a good idea or not.

  2023.03.03

• Segways, scooters, and AI-powered electric shoes

  The original Segway launched in 2000 and was supposed to revolutionize micro-mobility and the “last-mile problem” associated with getting around cities. Instead, only about 140,000 units were sold in the following two decades and, in 2020, the company stopped production on the namesake vehicle. In hindsight this seems kind of obvious. Segways are/were clunky and expensive. There’s a learning curve. And it’s infinitely difficult to look even remotely cool while riding one.

  But one thing they did get right was the problem. There was in fact a need for micro-mobility solutions, which is why we have seen bike share and e-scooter ridership grow, like this, since the late 2000’s. I think it remains to be seen just how ubiquitous things like e-scooters will become in our cities. But in 2021, there were 900,000 electric scooters sold in France alone. So we’re already doing much better than the Segway did during its lifetime.

  As I have said before, I am a big fan of electric scooters. And I wish that Toronto would stop being so conservative with allowing them in the city. But I remain open to other ideas, so here’s another last-mile solution to consider: $1,400 AI-powered electric shoes. Casey Neistat recently reviewed them in New York City and, I can safely say, that they look Segway-like in terms of their clunkiness and overall attractiveness. They’re still in the prototype phase and they do make you walk about 250% faster; but I’m not yet convinced.

  How about you?

  2023.02.25

• The most expensive new subway line in the world

  In other New York City news, they apparently have the most expensive new subway line in the world:

  At $2.5 billion per mile, construction costs for the 1.8-mile Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway were 8 to 12 times more expensive than similar subway projects in Italy, Istanbul, Sweden, Paris, Berlin and Spain, according to a report from New York University’s Marron Institute of Urban Management.

  This is an important problem because public transit is good for cities:

  It is not possible to outdo the subway in capacity per amount of land consumed— and in a high-demand city, 12-lane freeways are prohibitively land-intensive. Hook (1994) argued that Japan focused on rail transportation in its largest cities because it had high land values in the postwar era and such strong property rights that widespread land condemnation for freeways based on the American model was impossible.

  If this is a topic that interests you, I would encourage you to check out the report, as well as their Transit Costs Project website. It allows you to compare transit project costs for 159 different cities.

  2023.02.24

• Tesla to open (a portion of) its charging network to all EVs

  The current electric vehicle plan in the US is to build a national network of 500,000 chargers and have EVs make up at least 50% of new car sales by 2030. (Here’s where we are today with adoption.) To this end, a big announcement was made today that included lots of public funding, a Made-in-America agenda, and lots of other goodies. But perhaps the two most important points are that (1) Tesla has, for the first time, agreed to open a portion of its charging network to non-Tesla EVs (so that it can gain access to the new $7.5 billion EV charging initiative) and (2) there is a requirement for all of the station connectors to use the “combined charging system” (CCS). I’m not a connector expert but, in my mind, this is both exciting and directionally right. To fully transition to electric vehicles, we need universality.

  2023.02.15

• No right on red, except with green arrow

  I have a road sign question for all of you today. Here is a photo (from Google) of Bloor Street West and Symington Avenue in Toronto. It is an offset intersection. And as you will see, there are signs saying no right-hand turns on red, “except with green arrow.”

  

  Also present at the intersection is a traffic light with the ability to communicate in four different ways: a green circle, a yellow circle, a red circle, and a green arrow pointing right. My question to all of you is this: when is it permissible to turn right?

  It is clearly not permissible to turn right when the light is red. But can you turn right with either a full green circle or a green right arrow, or can you only turn when there’s a green arrow pointing right? i.e. No right when there’s just a green circle.

  If you can, please leave a comment below. Depending on how this goes, I could be either winning a bet or losing a bet.

  2023.02.10

• Cycling infrastructure is kind of important

  https://twitter.com/CommuteDeParis/status/1622659658644168712?s=20&t=ZZj4eXDkZmKdP4YZhh8aBQ

  We have spoken many times over the years about Paris’ investments in cycling infrastructure and about its plans to become a 100% cycling city. And my twitter feed (see above/here) seems to suggest that it’s working really well.

  Between 2015 and 2020, the city saw a doubling of its bike lanes. And from September 2018 to September 2019 alone, the city saw a 54% increase in cycling usage, with its street meters recording about 840,000 daily bike trips in the center of the city.

  Of course, if you’re a cycling skeptic, you’re probably thinking at least two things right now. One, Paris is Paris. Not all cities have the benefit of such a compact urban form. And two, Paris doesn’t get real winters. So sure, it’s easy to cycle there. Where’s the snow?

  While it is true that density is a key ingredient for walkability and active transport, the real catalyst for Paris was its cycling network. A lot more people are cycling in Paris today because it is now safer and more convenient to do so.

  It is also true that Paris generally doesn’t get as cold as, say, Toronto.

  However, Helsinki does. It has the same humid continental climate (and a lower average annual temperature). And if you look at the Copenhagenize (Cycling) Index, you’ll see that, in 2019, Paris had a bicycle modal share of under 5%, whereas Helsinki had a modal share of 11% (plus a near equal gender split).

  Maybe it’s the over 1,300 km of bicycle infrastructure.

  2023.02.09

• Bad and good street networks

  Let’s add some historical context to yesterday’s post about autonomous vehicles. As the regular non-autonomous version of cars started to infiltrate our cities in the early 20th century, largely following the creation of the mass-produced Ford Model T, there was a general view that cars were dangerous and a menace to cities. Arguably, not much has changed.

  So in the 1930s, the Federal Housing Authority decided to publish a pamphlet explaining what street networks it thought were suitable for this new emerging car world and which street networks were not. The exact terms that they used were “bad” and “good”, and here’s what that looked like (taken from this CNU article):

  

  The “bad” ones are largely how the US liked to design its cities before the arrival of the car. Some historic settlements, like Boston and Manhattan south of 14th street were based on different street logics, but as far back as the 1680s, William Penn had already started laying out a grid iron plan for Philadelphia. And in reality, this kind of street pattern goes all the way back to ancient cities.

  However, when the car arrived, these grid iron plans were thought to offer an inadequate amount of separation between people and machine. The solution was to optimize around the car and introduce a clear hierarchy of different streets. Big streets for moving cars quickly, and smaller streets, like cul-de-sacs, for people to live on.

  These “good” examples, of course, represent the modern suburb. But we now recognize that these types of street networks are unequivocally terrible for walkability, the environment, public health, social equity, and a whole host of other things. I mean, look at this extreme example of two suburban homes in Orlando whose backyards adjoin but are technically separated by 7 miles and a 20-minute drive!

  My point with all of this is that, for many/most at the time, this was progress. Cars were the future and there was optimism about the kind of freedoms and other benefits that they would bring to people. And this optimism is perhaps not all that different from what many people feel today, myself included, when it comes to autonomous vehicles.

  So on the one hand, you could point to the car and say, “look at all the damage that this thing did to our cities. Let’s not do that again. Autonomous vehicles must be stopped.” But that’s akin to wishing the car was never invented. Another option is to point to the negative externalities associated with the car and say, “look at what we’ve done. We can do better. Let’s make our cities better.”

  Positive change, no matter how late, is always a possibility.

  2023.02.04

• San Francisco’s transportation agency doesn’t love autonomous taxis

  Cruise, the autonomous taxi service owned by GM, is working toward offering 24/7 service in San Francisco. I wrote about that here. And so it recently came out with some supportive data suggesting that between September and November of last year, it completed 2,800 rides covering some 27,000 miles, and that it did so without a major collision or injury.

  The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, however, disagrees. They are opposing Cruise’s service expansion plans, and have reported 92 incidents where Cruise’s autonomous taxis have obstructed traffic, caused delays to transit, blocked lanes and, apparently in two cases, driven over firehoses.

  These two things are not all that surprising. Firstly, autonomous vehicles are still in their infancy and they are known to do silly things. Part of this, I’m sure, is because they’re programmed around road and life safety. And so if they don’t know what to do, they’re going to default to what is deemed safe, even if it means blocking a lane or obstructing traffic.

  Secondly, transit agencies are suffering in our post-pandemic world. So this is an obvious and understandable case of self-interest. And it’s not new. But at the same time, we’ve all seen this movie many times before, from Napster to Uber. Progress is disruptive. But does it really make sense to stop?

  2023.02.03