Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Category: Mobility

  • Tesla vs. Waymo

    One of the reasons why I’m interested in the autonomous vehicle space is that I know our built environment is sticky. And because we’ve designed so much of it around the car, it’s hard to imagine this dependance going away anytime soon.

    In fact, there’s a very real possibility that autonomy leads to further decentralization. That is typically what happens when we make it easier and cheaper for people to travel longer distances. They sprawl. So we ought to start preparing ourselves for the positive and negative externalities.

    I’m not a deep expert on autonomous vehicles, but as an interested observer, Waymo appears ahead of Tesla in delivering this future. Waymo has been offering fully driverless rides since 2020 and Tesla is still at L2 autonomy, which means a driver needs to be present in the vehicle.

    I hear from lots of people that their Full Self Driving (FSD) software is pretty good, but according to some studies, it can require human intervention as often as every 13 miles. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Tesla won’t be first to “solve autonomy,” but their Cybercab isn’t here yet.

    If you’re interested in this topic, here is an article by Timothy Lee summarizing a discussion that he recently had with the co-CEO of Waymo, Dmitri Dolgov. Some of it is a little technical, but it does offer a comparison between Tesla and Waymo.

    That is, how their approaches differ and what the future might look like.

  • The longest cable car line in the world is in Mexico City

    Mexico City is all kinds of big. It is the largest metropolitan area in North America, the largest Spanish-speaking city, and broadly one of the largest megacities in the world. Because of this, it can be, you know, hard to move around.

    I remember visiting the city for the first time when I was in elementary school, and it standing out to me that everyone had one day of the week when they were simply not allowed to drive their car. It was/is a form of load balancing. Imagine that. (I don’t know if this is still the case, or if it’s even more stringent today.)

    I also remember visiting the city later on, when I was in grad school, and it standing out to me that their metro had women-only cars. This was and continues to be an attempt to try and minimize the amount of sexual harassment that takes place on transit. Again, it can be hard to move around Mexico City.

    The city’s latest solution is one that has found success in other Latin American cities, such as Medellin, and that is: cable cars. Relative to subway or light rail, they’re inexpensive. They’re also good at navigating steep terrain, and their stations can be inserted into dense urban areas. This includes working-class neighborhoods who might otherwise have very limited mobility options.

    For reasons like these, Mexico City has spent the last three years building three new cable car lines, the most recent of which opened just last month. The city now has the longest cable car line in the world. But more importantly, it has a new transit add-on that is moving up to 80,000 people per day.

    This isn’t as much as rail. But that’s okay. The point of these lines is to bring more people closer in so that they can then connect to more services and other mobility options. And to do it quickly. Three new lines in three years is impressive. And from the sounds of it, it has transformed many people’s lives for the better.

    Here are maps of the 3 lines, zoomed out a bit so that you can see how they fit into the city’s broader urban context:

  • May we have a bike lane?

    Today, the government of Ontario announced legislation that, if passed, would require municipalities to receive approval from the province before installing any bike lane that would result in the removal of lanes for traffic. And in order to receive such an approval, municipalities would need to demonstrate that the proposed bike lane(s) won’t have a negative impact on vehicle traffic. To be clear, municipalities should still be free to remove lanes for other purposes — such as on-street parking — but not for bike lanes.

    There’s a lot that can and will be said about this announcement. I’m also aware that I have my biases. I’m an urbanist. I live in a walkable neighborhood. And I enjoy biking, a lot — both to get around and for fun. So I think it’s clear that this announcement was designed to appeal to a specific audience: those that drive in from the suburbs and who are deeply frustrated. This is somebody doing something. Never mind that the new Eglinton LRT line isn’t open yet and nobody knows when it will actually open, look over here at these annoying cyclists.

    The problem with this line of thinking is that it’s not going to fix our traffic. The way you make things better in a big global city with lots of demand for road space is to reduce car dependency. This is not a popular thing to say, but it’s the reality. And broadly speaking, this is done in two ways. One, you provide great alternatives. And two, you price roads accordingly, through things like congestion charges. Incidentally, this also creates a virtuous cycle, because the latter raises money for the former.

    In many ways, we’ve been getting better at number one. In 2015, Bike Share Toronto recorded 665,000 trips. Since then, ridership has increased every year. In 2023, the network recorded 5.7 million trips. And this year, the number is expected to exceed 6 million. This is not nothing. This is a lot of people riding around on bikes, some of whom may have instead opted to drive or take an Uber. And I think there’s no question that this continual increase in ridership is at least partially supported by the fact that we’ve been creating more bike lanes.

    That said, I think it’s clear that to continue to move forward as a city we’re going to need to start collecting far better urban data. We need to know things like how many cars and bikes are on every street and how fast they’re moving. (AI can do this, right? ) This way we can continually optimize for moving the most number of people as efficiently possible. And if it turns out that I’m wrong, and clamping down on bike lanes and having more people drive is the most efficient, I’ll of course accept that. Just show me the data.

  • I’d actually like a Tesla bicycle

    I watched Tesla’s We, Robot event last night. As many of you know, Elon and his team showcased a Cybercab, Robovan, and a humanoid robot that dances funny, all of which will be available in the market for purchase at some unknowable date in the future. What was obvious is that Elon himself has no clear idea of when this will be.

    What I will say, though, is that the designs look cool. The Cybercab looks like a Porsche and a Cybertruck had a love child, and the Robovan looks like an Art Deco rendition of what the future is supposed to be like. I first wondered why they’d create a robotaxi with only two seats. But thinking about it now, most Uber rides probably only have 1-2 passengers.

    Despite these pretty designs, the overwhelming reaction to the event seems to be one of disappointment. We’ve heard what was said before. Public transportation is bad (I disagree). Autonomy will free up your time and remove unnecessary parking spaces from our cities (allowing for more public space). And soon you’ll be able to put your under-utilized car to work and earn extra cash.

    Cool, but when?

    Waymo and Uber are not, as far as I know, hosting similarly flashy events. But as far as I can tell, they’re making meaningful progress in advancing toward full autonomy. As of June of this year, Waymo had already logged over 22 million rider-only miles. And in September, they announced a partnership that would bring AVs to Austin and Atlanta by way of the Uber app.

    At this point in the hype cycle, I don’t think anyone is interested in hearing promises about what the future of autonomy will be like, especially without any firm dates. They want to know: Are we there yet? So I think it’s no surprise that people, including investors, weren’t all that pumped up by the event.

    On a more important note, Tesla had bicycles with brightly illuminated wheels circulating around their event set (at Warner Bros.) to presumably demonstrate that their Cybercabs can successfully navigate around moving objects (when brightly illuminated). If you missed them, look at the 29 second mark in the below video:

    I can’t be the only one who thought: “What are those? Now, that’s what I want!” So I’ve asked Elon when they’ll be available and when I can buy one. I’ll keep you all posted on his response.

  • Dupont Street to become a complete street

    The City of Toronto is proposing to turn Dupont Street — between Dundas Street West and Davenport Road — into a “complete street.”

    Here’s the area in question:

    It’s 4.7 kilometers long.

    And here’s how the city thinks about complete streets:

    “Complete streets” are streets that are designed to be safe for all users: people who walk, bicycle, take transit or drive, and people of varying ages and levels of ability. They also consider other uses like sidewalk cafés, street furniture, street trees, utilities, and stormwater management.

    Right now, the city is in the public consultation phase. If you’d like to provide your feedback, you can do that here. You have until October 30th. The online tool is also pretty neat. You can drop comments on specific areas of the street. And already the map has been totally filled up.

    This is an important and busy artery in midtown. I use it all the time as a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver. It’s not the best street, though. Yesterday it took me 45 minutes to drive from one end of it to the other. Along with better street design, this part of the city could use better transit.

    I’m looking forward to seeing how Dupont ultimately gets designed.

  • Toronto’s highway 407 is doing what it is supposed to do

    In Google’s guide to its maps, there is a section on live traffic congestion, and in it, this image is used:

    It is a map of the Toronto region, and not surprisingly, it is showing traffic congestion on the 401 highway. But what’s interesting about this image is that there’s no traffic at all on the 407 express toll route. (This is the green highway running generally parallel and north of the 401, for those of you who aren’t familiar with Toronto.)

    This is, of course, accurate. A 2019 study by the Canadian Centre for Economic Analysis called the Economic Impacts of Highway 407 found that, at the time, an average of 413,000 drivers were using the 407 highway each weekday. And of these trips, more than 85% of vehicles were travelling at or above 100 km/h. This translates into a traffic congestion index of almost zero.

    During this same time, the highway 401 through Toronto showed that about 85% of vehicles were travelling below 50 km/h. Meaning, lots of congestion. This also had a significant impact on collision and fatality rates. On the 407, both were about half of what they were on the 401. (I couldn’t find any more decent data, but if you have it, please share it in the comments.)

    The reason for these differences is simple: the 407 charges for congestion. Here are the current per kilometer weekday rates for light vehicles travelling westbound:

    Naturally, there are people who think the 407 is too expensive and that it shouldn’t have been privatized. But the reality is that it works; really well in fact. And this is the only method that has been proven to reliably combat congestion. We can go ahead and spend a gazillion dollars building a new tunnel under the 401, and double the number of lanes (it’s already 18 lanes at its widest point), but we already know that it won’t solve our congestion problem.

    Either we price roads and congestion, or we don’t. But if we don’t, then we need to be brutally honest with ourselves about the economic trade off that we are making: free/underpriced roads = traffic congestion, and accurately priced roads and congestion = less traffic. The choice is ours. But know, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

  • Mapping 15-minute cities

    This is an interesting map to play around with. It allows you to see how many 15-minute neighborhoods and cities there are around the world. And it works by calculating the average time it takes to walk or bike to the closest 20 points of interest in 10,000 cities. These points include all of the usual suspects like places of work, schools, healthcare institutions, grocery stores, and so on. A blue cell indicates an average walk time < 15 minutes, and a red cell indicates an average walk time > 15 minutes. The darker the color, the shorter or longer the average time in minutes.

    By this measure, it’s hard to beat many/most European cities. Here are Paris and Barcelona:

    The city propers are completely blue, and you have to go pretty far out (or up into mountains) to find areas that don’t have 15-minute conveniences.

    Toronto has a strong core and isn’t terrible overall, but expectedly, we aren’t as uniform and as deep blue as Paris and Barcelona:

    Where things get really interesting, though, is when you look at cities like Dallas and Houston:

    It’s clear where these cities stand on walkability.

  • London’s clean air zone

    In 2019, London implemented something known as an Ultra-Low Emission Zone (or ULEZ). The intent was to reduce the number of older and higher-polluting vehicles entering and driving around the city.

    It works like this: If you have a vehicle that does not meet the ULEZ emission standards, you need to pay a daily charge of £12.50. This applies all day every day (except Christmas) and it is in addition to London’s congestion charge.

    It’s also done entirely through license plate cameras. If you enter the zone, don’t have an approved plate, and don’t pay the charge within a few days, you get sent a fine. The result is that London’s ULEZ is now the largest clean air zone in the world (at least according to London).

    It also achieved its intended purpose. In 2017, only 39% of cars entering London would have met the ULEZ emission standards. Today the number is over 95%. Meaning, most people don’t actually pay the charge.

    At the same time, nitrogen dioxide levels in the zone have more than halved, improving overall health outcomes. It’s a perfect example of taxing the things you want less of. What’s also interesting is that there were positive second-order consequences.

    Vehicle traffic as a whole declined by about 9% in the first year, with no evidence of displacement to other areas. And according to this research study, it actually encouraged more kids to walk and take other forms of “active transport” to and from school.

    Seems like a no brainer to me.

  • Rent control and road pricing — economics is the study of choice

    Yesterday’s post tried to pit politics against the realities of how we know cities and economics work. So today, I thought I would share a set of memos from Howard Marks (of Oaktree Capital) titled Economic Reality, Political Reality (which he refers to as an oxymoron), and Shall We Repeal the Laws of Economics?

    In this last one, he specifically talks about things like price gouging (starting with the grocery industry) and apartment rent controls. Each is worth a full read when you have the time, but here I’ll leave you all with a few city building-related thoughts.

    Marks describes economics as the study of choice. And within these choices, there are many complicated moving pieces and second-order consequences. Take, for example, rent control in New York City. What rent control does is stop the free market from being able to freely set rents. The result:

    A person in favor of this arrangement would argue that it maintains affordability and diversity. What it means in purely economic terms is that some people who couldn’t afford to live in New York City if rents were set by free-market forces are able to live there if they’re lucky enough to secure an apartment with regulated rent. But other people who would like to live in New York City and can afford higher rents can’t do so because there are no apartments for them. And lastly, landlords that have apartments that are somehow unregulated can command higher rents than would be the case if additions to the supply of apartments weren’t being discouraged. It’s a matter of personal philosophy whether this is good or bad. But clearly, the laws of economics and the actions of free markets aren’t at work in New York City. Someone in government is making the decisions.

    Much like inclusionary zoning in the case of new housing, the tradeoffs with regulated rents are that you get (1) less overall housing supply and (2) more expensive prices for the people that can pay market rents.

    You could argue, as Marks suggests, that these are acceptable outcomes; but regardless of your opinion, there are real consequences to this policy decision. There’s no such thing as a “free lunch” in economics, and consequently there’s no such thing as no-cost affordable housing. The question is: Who pays?

    Going back to the topic of traffic congestion from yesterday’s post, Toronto’s general reluctance to implement any form of road or congestion pricing is also an economic choice. We have priced our roads so cheaply that demand is always going to outstrip supply. And this is expected. What we are experiencing today is a natural market outcome.

    Targeting bike lanes as part of the problem is meant to counter this by increasing road supply. Less bike lanes means more space for cars, right? But the second-order consequence of this choice is that you push people off their bikes (which take up less road space) and into cars (which take up more road space). So demand is also likely to increase.

    The stark reality of solving traffic congestion is that it will require greater change. It will mean fewer people driving, more people taking transit and biking, and the people who do continue to drive will have to pay more for it.

    Of course, this is not what any politician wants to talk about. As Marks says: “In the world of politics, there can be limitless benefits and something for everyone. But in economics, there are only tradeoffs.” The tradeoff we have decided to make is cheap roads in exchange for crippling traffic congestion.

  • Toronto’s congestion crisis needs solutions, not politics

    People in Toronto are deeply and rightly frustrated about our traffic. We have truly world-class congestion. But here’s the thing, the way we’re going about solving this problem is all wrong.

    Transportation staff seem to believe that congestion charges would not reduce or deter traffic from coming into Toronto. Never mind all the global precedents, never mind that we have the tolled 407 highway to look to, and never mind that economics tells us that when the price of something increases, the quantity demanded decreases.

    Instead, we seem to think that we can solve this problem with fewer bike lanes, improved traffic management, and better policing, including higher fines for disobedience. (Interestingly enough, higher fines are supposed to deter people, but congestion charges won’t do the same. I’m confused.)

    None of this will fix the mess we’re in.

    This is a case of politics over data and experience. Identify something that people are pissed off about, and then create the illusion that you’re doing something to fix it. Good politics. But the reality is that this problem is much trickier to solve. It will require vision and meaningful change. That’s a much tougher sell.

    Think of this way. Can you identity a large car-oriented global city with millions of people that doesn’t have a traffic congestion problem? Even the Katy Freeway in Houston, which counts as many as 26 total lanes, has a congestion problem. And the last time I checked, it didn’t have any bike lanes.

    https://twitter.com/joshuahind/status/1837347617304424620

    Now let’s look at the largest city region in the world — Tokyo. The city proper has about 14 million people and the broader region has about 41 million. This is the entire population of Canada in one city region, and yet it’s generally viewed as being one of the most well-run and efficient cities in the world. How do they do it?

    Here are the modal splits within Tokyo’s 23 wards (2018 data):

    • 36% public transport (rail and bus)
    • 27% passenger cars
    • 23% walking
    • 14% bicycles and motorcycles

    Now compare this to the splits in Toronto’s census metropolitan area (2021 census data):

    • 76% passenger cars
    • 16% public transport
    • 5% walking
    • 1% bicycles
    • 2% other

    Of course, if we were to look at the modal splits within the core of the city they would look quite different and much closer to Tokyo’s numbers. This is why it can be so hard to achieve consensus on many city building issues — we are quite literally a divided and different kind of city.

    In the end, this is the root cause of our traffic problem. The vast majority of people in this city region drive. And they are not to be blamed. It’s because we’ve designed this to be the only practical option.

    But if we’re serious about solving congestion, it’s going to require some bold changes. It’s going to require reducing this 76% figure. We can fool ourselves into thinking that better construction coordination, fewer bike lanes, and higher fines will somehow solve this enormous and deep-rooted problem, but the inconvenient truth is that they won’t.

    What we need are real solutions. Is anyone going to take the lead?