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

  • Are shared e-scooters now dead?

    I first wrote about Bird, the electric scooter company, back in March 2018. At the time, they had just raised $115 million and their pitch was that they were going to solve the last-mile mobility problem. This is a real problem, and so lots of urbanist-type people, including myself, were excited. I then rode my first shared scooter in 2019 in Lisbon, and I had a ton of fun. I wrote: “Now I know what all the fuss is about.”

    But it wasn’t all puppy dogs and ice cream. People started getting annoyed by the clutter that dockless scooters were creating in our cities (see above photo). Safety also became a great concern, and so they started getting viewed as a nuisance. Toronto never allowed them (despite my insistent blog posts) and Paris — which had arguably become the scooter capital of the world — banned them in early 2023.

    Now there’s this: Bird announced this week that it has filed for bankruptcy. The once unicorn, which had its stock halted back in September because its market cap fell below $15 million for too long, needs cash. According to FT, they have about $3.25 million the bank, but they have an immediate need for $16.8 million to meet some “financial obligations” in January.

    This is maybe not unexpected. But I think the important question is: Is this an existential moment for micro-mobility and shared scooters (i.e. this is a fundamentally bad business), or is it more of a case that money used to be mostly kind of free, and now it’s not? Either way, I think there’s no question that the latter is going to cause further distress throughout 2024.

    But the question remains: Can shared scooters be a sustainable business?

    My day job is not to be a scooter analyst. But I do think that a number of things are true:

    These first and last points are important ones. I believe it’s always going to be easier to get people onto electric scooters and bikes than onto regular bikes; people will generally always choose what is easiest. At the same time, here is a company that has allegedly figured out how to offer this service profitably. Assuming these two things remain true, I think we’ll continue to find scooters in our cities.

    Photo by Gemma Evans on Unsplash

  • We’re far from full

    I tweeted this out yesterday:

    What I was getting at is that there’s lots of available room within our existing boundaries for infill housing. We are nowhere near full, despite what some people will tell you. In fact, most areas are not dense enough to properly support modes of transport that aren’t the car.

    Of course, there are a number of ways that one could be offended by a statement like this.

    One, you could argue that more density would make the city unlivable. Two, you could get into the chicken-and-egg game of whether a more expansive transit system is needed before allowing more density. Three, you could say that we already have enough zoned and unbuilt housing supply — so why do we need more? And I’m sure that there are many others that I’m not mentioning here.

    Density can be a counterintuitive feature for cities. It can actually make a place more livable by encouraging more amenities adjacent to where people live and work, and it can also reduce traffic congestion by empowering alternative forms of mobility. If the only reasonable way to get around is by car, then of course most people will drive.

    We also need to avoid the chicken-and-egg mental trap when it comes to mobility infrastructure. Land use and transportation always work hand in hand and need to be thought of and executed on simultaneously.

    Finally, the objection of already having lots of sites zoned for new housing is an enticing one. But zoned and delivered are two vastly different things. And the unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of zoned sites that won’t be able to develop in the short and medium terms because the market isn’t there. But that doesn’t mean that other housing typologies couldn’t be built.

    At the same time, we need move away from “cruise ships of urbanity.” Broadly speaking, Paris — to cite just one of many examples– is at least and on average about 4x denser than Toronto. And somehow, people still like living and visiting there.

  • The banana test

    One of the reasons why “new small-scale retail, service, and office uses” are now permitted in low-rise neighborhoods of Toronto — and why many are on to talking about these uses in our laneways — is because it’s a way to serve the “needs of residents” and “reduce local automobile trips”. But what are these needs exactly? And if you had to choose only one, what would it be?

    Let me provide some further background.

    According to this mapping, 94% of Parisians live within a 5-minute walk of a bakery. And according to this mapping, 94% of people in Mexico City live within a 5-minute walk of a taqueria. So in other words, these two cities seem to have the kind of “small-scale retail, service, and office uses” that satisfy at least some of the needs of their residents.

    People in Paris need bread. And people in Mexico City need tacos. But what do people in Toronto need? I’m not sure we have a perfectly parallel thing. But according to Instacart, the top-selling grocery item last year across both the US and Canada was — bananas. One and four carts typically contain them, and apparently this number has remained fairly consistent.

    So maybe this should be our small-scale retail and walkability test metric: What % of the population lives within a 5-minute walk of fresh bananas? (I’m open to other food suggestions here.)

  • My first Turo experience

    I used Turo for the first time this evening. For those of you who aren’t familiar, Turo is like Airbnb, but for cars. It connects people who have cars with people who need rental cars. Here is a photo of ours at SLC:

    The pickup was perfectly seamless. I got a text from an alleged human the day before. It said that they would leave the car on the second level of the parking garage next to baggage claim. And that I would get more precise instructions — such as where the key will be — after it was parked there.

    I was also told that there would be a small charge to pay in order to exit the garage. And that the charge would obviously depend on how quickly I retrieve the car after they park it. In my case it ended up being US$10, but we also stopped for food on the way.

    Overall, I’d say the pickup experience was easier and faster than your typical rental car. The car was as advertised. And thankfully, it was also there waiting for us. The two standout features for me are probably: (1) It was cheaper and (2) you get to pick your exact car. 

    This second one is important because sometimes you need a rental car so that you can drive it into a snow-covered canyon. And when faced with this situation, it can be helpful to know exactly what you’ll be getting — right down to the type of tires.

  • Montréal’s winter cycling retention ratio

    Montréal had its first snowstorm of the season this week, and if you look on X, you’ll find images and videos like these:

    What’s remarkable is the number of people who, at least from these tweets, continue to cycle in the winter. In fact, in the above video, there looks to be more bikes on the road than cars. Plowed lanes certainly help!

    According to the city of Montréal, about 80% of the network is maintained for year-round use (717 km of its 900 km network). But I’m sure that there are a lot of people who still can’t imagine anyone wanting to cycle in these conditions. So what is the actual winter usage?

    Thankfully, Montréal has bike counters. 55 of them to be exact. And all of the data can be viewed, here. The busiest location is Saint Denis and Rue des Carrières. This falls within their Réseau Express Vélo (REV) network, which is a series of protected lanes intended to do what the name suggests.

    The daily average for this counter is currently 4,403 riders, but the summer peak looks to be closer to 10,000. And this year, it has seen close to 1.5 million rides in total. This is a significant number. I mean, imagine 1.5 million more car trips on the road.

    Looking at yesterday’s data, the daily count was 1,292. If you very crudely divide this by my 10,000 summer peak estimate, you get to around 13%. And this happens to line up with what seems to be the city’s generally accepted winter cycling retention ratio.

    Not surprisingly, fewer people want to cycle in the winter. But the number is not nothing. If you multiple 1,292 cycling trips by 120 days (roughly December to March), that’s still over 150,000 trips (I know, I didn’t account for weekends). On top of this, the city’s winter cycling retention rate appears to be increasing.

    So just because you may not want to cycle to work in the winter, it doesn’t necessarily mean that others feel the same way.

  • Toronto’s King Street is not a transit corridor

    Back in 2016, the City of Toronto announced plans to run a transit-priority pilot on King Street in the downtown core. What this meant was that cars would be restricted to only certain movements and that streetcars would be given priority. This pilot was ultimately implemented in 2017 and, eventually, it was made permanent. Presumably because it was doing some good for transit flows. But just this week, new data was revealed showing that, in some cases, travel times today are worse (i.e. longer) than they were before the pilot:

    CityNews has learned that eastbound travel times from Bathurst to Jarvis during the evening rush hours averaged 19 to 26 minutes before the pilot program in 2017. The latest times show it is now worse with an average of 22 to 29 minutes.

    One way to look at this data would be to say, “okay, clearly this transit corridor thing isn’t working. Streetcar travel times have gotten worse. So why bother?” But I think the real answer is this: King Street hasn’t remained a transit corridor since the pilot. Many/most motorists continue to use it, even though some 22,000 tickets have apparently been issued since the pilot began. Here’s a random photo of King Street West taken from my office window one afternoon:

    So I think what this data is really saying is that we’ve probably done very little to actually improve transit flows on King Street since 2016, and that traffic has generally gotten worse during this time. This seems like a more accurate description to me. But of course, it doesn’t need to be this way. If really want King Street to be a transit corridor, we have the power to make that happen. It just means spending some money on public realm enhancements, gates, bollards, and the like. The choice is ours.

  • The price of car ownership certificates in Singapore just hit a record high

    If you were a city-state only slightly larger in area than the City of Toronto, you would think about space very differently. There would be no option to just sprawl further out. And that is the case for Singapore, which is approximately 734 km2 compared to Toronto’s 630 km2.

    So it’s no wonder that Singapore carefully manages how people use and own cars. Not only were they the first country in the world to implement a congestion charge (road pricing), but they also force people to buy 10-year “Certificates of Entitlement” in order to own one.

    These are auctioned off every 2 weeks and the overall supply of them is controlled by the government.

    Currently, the starting price for a COE is S$104,000 (roughly the same in Canadian dollars). This is a record high and up nearly 3x compared to 2020 when fewer people wanted to own a car. However, if you’d like a COE that works on all sizes of cars, that is right now S$152,000.

    It’s hard to imagine a system like this ever flying in a large country like Canada. But if Canada were the size of just Toronto, you can be sure that we would likely have no other choice. That said, this is more or less how we treat new housing: we’ve made it difficult and expensive for new entrants.

  • Slamming the breaks on anti-motorist measures

    Last week the Prime Minister of the UK, Rishi Sunak, announced a number of initiatives designed to support drivers. The slogan is “slamming the brakes on anti-motorist measures” and you can find more information about it, over here.

    Naturally this is sparking the usual debate about driving vs. all the other forms of mobility. But it also seems to be part of some sort of broader political strategy intended to distance his party from things like environmental sustainability, net zero targets, and 15-minute city design.

    If you’re looking for a way to process the above announcement, this recent FT article by John Burn-Murdoch is an excellent place to start. Firstly, the UK (outside of London) is generally poorly served by public transport. This is an important thing to know. By the below measure — percentage of large cities that have trams, a metro, or urban light rail — it is even worse than the US:

    In fact, one way to think about and measure mobility in the UK is to think in terms of the following geographic categories: there’s US cities, European cities (including London), and then there’s the rest of the UK. In the case of US cities, they have very clearly optimized around road infrastructure. Meaning, the vast majority of people don’t take transit to work, but the area (km2) you can cover by car (in 30 mins) is high.

    Look at Houston and Dallas on the left side of this graph:

    On the other hand, European cities (again, including London) have optimized in the opposite direction. A lot more people walk, cycle, and take transit to work. In the case of cities like London, Paris, Barcelona, Bilbao, Prague, and others, the number is greater than 60%! However, they’re sucky places to drive, as I learned this past summer. The area you can cover by car within 30 mins, is relatively low (bottom right of the above graph).

    The challenge for British cities (excluding London), is that they seem to be right in the middle (burgundy dots above). Poor public transport (low percentage of trips to work). And poor road infrastructure (limited area accessible by car within 30 mins). So it is perhaps no surprise that Sunak is honing in on this issue. London is not representative of Britain. And based on the above data, the majority of people living in British cities are almost certainly mobility frustrated.

    Of course, to correct this issue you have two options. You can move toward the left (in the above chart) and optimize for road infrastructure. Or you can move to the right and optimize for public transport and other forms of mobility. Based on last week’s announcement, Sunak has chosen the left.

    Charts: FT

  • The end of private car ownership

    Here is an argument that Philadelphia-based Diana Lind recently made on her blog, The New Urban Order:

    I believe we’re at the beginning of the end of private car ownership in American cities. This idea came from thinking about the next steps when our RAV4 dies in the coming year or so: not only shouldn’t we replace it, but we won’t want to replace it. Right now only about a quarter of Americans do not drive to work, and only 9 percent of Americans do not have access to a car at all. But I think that in the coming decade there’s going to be a ton of potential to convert people living in dense cities and neighborhoods away from private cars.

    There are a number of reasons for why she believes this is going to be the case and, to quickly summarize, they are: remote work, declining birth rates, more old people, Uber and other services, and autonomous vehicles. And generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to be made here.

    But one thing that she does not explicitly talk about is the relevance of built form in this move away from private car ownership. She does mention “people living in dense cities” (see above), but does this mean that we are to assume density will remain a prerequisite, as it mostly is today?

    Urban density dictates so much of how we move around. When I was driving around Paris during the summer, I couldn’t wait to return our car and get back on foot. You should have also seen the gymnastics we pulled off to refill the tank. Driving in the city was annoying. Paris is designed for walking, taking the metro and, now, cycling.

    On the other hand, when I land in Salt Lake City (Park City), the first thing I do is head to the car rental area. The city is getting better at trying to reorient itself, and there is a tram (Green Line) that runs from the airport through downtown, but it very much remains a driving city. And ideally you want something like a Toyota 4Runner that will take you through snow and up steep pitches.

    So while I agree that, directionally, Diana is right, I think the question remains: What does this mean for individual cities and their built environments? In a city like Paris, it is obvious. Private car ownership is highly likely to continue declining. But in a place like Salt Lake City, I think it’s going to be much more challenging and take a lot longer.

    Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash

  • Don’t screw it up, New York

    New York City is set to become the first in the US to implement a congestion charge (a form of road pricing). I first wrote about this back in 2018, and then again in 2019, but now it is looking more and more like it may actually happen sometime next year.

    I think all urbanists agree that this is an important step in the right direction. But some are now worried that New York isn’t going about it in the right way. Here is an excerpt from a recent Vice article by Aaron Gordon:

    With all these plans, you could be excused for thinking New York is doing congestion pricing—a potentially transformative policy that would be a first in the nation—right by not only charging drivers to access some of the densest, most valuable land in the world, but also giving them alternatives. Unfortunately, New York isn’t doing that, and in fact looks set to completely screw up congestion pricing so badly it may discredit the policy in a way that makes it harder for other cities to adopt it. Rather than approaching it as a lynchpin to a wide-ranging effort to reshape Manhattan’s relationship to the private car, congestion pricing has become solely about money—specifically, paying off enough of the credit-card bill New York has run up with a variety of ill-conceived and poorly-executed projects that it can get more credit cards.

    You can rightly say that this is decades in the making. Mayor Bloomberg first proposed the idea back in 2007, and I’m sure there were others before him with a similar idea.

    So Gordon raises a valid point: It’s important that NYC gets this right. Otherwise, it’s going to be that much more difficult for other North American cities to even think about implementing road pricing.

    For the full Vice article, click here.