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

  • Utah just chose an urban gondola for Little Cottonwood Canyon

    Every now and then somebody comes forward and proposes an urban gondola. The most recent one that I have heard about here in Toronto was this one from 2016 called the “Don Valley Cable Car.” But like many gondola proposals, it sort of just disappeared. Probably because it wasn’t entirely necessary. (I just checked their website and it is now down.)

    However, there are rare instances where a gondola makes a lot of sense. Medellin, for example, has a very successful urban gondola system that my friend Alex Feldman wrote about, here on the blog, after a visit to the city back in 2014. In this case, the gondola was instrumental in connecting hill-side communities that were previously disconnected from the rest of the city.

    Another less urbanized example is the one that Utah (Salt Lake County) is planning to build in Little Cottonwood Canyon. I wrote about this project back in March when I was there and, today, the Utah Department of Transportation announced their preferred mobility option. It is called Gondola Alternative B and, as far as I can tell, it is still the longest and most expensive urban gondola ever proposed.

    Here are the details in graphic form:

    To summarize, though:

    • The system is being designed to carry 1,050 passengers per hour, with cabins departing every 2 minutes.
    • The gondola itself is expected to cost $370 million, but when you add in a new parking garage for 2,500 cars, tolling infrastructure on the existing State Route, and other improvements, the total all-in capital cost is projected to be $729 million. The route itself is somewhere around 10 miles, so let’s call it $73 million per mile.
    • At the same time, the projected operating costs are relatively low at $8 million per year, so this option actually has the lowest 30-year lifecycle cost out of all the ones that were studied. The other alternatives included widening the existing roadway, enhancing the bus service, and adding rail. There was also one other gondola option, which was presumably called Gondola Alternative A.

    If you’re wondering why this is likely a good idea, check out my post from this past winter.

  • Rail + property — let’s try it again, okay?

    The Eglinton Crosstown line is going to open, here in Toronto, sometime next year — I think. And I’m sure that it is going to be a massively beneficial addition to Toronto’s transit network. But at the same time, we should be talking about this:

    Urban transit stations shouldn’t look like this. It’s a missed opportunity, both in terms of the foregone housing (and other uses) that could be on top of these stations and the additional value that could have been captured from these air rights. Transit is a crucial lever for land values and development overall, and so it’s no wonder that many of the best transit authorities around the world think in terms of “rail + property”.

    So what happened here?

    I don’t know exactly. But I do know that nearly a decade ago I called up Metrolinx and said, “Hey, so I’m a developer who can build things. I see that you’re building a number of exciting transit stations along Eglinton. Want me to build on top of them for you?” Now obviously Metrolinx wasn’t going to be able to sole-source to Brandon, but regardless, I thought it should happen and I just hoped to be in the mix.

    In 2015, things did start to happen. Avison Young, on behalf of Metrolinx, issued a request for proposal to developers for 4 sites/stations along the line. There were two at Keele Street, one at Weston Road, and one at Bathurst Street. And at the time, it was thought that these sites could generate somewhere between $14-22 million (speaking of reasonable).

    I think it was also being viewed as a bit of a pilot. If things went well with these 4 initial sites, then this same approach was going to be rolled out across all suitable sites on the line. I’m not sure what happened with the RFP or the broader intent — maybe some of you know — but it clearly didn’t pan out as planned.

    That’s too bad. But I suppose done is better than perfect. Plus, now we’re building the Ontario Line and so we have another opportunity to get it right. And right means lots of density on top of stations — both directly on top and all around it.

  • Self-driving cars, plugs, and electrical grids

    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.

  • Bike sharing around Toronto

    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.
    • 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.
    • And while we’re at it, we should also add e-scooters to our roster.

    What would you add to this list?

  • A line vs. a circle — which is the optimal urban form?

    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. 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.

  • EVs are cool, but what about high-speed rail?

    As many of you know, I am an advocate for high-speed rail in Canada. Specifically along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, which is the most densely populated part of the country. And so I found this comparison interesting:

    “If there is one project that would create thousands of jobs, improve business productivity, clean up the air, reduce the output of greenhouse gases and cut the demand for endless highway construction, it would be high-speed electric rail between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, where population densities are high enough to make the project sensible. Cost estimates are all over the map. The University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy put the price tag at about $12-billion, which is $2-billion less than the bucks being thrown at the Volkswagen battery plant alone. But forget it – the Canadian government wants more cars, not fewer. Canadian cities will remain car sewers forever.”

    The above excerpt is from this opinion piece talking about EVs and the public subsidies being paid to encourage battery production within Canada. I get that we want to be part of this important mobility shift. But we are way behind when it comes to high-speed rail.

    And by behind, I mean that we don’t have it at all in this country.

  • Waymo and Uber announce autonomous vehicle partnership, starting in Phoenix

    Last month, Waymo (Alphabet) and Uber announced a new multi-year partnership that will bring Waymo’s autonomous vehicles to Uber in the Phoenix area later this year. Already, Waymo operates across 180 square miles of the city, making it the largest fully autonomous service area in the world. But now, or I guess later this year, people will be able to order a Waymo AV through the Uber app.

    Not a lot of people seem to care about autonomous vehicles anymore. For a while, every conference had people talking about how they were going to reshape our cities. But then the technology didn’t arrive quite as quickly as people were hoping, and so everyone lost interest and move on to other more exciting things. But clearly things are still happening. And this announcement strikes me as being an important one.

  • Density is good, but let me explain

    I tweeted this out last week:

    Not surprisingly, the responses were divided. Some responded saying that beauty is more important than density, and a lot of people were quick to point out that there’s good density and there’s bad density. And because I can appreciate both of these comments, it made me think that I should probably elaborate on my glib tweet.

    The points I was trying to vaguely imply are the following.

    More often than not (at least for North American cities), I think our problem is not too much density, it’s too little. This translates into cities that aren’t walkable, aren’t conducive to transit, and that are overall less sustainable. Right now, every mayoral candidate in Toronto is promising to fix our crippling traffic congestion. I don’t know how they’re going to do it, but they’re promising it because they know it’s something people are pissed off about.

    But here’s my take: counterintuitively, the problem is not enough density. The problem is that too many people in our region have no reasonable way to get around without a car. So they’re forced to drive. The way you fix this not as simple as more traffic enforcement or better signal timing. Good luck! You fix it through density, because density is what makes other forms of mobility suddenly possible.

    All of this is not to say that density alone will render you a great city. Obviously things like beauty also matter a great deal. But in my opinion, density is a fundamental component. Because what good is beauty if you don’t have any urban vibrancy? The answer is that you probably don’t have a real city.

    The other point I was trying to make is that space and density are both relative and oftentimes difficult to understand. We think building height and density are correlated, but that’s not always the case. Look at Paris or Barcelona. We also like to make a lot of spatial rules that we think are right and make our cities better: streets should be at least this wide, buildings should be no taller than the width of the street, and so on.

    But here (pictured above) is a street that narrows to around 6 meters and has buildings that are probably 2.5-3x the width of the right-of-way. Sure, it also happens to be beautiful, historic, and Italian. But what would happen if you maintained this same beauty and made the street 5x as wide and lined up parking in front of the stores?

    Somehow it wouldn’t be as enjoyable as what you see here.

  • Why so few people drive in Tokyo

    Daniel Knowles, who is a correspondent for the Economist, recently authored a book called Carmageddon: How Cars Make Life Worse and What to Do About It. I haven’t read it, yet, but I did just read this excerpt about Tokyo, and it was jam-packed with interesting stats.

    Here are some of them:

    • Among developed cities, Tokyo has the lowest car use in the world. About 12% of trips are completed with a car, whereas 17% of trips are done with a bicycle. Most people walk and/or take transit. Tokyo has the most-used public transit system in the world — about 30 million people each day.
    • Car ownership across Japan is about 590 vehicles per 1,000 people. This is comparable to many European countries. In the US, it’s about 800 vehicles per 1,000. However, this figure drops in Tokyo. Here, the average is about 0.32 cars per household, which was interesting to see because most new housing projects in downtown Toronto have parking ratios that are much lower than even this figure.
    • The average size of a home in Tokyo is 65.9 square meters of usable area. By comparison, the average size of a home in London is 80 square meters. But given that according to Knowles, the average household size in London is 2.7 people, whereas it’s 1.95 in Tokyo. So per capita, Tokyoites actually have more space than Londoners.
    • 35% of streets in Japan are not wide enough to fit a car. If you add in streets that are wide enough to fit a car but not wide enough that a car could stop and not entirely block traffic, this figure jumps to 86%. This to me is a massively significant statistic, because if you want people to walk places you need small streets.
    • 95% of streets in Japan do not allow any sort of street parking — day or night.
    • The average Japanese car owner drives around 6,000 kilometers per year. This is about a third of what the average American does. In my case, it looks like I have averaged about 8,868 kilometers per year over the last 5 years. Though a big chunk of my kilometers would be from longer one-off snowboarding trips. In other words, I don’t drive all that often in the city.
    • Japan has some of the most expensive road tolls/prices in the world. Meaning, Japan does not actively subsidize driving and instead just charges drivers accordingly. Apparently the average is about 3,000 yen per 100 kilometers, which is about CA$30 per 100 kilometers.
    • In addition to not subsidizing cars, Tokyo is also one of the few cities in the world where their public transit does not need to be subsidized. A big part of this has to do with high ridership, but the other important part is that its transit authorities also develop real estate. Shockingly, this means that it tends not to build standalone and single-storey transit stations (ahem, I’m looking at you Crosstown LRT). Instead, they build lots of density where it always belongs: on top of transit.

    I may just have to read Knowles’ book.

  • Two-way, all-day regional rail

    Neat B and I had a very good friend’s 40th birthday dinner in the Junction this evening.

    So naturally, we walked over to the UP Express station from our offices in the Financial District and took the train one stop to Bloor Street. When we got off — along with everyone else who uses our airport link as a regional express train — we then walked the West Toronto Railpath up to the restaurant on Dupont Street. All in all, it took us about 35 minutes. We hopped on the 5:30PM train and we arrived at Lucia around 5:50PM.

    I know that a lot of people use this particular train to get to and from work, but I’m always so happy whenever I do it. I will take this over being stuck in traffic every day of the week. And for me, it is a powerful reminder of just how critical “two-way, all-day regional rail service” is to this urban region. We can talk all we want about better traffic signals, ramping up enforcement, or whatever, but the real solution to solving traffic congestion is getting people moving in other ways.

    Anyway, I digress. Here’s a photo of the delicious pasta we had:

    Happy birthday Philip!