It has become fairly common to blame Uber (and ridesharing in general) for increased traffic congestion. I hear it all the time: "If only there weren't so many Ubers on the road, traffic would flow more freely." While there are studies suggesting that "deadheading" miles do have a negative impact and that Uber can draw people away from public transit (that's bad), I think it's important to consider the bigger picture here. So let's try and do that today.

Firstly, let's think about who traffic congestion directly impacts (indirectly it's everyone). If you're a pedestrian, you don't care about traffic congestion. In fact, maybe you gain satisfaction from seeing other people stuck in it. (There's even a German word for this feeling.) Similarly, if you're riding the subway, taking any form of transit on its own right-of-way, or riding a bike, you likely also don't care about traffic congestion. It doesn't directly impact you.

Where you do care about congestion is if you're in something like a bus that is stuck in traffic or if you're driving. In the former case, you're probably thinking, "hey why can't these people take the bus like me. Then we'd have less traffic!" And in the latter case you're probably thinking, "if only there weren't so many Ubers and bike lanes, then I wouldn't be stuck in traffic!" Ironically, this is arguably the biggest segment of people who feel they are being impacted by Ubers.

Secondly, let's think about how Uber vs. driving might impact traffic congestion differently. In both cases, I would think that the majority of use cases involve one person (excluding drivers in the case of Uber) going to their desired destination. So from a raw space per person perspective, they both take up a similar amount of urban space.

The differences are that the Uber likely had some amount of deadhead miles. In other words, it spent time driving around looking for its next passenger. And it likely targeted already busy areas because that's where it was more likely to find someone. Individual drivers don't do this. They go from point A to point B.

However -- and this is a big however -- drivers do require parking once they get to where they're going. Ubers don't. This both takes up more space and oftentimes requires some amount of circling around. This is a significant difference and it begs the question: which is worse? Deadhead miles or all of the parking that cars generally require? I would argue the latter.

Where I'm going with all of this is that I think the criticism of Uber is misdirected. It doesn't get at the real underlying problem. If traffic congestion exists, it is because they are too many cars for a finite amount of road space. This includes the people who choose to drive themselves around. In fact, you could argue that they're the most impactful to cities. The way you solve this is simple: you price congestion and you encourage alternative forms of mobility.

Everything else is just a distraction.

For the last year or so the City of Toronto has been doing a review of parking requirements for new developments. This would include things like how much car and bike parking needs to be provided for each residential unit in a new building. More information on this work can be found here.

City staff are now preparing to release their initial findings and, as I understand it, it is going to include the removal of most minimum parking standards across the city and the introduction of some maximum parking standards. What this should mean is that in most cases you can build as little parking as you want, but in some cases you'll be stopped from building too much of it.

There are lots of examples of other cities doing this. Buffalo is one example and I recently wrote (over here) about what happened to new developments once its minimums were eliminated. Among other things, it revealed where the previous parking requirements were overshooting what the market was actually demanding.

Urban parking is heavily dilutive to new developments. It drives up the cost of new housing. It is also hypocritical to claim that we want to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating that we build a certain amount of car parking. Do we want people to drive or do we want people to do other things? Which is it?

Some will bemoan this inevitable loss of parking (though it was already happening). But I think this is a great thing. It is Toronto growing up and continuing to realize that it's pretty damn hard to build a big and well-functioning global city if everyone is driving around everywhere. Maybe one day we'll even allow e-scooters.

Adrian Cook's recent blog post about parking got me thinking about a few driving-related issues. Adrian points out that most condo buildings only allow owners to rent out their parking spots to people who already live in the building. But oftentimes, that's not the customer. The people in the market for a downtown spot are the ones who commute into the city. And so what we are seeing in many downtowns is an oversupply of parking. Municipalities need to adjust their requirements.

What I have found is that most, but not all, cities are now fairly flexible when it comes to urban parking requirements. They recognize the hypocrisy in trying to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating a certain number of parking spots. And so the driver is more typically the market. Empty nesters and families who buy larger suites -- at least here in Toronto -- still almost always want parking. And it's a deal breaker for them. Sometimes they want 2 spots.

Of course, there are also many instances where the location and unit mix of a project can support building absolutely no parking. There are lots of examples of the market excepting this, and so my view on parking is that there needs to be flexibility. Parking is typically a loss leader. The incentives are in place to build a hell of a lot less of it. But developers build it because they have to.

Lastly, I find that discussions around car dependency tend to ignore that we have designed vast swaths of our cities to be positively inhospitable to people who aren't driving. Adrian is right in that if you look at the modal splits for people who live in downtown Vancouver and downtown Toronto, you will find a lot less drivers. And that's because the environment is much better suited to other forms of mobility. The solution starts with urban form.

Photo by Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash

It has become fairly common to blame Uber (and ridesharing in general) for increased traffic congestion. I hear it all the time: "If only there weren't so many Ubers on the road, traffic would flow more freely." While there are studies suggesting that "deadheading" miles do have a negative impact and that Uber can draw people away from public transit (that's bad), I think it's important to consider the bigger picture here. So let's try and do that today.

Firstly, let's think about who traffic congestion directly impacts (indirectly it's everyone). If you're a pedestrian, you don't care about traffic congestion. In fact, maybe you gain satisfaction from seeing other people stuck in it. (There's even a German word for this feeling.) Similarly, if you're riding the subway, taking any form of transit on its own right-of-way, or riding a bike, you likely also don't care about traffic congestion. It doesn't directly impact you.

Where you do care about congestion is if you're in something like a bus that is stuck in traffic or if you're driving. In the former case, you're probably thinking, "hey why can't these people take the bus like me. Then we'd have less traffic!" And in the latter case you're probably thinking, "if only there weren't so many Ubers and bike lanes, then I wouldn't be stuck in traffic!" Ironically, this is arguably the biggest segment of people who feel they are being impacted by Ubers.

Secondly, let's think about how Uber vs. driving might impact traffic congestion differently. In both cases, I would think that the majority of use cases involve one person (excluding drivers in the case of Uber) going to their desired destination. So from a raw space per person perspective, they both take up a similar amount of urban space.

The differences are that the Uber likely had some amount of deadhead miles. In other words, it spent time driving around looking for its next passenger. And it likely targeted already busy areas because that's where it was more likely to find someone. Individual drivers don't do this. They go from point A to point B.

However -- and this is a big however -- drivers do require parking once they get to where they're going. Ubers don't. This both takes up more space and oftentimes requires some amount of circling around. This is a significant difference and it begs the question: which is worse? Deadhead miles or all of the parking that cars generally require? I would argue the latter.

Where I'm going with all of this is that I think the criticism of Uber is misdirected. It doesn't get at the real underlying problem. If traffic congestion exists, it is because they are too many cars for a finite amount of road space. This includes the people who choose to drive themselves around. In fact, you could argue that they're the most impactful to cities. The way you solve this is simple: you price congestion and you encourage alternative forms of mobility.

Everything else is just a distraction.

For the last year or so the City of Toronto has been doing a review of parking requirements for new developments. This would include things like how much car and bike parking needs to be provided for each residential unit in a new building. More information on this work can be found here.

City staff are now preparing to release their initial findings and, as I understand it, it is going to include the removal of most minimum parking standards across the city and the introduction of some maximum parking standards. What this should mean is that in most cases you can build as little parking as you want, but in some cases you'll be stopped from building too much of it.

There are lots of examples of other cities doing this. Buffalo is one example and I recently wrote (over here) about what happened to new developments once its minimums were eliminated. Among other things, it revealed where the previous parking requirements were overshooting what the market was actually demanding.

Urban parking is heavily dilutive to new developments. It drives up the cost of new housing. It is also hypocritical to claim that we want to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating that we build a certain amount of car parking. Do we want people to drive or do we want people to do other things? Which is it?

Some will bemoan this inevitable loss of parking (though it was already happening). But I think this is a great thing. It is Toronto growing up and continuing to realize that it's pretty damn hard to build a big and well-functioning global city if everyone is driving around everywhere. Maybe one day we'll even allow e-scooters.

Adrian Cook's recent blog post about parking got me thinking about a few driving-related issues. Adrian points out that most condo buildings only allow owners to rent out their parking spots to people who already live in the building. But oftentimes, that's not the customer. The people in the market for a downtown spot are the ones who commute into the city. And so what we are seeing in many downtowns is an oversupply of parking. Municipalities need to adjust their requirements.

What I have found is that most, but not all, cities are now fairly flexible when it comes to urban parking requirements. They recognize the hypocrisy in trying to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating a certain number of parking spots. And so the driver is more typically the market. Empty nesters and families who buy larger suites -- at least here in Toronto -- still almost always want parking. And it's a deal breaker for them. Sometimes they want 2 spots.

Of course, there are also many instances where the location and unit mix of a project can support building absolutely no parking. There are lots of examples of the market excepting this, and so my view on parking is that there needs to be flexibility. Parking is typically a loss leader. The incentives are in place to build a hell of a lot less of it. But developers build it because they have to.

Lastly, I find that discussions around car dependency tend to ignore that we have designed vast swaths of our cities to be positively inhospitable to people who aren't driving. Adrian is right in that if you look at the modal splits for people who live in downtown Vancouver and downtown Toronto, you will find a lot less drivers. And that's because the environment is much better suited to other forms of mobility. The solution starts with urban form.

Photo by Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash