I received an email this week from a senior real estate executive who was sharing the fact that, in response to COVID, he had decided to give up driving completely. He was now cycling everywhere -- whether for work or for personal errands. And it was doing wonders for his health and his overall well-being.
Indeed, this feels like some sort of golden era for urban cycling. Back in May I wrote about how Toronto City Council had just approved the largest ever one-year expansion of bike lanes. Some 40 km. When have we ever moved this quickly and without months (okay, years) of painful debate? Probably never.
Of course, it's not just Toronto. This is happening all over the world. Here are some of the numbers (taken from this recent Journal article):
Paris added 400 miles of pop-up bike lanes across the region -- all of which didn't exist before the pandemic - some of the streets being tracked have seen a doubling in usage
I received an email this week from a senior real estate executive who was sharing the fact that, in response to COVID, he had decided to give up driving completely. He was now cycling everywhere -- whether for work or for personal errands. And it was doing wonders for his health and his overall well-being.
Indeed, this feels like some sort of golden era for urban cycling. Back in May I wrote about how Toronto City Council had just approved the largest ever one-year expansion of bike lanes. Some 40 km. When have we ever moved this quickly and without months (okay, years) of painful debate? Probably never.
Of course, it's not just Toronto. This is happening all over the world. Here are some of the numbers (taken from this recent Journal article):
Paris added 400 miles of pop-up bike lanes across the region -- all of which didn't exist before the pandemic - some of the streets being tracked have seen a doubling in usage
Oakland closed almost 10% of its streets to cars
Montreal is adding an additional 70 miles of pedestrian and cycle paths
Bogota is the midst of planning for 47 miles of temporary bike lanes
The UK has fast tracked over $315 million in capital spending for bike infrastructure -- referring to this as a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity
New York's bike share service (Citi Bike) saw year-over-year usage surge 67% in the first 10 days of March alone -- before any shelter-in-place rules were even imposed
There are obvious reasons for this rush to build out cycling infrastructure. We're in the midst of a global health crisis and people are staying away from public transit in big numbers. But I think it's also important to keep in mind that in many / most cases, there is really no other viable mobility solution. You cannot take all the people that used to ride the tube in London and plop them into cars. There isn't enough space.
So cities all around the world are doing the sensible thing and acting fast to make sure that it's safer for people to move about on bikes. But as we all know, humans tend to have a bias toward the status quo. And so when this is all said and done, I suspect that many of these pop-ups will end up sticking around. And that will be a good thing for cities.
On Monday it was reported -- by the Wall Street Journal, Tech Crunch, and others -- that Uber will be laying off another 3,000 employees and closing 45 of its offices around the world. Here is a quote from TechCrunch:
“I knew that I had to make a hard decision, not because we are a public company, or to protect or stock price, or to please our Board or investors,” Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi wrote to employees today in a memo, viewed by TechCrunch. “I had to make this decision because our very future as an essential service for the cities of the world — our being there for millions of people and businesses who rely on us — demands it. We must establish ourselves as a self-sustaining enterprise that no longer relies on new capital or investors to keep growing, expanding, and innovating.”
According to this SEC filing, the company expects to pay approximately $110 million to $140 million in severance and other termination benefits, and somewhere between $65 million to $80 million in costs related to closing its offices.
All of this is, of course, being driven by a steep decline in ride bookings, which is about 70% of the company's revenue. Ride bookings were down 80% in April from a year earlier. For Q1 2020, they were down about 5% compared to 2019.
Montreal is adding an additional 70 miles of pedestrian and cycle paths
Bogota is the midst of planning for 47 miles of temporary bike lanes
The UK has fast tracked over $315 million in capital spending for bike infrastructure -- referring to this as a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity
New York's bike share service (Citi Bike) saw year-over-year usage surge 67% in the first 10 days of March alone -- before any shelter-in-place rules were even imposed
There are obvious reasons for this rush to build out cycling infrastructure. We're in the midst of a global health crisis and people are staying away from public transit in big numbers. But I think it's also important to keep in mind that in many / most cases, there is really no other viable mobility solution. You cannot take all the people that used to ride the tube in London and plop them into cars. There isn't enough space.
So cities all around the world are doing the sensible thing and acting fast to make sure that it's safer for people to move about on bikes. But as we all know, humans tend to have a bias toward the status quo. And so when this is all said and done, I suspect that many of these pop-ups will end up sticking around. And that will be a good thing for cities.
On Monday it was reported -- by the Wall Street Journal, Tech Crunch, and others -- that Uber will be laying off another 3,000 employees and closing 45 of its offices around the world. Here is a quote from TechCrunch:
“I knew that I had to make a hard decision, not because we are a public company, or to protect or stock price, or to please our Board or investors,” Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi wrote to employees today in a memo, viewed by TechCrunch. “I had to make this decision because our very future as an essential service for the cities of the world — our being there for millions of people and businesses who rely on us — demands it. We must establish ourselves as a self-sustaining enterprise that no longer relies on new capital or investors to keep growing, expanding, and innovating.”
According to this SEC filing, the company expects to pay approximately $110 million to $140 million in severance and other termination benefits, and somewhere between $65 million to $80 million in costs related to closing its offices.
All of this is, of course, being driven by a steep decline in ride bookings, which is about 70% of the company's revenue. Ride bookings were down 80% in April from a year earlier. For Q1 2020, they were down about 5% compared to 2019.
Uber Eats has seen a spike in demand with people staying at home. Bookings were up 52% in Q1 2020 from a year earlier. The problem is that, unlike its rides business, their food delivery business is far from profitable. That's the point of the possible merger with Grubhub.
The company has said that they are seeing some signs of a recovery in markets that have begun to reopen. But it's too early to predict what that will really look like. The hole is pretty deep.
Either way, the company is making some really tough decisions right now. But it seems to be doing what it needs to do in order to get to the other side of this and become a self-sustaining and profitable business. Full disclosure: I own some $UBER.
Elon Musk recently posted this Twitter survey asking if we, the people, would like "super safe, Earthquake-proof tunnels under [our] cities to solve traffic." It was leading in that the "no" response was, "No, I like traffic." And it was initially vague in that it wasn't clear how these tunnels would be used. Though, most of us could probably guess. Elon later added in the thread that these road tunnels would be for zero emission vehicles only and they would be limited to EVs (from all auto companies, not just Tesla). Finally, Elon stated that these tunnels are not intended to replace other solutions, such as light rail, rather to supplement them.
At the time of writing this post, nearly 1.5 million people had responded to the survey and about 67% of them said "definitely" to Earthquake-proof tunnels. Elon's reaction: "Stop whining, subway Stalinists, the people have spoken." Notwithstanding the majority, this is a divisive topic and the reactions are mixed. City planner Brent Toderian responded by saying that this "solution" would merely result in more cars, more driving, and more emissions. Steve Jurvetson, on the other hand, argued that this would be the cheapest way to add lanes and prepare for the inevitable EV-only future. (Steve sits on Tesla's board and recently launched a venture fund that, among other things, invests in sustainable mobility.)
The crux of this divide is a view about how cities should work. And it often becomes like dogma. Is it optimal for us to all be driving around in individual vehicles -- EV or not? Will autonomous vehicles actually help solve the traffic problem? Or is building on the backbone of mass transit the only way to properly design a big and efficient city? Whether it's lip service or not, Elon seems to acknowledge that both cars and transit are important, and that both can work together to supplement each other.
What is clear to me is that cities, at the scale of say Tokyo, wouldn't function nearly as efficiently if it weren't for their extensive fixed rail networks. At the same time, there are many cities (or portions of cities) that do not have the prerequisite population and employment densities to support this same level of transit investment. And that has created a strong pull away from transit (and active transport such as cycling) toward private vehicles. Sprawling cities signal to people that they should probably be driving. This is one of the reasons why land use should never be separated from mobility discussions.
How autonomous vehicles change all of this remains to be seen. Though I do think it will make cars less private and more public transit-like. Studies show that most of us are pretty good at coming up with incremental improvements to the things we already know and understand. i.e. This is how I would make this car better. But we're far worse at coming up with and predicting tectonic shifts in the landscape. And autonomy is probably one of those shifts. But as long as our built form remains heterogeneous, I am inclined to believe that a mixture of mobility solutions will be needed. Maybe that means car tunnels. Or maybe it doesn't.
Uber Eats has seen a spike in demand with people staying at home. Bookings were up 52% in Q1 2020 from a year earlier. The problem is that, unlike its rides business, their food delivery business is far from profitable. That's the point of the possible merger with Grubhub.
The company has said that they are seeing some signs of a recovery in markets that have begun to reopen. But it's too early to predict what that will really look like. The hole is pretty deep.
Either way, the company is making some really tough decisions right now. But it seems to be doing what it needs to do in order to get to the other side of this and become a self-sustaining and profitable business. Full disclosure: I own some $UBER.
Elon Musk recently posted this Twitter survey asking if we, the people, would like "super safe, Earthquake-proof tunnels under [our] cities to solve traffic." It was leading in that the "no" response was, "No, I like traffic." And it was initially vague in that it wasn't clear how these tunnels would be used. Though, most of us could probably guess. Elon later added in the thread that these road tunnels would be for zero emission vehicles only and they would be limited to EVs (from all auto companies, not just Tesla). Finally, Elon stated that these tunnels are not intended to replace other solutions, such as light rail, rather to supplement them.
At the time of writing this post, nearly 1.5 million people had responded to the survey and about 67% of them said "definitely" to Earthquake-proof tunnels. Elon's reaction: "Stop whining, subway Stalinists, the people have spoken." Notwithstanding the majority, this is a divisive topic and the reactions are mixed. City planner Brent Toderian responded by saying that this "solution" would merely result in more cars, more driving, and more emissions. Steve Jurvetson, on the other hand, argued that this would be the cheapest way to add lanes and prepare for the inevitable EV-only future. (Steve sits on Tesla's board and recently launched a venture fund that, among other things, invests in sustainable mobility.)
The crux of this divide is a view about how cities should work. And it often becomes like dogma. Is it optimal for us to all be driving around in individual vehicles -- EV or not? Will autonomous vehicles actually help solve the traffic problem? Or is building on the backbone of mass transit the only way to properly design a big and efficient city? Whether it's lip service or not, Elon seems to acknowledge that both cars and transit are important, and that both can work together to supplement each other.
What is clear to me is that cities, at the scale of say Tokyo, wouldn't function nearly as efficiently if it weren't for their extensive fixed rail networks. At the same time, there are many cities (or portions of cities) that do not have the prerequisite population and employment densities to support this same level of transit investment. And that has created a strong pull away from transit (and active transport such as cycling) toward private vehicles. Sprawling cities signal to people that they should probably be driving. This is one of the reasons why land use should never be separated from mobility discussions.
How autonomous vehicles change all of this remains to be seen. Though I do think it will make cars less private and more public transit-like. Studies show that most of us are pretty good at coming up with incremental improvements to the things we already know and understand. i.e. This is how I would make this car better. But we're far worse at coming up with and predicting tectonic shifts in the landscape. And autonomy is probably one of those shifts. But as long as our built form remains heterogeneous, I am inclined to believe that a mixture of mobility solutions will be needed. Maybe that means car tunnels. Or maybe it doesn't.
