I was having coffee this week with a self-described luddite and, after we ordered our coffees, he surprised me by pulling out his iPhone and initiating ApplePay. Knowing him and his general views on technology, I said, "I'm surprised that you of all people are now using ApplePay." To which he responded, "I can't believe it took me this long to start using it. It's so convenient! I now barely ever pull out my wallet." Yup, it is very convenient.
It also just so happens that this month marks the 10 year anniversary of contactless payments on London's public transport network. This meaning payment via a bank or credit card, and not via an Oyster card. In fact, part of the reason why London did this was because bus drivers were struggling with both having to give change and having to deal with people who didn't have enough funds on their Oyster cards.
So Transport for London (TfL) decided to spend £11 million, design and code the entire thing in-house, and then roll it out across the network starting in 2012. Apparently, adoption started off relatively slowly. At the end of 2013, only about 6 million journeys were made using contactless payments -- this is against an initial projection of 25 million. But fast forward to today, and around 70% of all bus journeys are now contactless.
What is also interesting about this is that TfL now licenses their contactless technology to other cities around the world. Here is a £15 million deal that was announced in 2016, which suggests that they could be generating a fairly respectable return on their initial investment. But aside from this, contactless payments are an obviously good way to onboard people onto public transport. There's no special card. No lining up at a ticket kiosk. And yes, you can even use your phone.
Photo by Tomas Anton Escobar on Unsplash
I was having coffee this week with a self-described luddite and, after we ordered our coffees, he surprised me by pulling out his iPhone and initiating ApplePay. Knowing him and his general views on technology, I said, "I'm surprised that you of all people are now using ApplePay." To which he responded, "I can't believe it took me this long to start using it. It's so convenient! I now barely ever pull out my wallet." Yup, it is very convenient.
It also just so happens that this month marks the 10 year anniversary of contactless payments on London's public transport network. This meaning payment via a bank or credit card, and not via an Oyster card. In fact, part of the reason why London did this was because bus drivers were struggling with both having to give change and having to deal with people who didn't have enough funds on their Oyster cards.
So Transport for London (TfL) decided to spend £11 million, design and code the entire thing in-house, and then roll it out across the network starting in 2012. Apparently, adoption started off relatively slowly. At the end of 2013, only about 6 million journeys were made using contactless payments -- this is against an initial projection of 25 million. But fast forward to today, and around 70% of all bus journeys are now contactless.
What is also interesting about this is that TfL now licenses their contactless technology to other cities around the world. Here is a £15 million deal that was announced in 2016, which suggests that they could be generating a fairly respectable return on their initial investment. But aside from this, contactless payments are an obviously good way to onboard people onto public transport. There's no special card. No lining up at a ticket kiosk. And yes, you can even use your phone.
Photo by Tomas Anton Escobar on Unsplash
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.
Photo by Ricardo Gomez Angel on Unsplash
About a week ago I wrote a post questioning what driverless cars will mean for cities. I ended by saying that that it feels as if we’re going to see increasing tension between private and public transport.
What I meant by that was simply that conventional notions around private car use are going to change. And ultimately that is going to mean that we need to rethink public transport and how that fits into a broader urban mobility framework.
What do I mean by this?
The International Transport Forum at the OECD recently published a fascinating report called, Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic. And it deals with exactly the sorts of things I am thinking about.
The study looked of what might happen when all cars become self-driving in a mid-sized European city (specifically Lisbon, Portugal). They leveraged existing transportation data from the city, but replaced 100% of the human powered cars with two types of self-driving cars: TaxiBots and AutoVots.
TaxiBots were driverless cars that would be shared with multiple people at the same time. In other words, they were a kind of pseudo-public transit. And AutoVots we’re your more conventional private taxi. They picked up one person at a time.
In the first scenario, they combined their TaxiBots and AutoVots with public transit (light rail) and discovered that the same number of people could be moved around with only 10% of the cars currently on the road. That’s a 90% reduction!
They also found that the city needed 20% less on-street parking and 80% less off-street parking since driverless cars don’t need to sit idle waiting for a driver.
In the second scenario, they removed mass transit from the equation. And in this instance they found that the city was still able to get around, but with an 80% reduction in the number of cars on the road. Remarkably, it also led to a 10% reduction in rush hour commute times.
These are pretty profound changes. Reducing the number of cars on the road by 80-90% is a significant change.
But it’s also why I’ve been thinking about the tension between private and public transport. As we get better at optimizing “cars” (their definition will change), what becomes the role of true public transit?
Ultimately, I think what will happen is a blurring of the two. In the example above, the TaxiBots served basically as small scale public transit. But that does not necessarily mean that true mass transit will become irrelevant. We’re just going to need to rethink how the entire mobility network fits together.
I’d now like to bring this discussion back to Toronto for a minute.
As many of you probably know from this blog, Toronto is on the cusp of deciding what to do with the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway (an elevated highway that runs across the downtown waterfront). It will go to City Council next month.
I firmly believe that we should remove it, but there many people who believe we shouldn’t. The main objection seems to be that the traffic projections indicate that removing it could make commuting into downtown – by car – 3 to 5 minutes longer by 2031.
By today’s standards, I believe this concern represents an outdated way of thinking about cities and urban mobility. Adding more lanes is like loosening your belt to deal with obesity. However, it gets even worse when you think about urban mobility in the context of this post.
Given the profound transportation changes that are currently underway, I think there’s a strong likelihood that the Gardiner projections we have today will be completely wrong by 2031. I don’t know know for sure, but I’m guessing the models don’t account for the efficiencies being created by driverless cars and peer-to-peer networks.
In other words, I am suggesting that those 3 to 5 minutes could prove to be a red herring. The relevant question should be: Which decision will allow Toronto to build the absolute best waterfront in the world? And in my opinion that leads to removing the Gardiner East.
If you feel similarly, I would encourage you to write your local City Councillor.
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.
Photo by Ricardo Gomez Angel on Unsplash
About a week ago I wrote a post questioning what driverless cars will mean for cities. I ended by saying that that it feels as if we’re going to see increasing tension between private and public transport.
What I meant by that was simply that conventional notions around private car use are going to change. And ultimately that is going to mean that we need to rethink public transport and how that fits into a broader urban mobility framework.
What do I mean by this?
The International Transport Forum at the OECD recently published a fascinating report called, Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic. And it deals with exactly the sorts of things I am thinking about.
The study looked of what might happen when all cars become self-driving in a mid-sized European city (specifically Lisbon, Portugal). They leveraged existing transportation data from the city, but replaced 100% of the human powered cars with two types of self-driving cars: TaxiBots and AutoVots.
TaxiBots were driverless cars that would be shared with multiple people at the same time. In other words, they were a kind of pseudo-public transit. And AutoVots we’re your more conventional private taxi. They picked up one person at a time.
In the first scenario, they combined their TaxiBots and AutoVots with public transit (light rail) and discovered that the same number of people could be moved around with only 10% of the cars currently on the road. That’s a 90% reduction!
They also found that the city needed 20% less on-street parking and 80% less off-street parking since driverless cars don’t need to sit idle waiting for a driver.
In the second scenario, they removed mass transit from the equation. And in this instance they found that the city was still able to get around, but with an 80% reduction in the number of cars on the road. Remarkably, it also led to a 10% reduction in rush hour commute times.
These are pretty profound changes. Reducing the number of cars on the road by 80-90% is a significant change.
But it’s also why I’ve been thinking about the tension between private and public transport. As we get better at optimizing “cars” (their definition will change), what becomes the role of true public transit?
Ultimately, I think what will happen is a blurring of the two. In the example above, the TaxiBots served basically as small scale public transit. But that does not necessarily mean that true mass transit will become irrelevant. We’re just going to need to rethink how the entire mobility network fits together.
I’d now like to bring this discussion back to Toronto for a minute.
As many of you probably know from this blog, Toronto is on the cusp of deciding what to do with the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway (an elevated highway that runs across the downtown waterfront). It will go to City Council next month.
I firmly believe that we should remove it, but there many people who believe we shouldn’t. The main objection seems to be that the traffic projections indicate that removing it could make commuting into downtown – by car – 3 to 5 minutes longer by 2031.
By today’s standards, I believe this concern represents an outdated way of thinking about cities and urban mobility. Adding more lanes is like loosening your belt to deal with obesity. However, it gets even worse when you think about urban mobility in the context of this post.
Given the profound transportation changes that are currently underway, I think there’s a strong likelihood that the Gardiner projections we have today will be completely wrong by 2031. I don’t know know for sure, but I’m guessing the models don’t account for the efficiencies being created by driverless cars and peer-to-peer networks.
In other words, I am suggesting that those 3 to 5 minutes could prove to be a red herring. The relevant question should be: Which decision will allow Toronto to build the absolute best waterfront in the world? And in my opinion that leads to removing the Gardiner East.
If you feel similarly, I would encourage you to write your local City Councillor.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
