Subscribe
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
This is an interesting article from Brookings that talks about the "myths of converting offices into housing." What I especially like about the article is that it's nuanced, and it directly addresses many of the myths that currently surround offices. The first one is that "offices are over."
Regular readers of this blog will know that I don't agree with this. And the article provides some good data points to support this:
Office utilization may be below pre-pandemic levels in many cities, but the data suggests that we have not yet hit a plateau. Utilization rates continue to increase, albeit gradually. So if we are to be more precise here, it's not that some people will never return to the office, it's just that it's taking longer than I think many people expected.
That said, this is not the case in all cities. Downtown Salt Lake City, as we have talked about before, is the busiest it has ever been. Similarly, ridership on the Utah Transit Authority network is up 26% from pre-pandemic levels.
Europe is generally ahead of North America with utilization rates in the 70-90% range, according to JLL. And Asia is even further ahead with rates in the 80-110% range. Meaning that, similar to downtown Salt Lake City, there are (many?) cities in Asia where more people are in the office today compared to in 2019.
So I would not be so quick to claim that "offices are over."
For the full article, click here.
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
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.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog