The key to making transit useful for people is not very complicated. It is highly dependent on population densities. In other words, it works best when it's proximate to as many people as possible. And so the more low density a city is, the harder it is for this to be true. It just isn't feasible to run that many lines. To that end, here's an interesting study by the School of Cities at the University of Toronto that compares rail transit and population density for 250 cities around the world.

This is what Toronto vs. Hong Kong looks like:

I chose Hong Kong because, according to this dataset, it has the highest percentage of people living within 1 km of a major rail transit station at 75.8%. Toronto, on the other hand, sits at 20%, which is frankly not very good (though I don't see our slow-moving streetcars on the above map). It's also why our bus network has to do so much heavy lifting to get people to rail. This places us 8th in the US and Canada (see below). Once again, when it comes to transit in this part of the world, there's New York, and then everyone else:

But add in the rest of the world -- most notably Europe and East Asia -- and New York drops down to 17th position:

This, to me, is a critically important metric. For what share of residents is rail transit close and convenient? In cities like Hong Kong, Paris, and Stockholm, it is the majority of the urban population. But for the majority of cities in Canada and the US, the answer is a very small percentage. To improve this, you can obviously build more lines. And that's certainly part of it. But to really maximize the value of these investments, you also need density. I hope our city leaders are paying attention to this metric.

Scott Stinson gets a lot right in this recent Toronto Star article about road pricing:

There is a simple tool to combat traffic congestion that has been proven to be effective. There are real-world examples of where it has been deployed to great and long-lasting success. It’s called road pricing. And we seem to be deathly afraid of it.

This is even if the benefits are real and measurable:

Jonas Eliasson, director of travel accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, has first-hand experience with the effects of the congestion charge implemented in Stockholm in 2006. Public polling showed two-thirds of voters were against the road-pricing plan before it was introduced in a pilot program. A local politician called it the “most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide.” But after it began, Stockholm traffic levels dropped by 25 per cent, more than double initial estimates. In a subsequent referendum, Stockholm residents voted to adopt the congestion charge permanently.

There are lots of reasons why road pricing is commonly opposed, but at the end of the day, it works, and we know all too well -- especially here in Toronto -- that the status quo sucks:

“Over the years, transportation economists and planners have pointed out that there really is no other solution to traffic congestion than more efficient pricing,” he said in an interview. “So every time somebody said ‘No, I don’t want road pricing or congestion pricing,’ they’re actually saying, ‘I want traffic congestion.’”

I've been writing about this topic for almost as long as I've been writing this blog. So at this point, I think we just need to run a pilot. No more studies and reports. No more protracted debates.

Let's try it out and see how many people prefer (1) less traffic congestion and (2) more money for alternative modes of transport.

IKEA opened its first permanent showroom in 1953. And by 1965, it had opened a 500,000 sf flagship store on the outskirts of Stockholm.

Supposedly, the inspiration for this new store was Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum in New York. Inspired by its continuous looping design, IKEA wanted to create a real-life version of its well-known catalog. This led to the current maze-like design where you wander through staged living spaces and get excited to buy lots of things.

However, as IKEA began to open in more urban locations it actually started doing away with this prototypical design. The thinking, which seems perfectly reasonable, was that mazes weren't appropriate for smaller and more urban locations. These customers would want to pop in, quickly get what they need, and then leave.

But it turns out they were wrong. Their customers are telling them the opposite: they still want mazes. In other words, they want a curated experience that helps them figure out what to buy. According to IKEA: "People buy more when they are shown more." Sounds right. And so IKEA is now working to make its urban stores more, you know, maze-like.

The company has already done this in cities like Vienna and Paris, and apparently it consistently leads to higher sales. It's a good reminder that (1) humans are still humans regardless of where they live and (2) if you want people to visit and linger in your physical store, it's good practice to curate experiences.

P.S. I love IKEA.