When it comes to cities, quality of life is a subjective measure. Some people may prefer a small city where homes are more affordable and commute times are negligible, while others may find the unique amenities of a big city more appealing — enough to outweigh the negatives.
Whatever the exact case, there are some obvious negatives that come with urban scale. The usual suspects are high housing costs, traffic congestion, noise and pollution, crime and safety concerns, and the list goes on. But is it universally true that quality of life has to decline as a city grows?
I don't think so at all. I wasn't able to find a good primary source on this topic, but the obvious example and outlier that comes to mind is Tokyo. It is both the largest metropolitan area in the world and a city that consistently ranks near the top of most quality of life indices.
So how do they do it?
There are lots of ingredients that go into a city like Tokyo, but I would argue that one of if not its most important, is its transit network. Tokyo has one of the highest rail modal splits and one of the lowest driving rates in the world. And it's the only way a city of this scale could actually function as efficiently as it does.
This is not me being an ideologue (which I am sometimes called); it is me being a pragmatist. Show me a big global city with more than 10 million people that is oriented around the car and does not have a traffic congestion problem, and I'll happily change my mind.
Here's a new opinion piece from the Globe and Mail talking about the importance of "early wins" when it comes to building better cities. And whoever wrote it is right.
One of the examples that is given is New York's congestion pricing program. We've talked a lot about this initiative since the beginning of the year, and one of its important features is that it pretty much started working immediately.
Travel times, in some cases, dropped by as much as 48% and, in the first two months of its operation, it brought in over $100 million of new revenue for the city. Less congestion and more money. That's what congestion pricing does.
Because of this, support for the program has risen. In December 2024, which is before the pricing went into effect, some polls suggested that around 51% of New Yorkers were opposed to the charge.
But by March 2025, more New York City residents seemed to support the program than oppose it. And again, this is almost certainly because its positive effects were felt right away.
City building doesn't always work this quickly. Many or most things take too long. But finding ways to post early wins is good practice. It also provides a quick feedback loop just in case things need to be changed.
Cover photo by Murat Onder on Unsplash
As a general rule, road pricing isn’t popular. But that’s not because it doesn’t work. The problem is that it works too well, and people don’t like the idea of driving less and paying for roads (that currently have a zero marginal cost).
Here’s a recent study by Robert Bain and Deny Sullivan that looked at just how well it can work. In it, they examine 76 data points from 16 countries, including roads, bridges, tunnels, and cordons (areas).
The question: What happens to demand once the marginal cost of using a road goes from $0 to some cost greater than zero? (As part of this, they also looked at whether the road or bridge in question has viable alternatives.)
The results:
The median traffic reduction was 25%. But the interquartile range was -17% to -44%. This is all very significant. Said differently, the traffic impact in nearly a quarter of the examples was -45% or more. So almost a halving of traffic congestion.
These reductions are obviously a function of the cost of using each road, but regardless, the overarching takeaway remains the same: You may not like or want road pricing, but it totally works.