Below is a short video that was created by the MIT Senseable City Lab, World Economic Forum and TomTom for a study on how people move in 100 cities around the world. They call it the Global Mobility Index.
It shows congestion levels (using real-time traffic data from TomTom), commute times, and an estimate for the percentage of trips that could be shared if people were willing to wait up to 5 minutes.
In the case of Toronto, they estimate that 99% of trips could be shared and that it would increase average speeds by ~7.9 km/h and reduce overall traffic levels by ~44.09%.
Their solution to solving traffic congestion is a cocktail that involves car-sharing, bike-sharing, and public transit. It’s about developing a “mobility portfolio.” Seems sensible.
I found myself wanting more information and data after watching the video. Still, it was interesting to see what the authors describe as the “pulse of our cities.”
Below is a short video that was created by the MIT Senseable City Lab, World Economic Forum and TomTom for a study on how people move in 100 cities around the world. They call it the Global Mobility Index.
It shows congestion levels (using real-time traffic data from TomTom), commute times, and an estimate for the percentage of trips that could be shared if people were willing to wait up to 5 minutes.
In the case of Toronto, they estimate that 99% of trips could be shared and that it would increase average speeds by ~7.9 km/h and reduce overall traffic levels by ~44.09%.
Their solution to solving traffic congestion is a cocktail that involves car-sharing, bike-sharing, and public transit. It’s about developing a “mobility portfolio.” Seems sensible.
I found myself wanting more information and data after watching the video. Still, it was interesting to see what the authors describe as the “pulse of our cities.”
I am one of those people that gets annoyed when people don’t follow proper escalator etiquette. The etiquette being: stand on the right; walk on the left. Some cities – London and Tokyo come to mind – are draconian about this.
But it turns out that this is not always the best way to optimize throughput. A recent study conducted in London found that during peak periods – such as the morning rush hour – it is actually better for everyone to stand still.
What they found was that when 40-60% of people chose to walk up on the left, maximum throughput was 115 passengers per minute. But when everyone stood still maximum throughput increased to 151 passengers per minute.
The reason for this is that walking takes up more space than staying put on one step. When demand is low, this has no impact on capacity. But as soon as people start slowing down to avoid the set of legs in front of them, a bottleneck occurs and capacity starts to drop.
This is not dissimilar to what happens in traffic jams. Imagine if during peak periods all of the cars could separate themselves by only a few inches and travel at exactly the same (slow) speed. That’s not going to happen until self-driving cars hit the road, but it would be more efficient than the current chaos of distracted drivers starting and stopping.
All of this being said, since this finding only applies during very busy times, I plan to continue being annoyed when proper escalator etiquette is not followed.
I am one of those people that gets annoyed when people don’t follow proper escalator etiquette. The etiquette being: stand on the right; walk on the left. Some cities – London and Tokyo come to mind – are draconian about this.
But it turns out that this is not always the best way to optimize throughput. A recent study conducted in London found that during peak periods – such as the morning rush hour – it is actually better for everyone to stand still.
What they found was that when 40-60% of people chose to walk up on the left, maximum throughput was 115 passengers per minute. But when everyone stood still maximum throughput increased to 151 passengers per minute.
The reason for this is that walking takes up more space than staying put on one step. When demand is low, this has no impact on capacity. But as soon as people start slowing down to avoid the set of legs in front of them, a bottleneck occurs and capacity starts to drop.
This is not dissimilar to what happens in traffic jams. Imagine if during peak periods all of the cars could separate themselves by only a few inches and travel at exactly the same (slow) speed. That’s not going to happen until self-driving cars hit the road, but it would be more efficient than the current chaos of distracted drivers starting and stopping.
All of this being said, since this finding only applies during very busy times, I plan to continue being annoyed when proper escalator etiquette is not followed.
The Economist recently published an article called: How and why road-pricing will happen. If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that there’s been lots of talk and support over the years on this blog for dynamic road pricing.
It’s politically unpopular, but it’s an incredibly rationale way to deal with traffic congestion.
In Singapore – home of the world’s first congestion charge zone (1975) – they constantly monitor traffic congestion. As soon as average speeds drop over a three-month period, they simply raise the charge. Congestion gone.
We know this works, but for many reasons road pricing is highly divisive. According to The Economist, there are a few reasons why this is going to become a bit more politically palatable.
For one, the take from gas taxes and vehicle duties has been declining in Britain over the past couple of years. Electric vehicles will only exacerbate this trend. So governments are going to be forced to look elsewhere for money.
These are cars circling around the city, picking up passengers. Blunt charges based on suburbanites entering the city in the morning and leaving in the afternoon is simply not capturing the way that many of us move around our cities today.
In other words, urban mobility is undergoing dramatic changes and the revenue and congestion management tools are going to need to adapt. If you’re interested in this topic, check out the full article here.
The Economist recently published an article called: How and why road-pricing will happen. If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that there’s been lots of talk and support over the years on this blog for dynamic road pricing.
It’s politically unpopular, but it’s an incredibly rationale way to deal with traffic congestion.
In Singapore – home of the world’s first congestion charge zone (1975) – they constantly monitor traffic congestion. As soon as average speeds drop over a three-month period, they simply raise the charge. Congestion gone.
We know this works, but for many reasons road pricing is highly divisive. According to The Economist, there are a few reasons why this is going to become a bit more politically palatable.
For one, the take from gas taxes and vehicle duties has been declining in Britain over the past couple of years. Electric vehicles will only exacerbate this trend. So governments are going to be forced to look elsewhere for money.
These are cars circling around the city, picking up passengers. Blunt charges based on suburbanites entering the city in the morning and leaving in the afternoon is simply not capturing the way that many of us move around our cities today.
In other words, urban mobility is undergoing dramatic changes and the revenue and congestion management tools are going to need to adapt. If you’re interested in this topic, check out the full article here.
