A few months ago I wrote a post about Uber’s new “Smart Routes” feature and ended by saying that it’s not just taxis who need to be thinking about platforms like Uber, it’s also public transit authorities.
I said that because I think that multi-modal is already the new reality in terms of how we get around cities and because the line between different modalities is becoming greyer all the time.
That’s why I was interested when I stumbled upon this NextCity article talking about how Lyft is starting – it’s still early days – to collaborate with transit authorities in order to make it easier for people to switch between public transit and its peer-to-peer ridesharing marketplace.
Why might this matter? Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“According to the company’s data, 25 percent of Lyft riders say they use the service to connect to public transit. In Boston, 33 percent of those rides start or end near a T station. And transit hubs like Chicago’s Union Station, D.C.‘s Union Station and Boston’s South Station are among the most popular destinations for its users, Lyft finds. So riders already see on-demand rides as a solution to the first mile/last mile problem. Lyft thinks it can do more.”
These last 2 sentences are interesting. Public transit can often suffer from what is known as the first mile/last mile problem. This is a problem where riders find it difficult to get to the nearest transit route from their departing point or to their ultimate destination once they exit transit.
Bikesharing can be used to solve this. But, clearly, so can ridesharing.
The other important aspect of this emerging collaboration is that ridesharing apps can offer a lot of incredibly valuable data to transit authorities. If 25% of users are indeed using it to connect to public transit, then all of a sudden cities are getting a more complete picture of point A to B travel. (Among many other things.)
But the question in my mind is now, who is going to and who should act as the overall steward in this multi-modal urban mobility network?
There are lots of different players involved. Some are public and some are private. But they all play a role in how we are going to continue moving around our cities.
On Tuesday night I attended a great industry event that Quadrangle Architects organized about mid-rise buildings.
Mid-rise buildings (somewhere around 4-12 storeys) are all the rage in Toronto these days. But there are many challenges associated with this building typology and this was an event to talk about them and hopefully push things forward.
One of the speakers at the event was Jeanhy Shim of Housing Lab Toronto. And I’d like to share one of her slides here:
It reads:
Value = (rational benefit x emotional benefit) / price
I believe she admitted to taking it from someone at Bruce Mau Design. But that’s okay. That’s how ideas build. What I really like about it is that it attaches a value to the things that are difficult and sometimes impossible to measure: the emotional stuff.
As I mentioned in this post over the weekend, we are all obsessed with the quantitative side of our businesses. In the case of development, we look at prices, per square foot prices, apartment sizes, and the list goes on. And we often reduce our “products” to these sorts of key metrics.
But if you’re competing just on numbers, then you’re missing a big and important part of the equation. People consume things – and housing is no different – for a number of different reasons. We buy things because of how it makes us feel, how it reinforces our sense of self, how it improves or promises to improve our lives, and so on. These are all harder to measure than square footage.
But we are living in a data driven world and more and more of this type of information will become available for city building. If you and your business can get your head around it first, you’ll have a huge advantage.
Canada is a resource rich country. And one of the things that commonly happens to countries with a lot of resources is that they begin to myopically focus on the immediate gains from resources at the expense of long term innovation and economic development.
This is known as the “resource curse.”
The Martin Prosperity Institute here in Toronto recently published a report that looks at this exact topic: Canada’s urban competitiveness through the lenses of its resource economy and its knowledge economy. In the end, Richard Florida and Greg Spencer conclude that two can and should work together, but that we need to stop neglecting our cities:
“The oil and gas industry is not necessarily a constraint on the creative economy, but in the past decade or so it has come to dominate thinking around economic development policy-making. It is time to use the resources from the energy economy to build a more secure future as an urban knowledge economy. We can also use talent and technology to deepen and expand the resource economy.”
And one of their key recommendation is something I have argued for many times here on Architect This City:
“A New Federalism for Cities: It is time to give cities the taxing and spending powers they require. Cities must be given more control over their own destinies if they are to prosper in the 21st century.”
Now, here are a few interesting charts from the report.
This first one looks at the relationship between a city’s population and its creativity levels. The two are positively correlated, which means that, in this context, bigger is better.
This second one splits Canada in half – east and west – and then looks at how average income levels are affected by creativity levels (the knowledge economy). Here we see that in eastern cities, income levels are positively correlated with creativity levels. But in western cities, changing creativity levels have almost no impact on income levels.
Finally, this third chart compares the relationship between oil and gas employment (LQ = location quotient) and average income levels. What it finds is that income levels and oil and gas employment are positively correlated in the west, but there’s almost no relationship in eastern cities.
The way to read this chart is to think of the LQ as the employment multiple relative to the national average. So for example, a LQ = 10 means that the oil and gas employment levels are 10 times the national average. As you probably guessed, the pink dot way out on the right is Fort McMurray.
If you’d like to read the entire report, you can do that here. I hope that our new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, will read reports like this and spend more of his efforts investing in our knowledge economy – which means investing in our cities.