Last week, Uber announced something called "digital tasks." These are simple, quick tasks that drivers can do when they are not driving — things like recording a voice note in a person's mother tongue, submitting a document in a different language, or uploading images of everyday items (such as a menu or storefront).
This is Uber expanding its data-labeling and AI-training business, and they are positioning it as a "new way to earn" for drivers. But another way to think about this move is that it's a way for Uber to start to repurpose its workforce in preparation for a world where human drivers are far less essential to the business. That feels like the case to me.
On a related note, Waymo also announced last week that it will start operating its autonomous ride-hailing service in London, beginning in 2026. This is another first for the company: the first commercial operation outside of the US. Though they are also driving vehicles around Tokyo in preparation for eventually launching there.
Things continue to happen. As a casual observer of this market, Waymo feels like it is out front, which often makes me wonder about Tesla's sky-high valuation. Does the market really believe their Robotaxis have more potential?
In theory, this could be true. Their decentralized model — where individuals own the vehicles and plug them into their ride-hailing network — could allow them to scale quickly. But this is less proven — they're still in the pilot/validation phase. They also seem to chronically overpromise.
Regardless, I would really like to see Waymo launch in Toronto in the near future. As I understand it, regulatory barriers are the problem. I hope whoever is in charge is working on fixing this.
If I can extract one overarching takeaway, it's maybe this one: We need to be big and bold (have a compelling vision!), while at the same time getting out of the way of small-scale urban innovation. Joe Berridge, for example, felt strongly that Toronto is not taking full advantage of its waterfront. We've been too focused on bike lanes and parks, rather than on creating noteworthy global draws and aggressively marketing ourselves externally. Toronto needs its Sydney moment — something like a globally significant Opera House that attracts people from all around the world. I don't disagree. Cities need to do things that are remarkable.
At the same time, we spent a lot of time talking about the micro scale. Some of the most loved urban environments from around the world have the simplest built form: fine-grained and humble buildings fronting onto human-scaled streets — streets like Ossington in Toronto and seemingly every street in Paris. But that was then. This kind of built environment is mostly incongruent with how we plan and develop new communities today. We develop big, we impose top-down planning, and we no longer have the same inherent flexibility that our older building stock had.
Take, for instance, Toronto's East Bayfront, which is where this conference is taking place. It's a recently developed community with many or most of the hallmarks that constitute good urban design today: handsome architecture (including mass-timber buildings), pedestrian-friendly streets, well-designed public realms, and more. And yet, the area is largely void of any urban vibrancy. Other than the boardwalk along the water and a handful of restaurant patios, there's very little public life. Many of the buildings are also connected by bridges, which is not in and of itself a problem, but it further removes life from the street.
Here are a few photos of the area that I took while leaving the panel:
The buildings are ugly, or at least nondescript. None of the tenants are following a consistent signage standard. There are no sidewalks. And there's an overhead rail line bisecting the street. And yet, it's vibrant. It's a successful urban street. Most older cities have areas akin to this, but it's a real challenge to create it from scratch in new developments (see above). I'm very interested in this challenge and, as we have talked about many times before on the blog, I think part of the answer lies in allowing flexibility and ground-up change. It's impossible to predict what an area could become and, for that reason, top-down planning will never get it exactly right.
Thinking about it this way, urban design isn't dead; it just maybe needs a refocusing. And what I propose is approaching it along the lines of Jeff Bezos' old management adage: You want to be stubborn on vision, but flexible on the details.
The largest urban region in the US, New York, is famously urban. Recently, we talked about how it has the highest share of zero-vehicle households and really stands on its own when it comes to US cities. But what about the country’s second-largest urban region — Los Angeles?
It probably won’t surprise you that around 88% of households in this city own a car. Transit and other forms of non-car mobility remain deeply entrenched secondary options for most. But what you may not be aware of are all the initiatives that LA is undertaking to transform itself into more of a transit-first region.
The city opened its first metro line in 1993. Today, it has a system that spans over 109 miles (~175 kilometers) across six lines with 107 stations. It also has wildly successful bus rapid transit (BRT) lines, with ridership levels that are 3x initial projections. The 18-mile Orange Line is viewed as one of, if not the, most successful bus lines in the US.
In parallel, the city is doing what it needs to do on the land-use side by easing density restrictions and working to intensify around its transit stations. It also has a little extra motivation: Los Angeles has vowed to make the 2028 Summer Olympic Games a “transit-first” event. And with 15+ million visitors expected, there's going to be no other way to do it.
Los Angeles has long been known as a car-first city, but don’t be surprised if that changes this century.
For more on this topic, here’s a recent article by Joseph Shortell, a Senior Analyst at Philadelphia-based Econsult Solutions.
