Subscribe
One of the truly remarkable things about Tokyo is that it manages to be both the largest metropolitan area in the world and one of the most livable cities in the world. That's quite an accomplishment. And one of the key ingredients has to be its heavy reliance on rail for mobility. Look at any list of the busiest train stations in the world and you'll find that the majority of them are in Japan.
But what does this mean for the average person living in a city like Tokyo? Well, every 10 years Tokyo does a "person trip survey" that looks at how people get around. And if you look at the last set of results from 2018, you'll find the following modal splits:
33% railway
27% private car
23% walking
13% bicycle
4% other (bus and motorcycle)
This is a big deal. Supposedly this is the highest railway split in the world. But the numbers may be even better than this. According to a recent book by Daniel Knowles, who is a correspondent for The Economist, only about 12% of trips in Tokyo are done with a car, giving the city one of the lowest driving rates in the world. Bike usage is also higher than the above at 17%.
Whatever the exact numbers are, it is clear that there's a heavy bias toward rail and other forms of non-car mobility. And you feel that in the city. You feel it in the lack of traffic congestion (which incidentally makes the city feel generally quieter and calmer) and you feel it in the way that density and pedestrian traffic is obviously concentrated around stations.
In the span of a 10 minute walk, you can go from feeling like you are, in fact, in a giant megacity, to feeling like you're in a tranquil community where grade-separated sidewalks aren't even needed because the cars, if any, all drive so slowly. It's an interesting dichotomy that is the result of true transit-oriented development.
On-street parking is also virtually non-existent. According to Knowles, 95% of streets in Japan do not allow it, either day or night.
At the same time, this approach makes it easier to get around by car. We have taken a handful of Ubers on this trip, and they always arrived in a few minutes, and we have yet to be stuck in soul-crushing traffic. It's perhaps ironic that in a city many multiples larger than Toronto, it feels easier to move around. Or maybe it just goes to show you that it's not about how much urban space you have, it's about how efficiently you use it.
Last year, Pew Research Center asked over 5,000 adult Americans whether they would rather (1) live in a community with smaller houses that are within walking distance of schools, stores, and restaurants, or (2) live in a community with larger houses, but where schools, stores, and restaurants are several miles away. The result:
The 15-minute city is a popular topic these days. So here is a recent study that used GPS data from 40 million US mobile phones to estimate the percentage of consumption-related trips that actually adhere to this concept. The unsurprising result:
The overwhelming majority of Americans have never experienced anything resembling a 15-minute city. The median resident, we found, makes only 14% of their consumption trips within a 15-minute walking radius.
There is, of course, regional variation. For New York City, the data suggests that 42% of consumption-related trips occur within a 15-minute walking radius. Whereas in more sprawling cities like Atlanta, it's only 10% of trips. Again, this is not surprising. But it begs the question: What should we do?
The challenge is that 15-minute cities generally require built environments that are dense, conducive to walking, and filled with a concentration of different amenities. And this is more or less the opposite of the prototypical suburban model, where the car and single-use zoning tends to spread everything out.
The good news is that zoning is relatively easy to change. For instance, if we want to allow corner stores in our residential neighborhoods, that is a decision we can make. The greater hurdle will be transforming car-oriented communities into places where people might actually want to walk. This is much more difficult.
But of course, it too can be done.
One of the truly remarkable things about Tokyo is that it manages to be both the largest metropolitan area in the world and one of the most livable cities in the world. That's quite an accomplishment. And one of the key ingredients has to be its heavy reliance on rail for mobility. Look at any list of the busiest train stations in the world and you'll find that the majority of them are in Japan.
But what does this mean for the average person living in a city like Tokyo? Well, every 10 years Tokyo does a "person trip survey" that looks at how people get around. And if you look at the last set of results from 2018, you'll find the following modal splits:
33% railway
27% private car
23% walking
13% bicycle
4% other (bus and motorcycle)
This is a big deal. Supposedly this is the highest railway split in the world. But the numbers may be even better than this. According to a recent book by Daniel Knowles, who is a correspondent for The Economist, only about 12% of trips in Tokyo are done with a car, giving the city one of the lowest driving rates in the world. Bike usage is also higher than the above at 17%.
Whatever the exact numbers are, it is clear that there's a heavy bias toward rail and other forms of non-car mobility. And you feel that in the city. You feel it in the lack of traffic congestion (which incidentally makes the city feel generally quieter and calmer) and you feel it in the way that density and pedestrian traffic is obviously concentrated around stations.
In the span of a 10 minute walk, you can go from feeling like you are, in fact, in a giant megacity, to feeling like you're in a tranquil community where grade-separated sidewalks aren't even needed because the cars, if any, all drive so slowly. It's an interesting dichotomy that is the result of true transit-oriented development.
On-street parking is also virtually non-existent. According to Knowles, 95% of streets in Japan do not allow it, either day or night.
At the same time, this approach makes it easier to get around by car. We have taken a handful of Ubers on this trip, and they always arrived in a few minutes, and we have yet to be stuck in soul-crushing traffic. It's perhaps ironic that in a city many multiples larger than Toronto, it feels easier to move around. Or maybe it just goes to show you that it's not about how much urban space you have, it's about how efficiently you use it.
Last year, Pew Research Center asked over 5,000 adult Americans whether they would rather (1) live in a community with smaller houses that are within walking distance of schools, stores, and restaurants, or (2) live in a community with larger houses, but where schools, stores, and restaurants are several miles away. The result:
The 15-minute city is a popular topic these days. So here is a recent study that used GPS data from 40 million US mobile phones to estimate the percentage of consumption-related trips that actually adhere to this concept. The unsurprising result:
The overwhelming majority of Americans have never experienced anything resembling a 15-minute city. The median resident, we found, makes only 14% of their consumption trips within a 15-minute walking radius.
There is, of course, regional variation. For New York City, the data suggests that 42% of consumption-related trips occur within a 15-minute walking radius. Whereas in more sprawling cities like Atlanta, it's only 10% of trips. Again, this is not surprising. But it begs the question: What should we do?
The challenge is that 15-minute cities generally require built environments that are dense, conducive to walking, and filled with a concentration of different amenities. And this is more or less the opposite of the prototypical suburban model, where the car and single-use zoning tends to spread everything out.
The good news is that zoning is relatively easy to change. For instance, if we want to allow corner stores in our residential neighborhoods, that is a decision we can make. The greater hurdle will be transforming car-oriented communities into places where people might actually want to walk. This is much more difficult.
But of course, it too can be done.
On average, most respondents preferred the latter option -- the larger home. However, there are some demographic groups that feel differently. If you're young (under 29), highly-educated, Democratic-leaning, and/or Asian, this survey suggests that you have a preference for smaller houses in more walkable communities.
More specifically, in this chart, it's interesting to note that 62% of Asians (survey only counted English speakers), 55% of those aged 18-29, 54% of those with a post-graduate degree, and 65% of liberal Democrats prefer denser places that allow you to walk to more places.
A lot of this isn't surprising, but I don't think I've seen data supporting such a strong leaning from Asian adults before. What makes this even more interesting is that White and Asian households are by far the two richest ethnic groups in America. And here, when it comes to built form preferences, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Another important consideration is the cost of living in walkable versus car-oriented communities. Generally speaking, the latter is less expensive on a cost per square foot basis for homeowners; though, this obviously doesn't include the indirect costs of transportation and the additional time it to takes to commute places.
It is also more expensive to service and bring infrastructure to more spread-out communities. There are real economies to density. Despite this, higher-density living tends to be more expensive. Part of this has to do with higher build costs and more restrictive zoning, but it could also be a scarcity of supply (most of the US is car-oriented).
Indeed, there is a well-established premium to living in walkable communities, which creates an interesting dynamic. The thing that the majority of people reportedly don't want or don't prefer is actually more expensive. This always makes me wonder: What if this wasn't the case? What would happen if we didn't have this cost-of-living differential?
Charts from Pew Research Center; cover photo by Dmitry Tomashek on Unsplash
On average, most respondents preferred the latter option -- the larger home. However, there are some demographic groups that feel differently. If you're young (under 29), highly-educated, Democratic-leaning, and/or Asian, this survey suggests that you have a preference for smaller houses in more walkable communities.
More specifically, in this chart, it's interesting to note that 62% of Asians (survey only counted English speakers), 55% of those aged 18-29, 54% of those with a post-graduate degree, and 65% of liberal Democrats prefer denser places that allow you to walk to more places.
A lot of this isn't surprising, but I don't think I've seen data supporting such a strong leaning from Asian adults before. What makes this even more interesting is that White and Asian households are by far the two richest ethnic groups in America. And here, when it comes to built form preferences, they're on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Another important consideration is the cost of living in walkable versus car-oriented communities. Generally speaking, the latter is less expensive on a cost per square foot basis for homeowners; though, this obviously doesn't include the indirect costs of transportation and the additional time it to takes to commute places.
It is also more expensive to service and bring infrastructure to more spread-out communities. There are real economies to density. Despite this, higher-density living tends to be more expensive. Part of this has to do with higher build costs and more restrictive zoning, but it could also be a scarcity of supply (most of the US is car-oriented).
Indeed, there is a well-established premium to living in walkable communities, which creates an interesting dynamic. The thing that the majority of people reportedly don't want or don't prefer is actually more expensive. This always makes me wonder: What if this wasn't the case? What would happen if we didn't have this cost-of-living differential?
Charts from Pew Research Center; cover photo by Dmitry Tomashek on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
