Bloomberg recently interviewed the outgoing head of San Francisco's transportation agency -- Jeffrey Tumlin -- about the impact that self-driving cars have had on the city. Along with maybe Phoenix, San Francisco has the most direct experience. Robotaxis have already been operating in the city for four years.
It's an interesting interview. On the one hand, robotaxis have, according to Tumlin, gotten better than most humans at "seeing" and predicting the behaviours of pedestrians. They offer slow and steady law-abiding rides, which is arguably not how must humans drive. This is a safety improvement.
But on the other hand, robotaxis still represent a fundamentally inefficient use of roadway space. They take up just as much space as human-operated cars, but importantly, they offer a less frustrating driving experience. Meaning they tend to induce demand, much like ride-hailing platforms.
In a 2018 study by San Francisco County, they found that roughly 50% of the increase in vehicle miles traveled in the region was due to Uber and Lyft. So not surprisingly, there are important things that will need to be figured out as robotaxis continue to spread across our cities.
I also find the comparison in the interview between San Francisco and Phoenix to be particularly interesting. The former is walkable. The latter is not. And this seems to be creating a different experience with self-driving cars because robo or not, in Phoenix, traveling by car is pretty much the only option.
For the full interview, click here.
Tim Hortons is a popular coffee chain in Canada (and elsewhere in the world). And every year, similar to other coffee chains, they adopt special Christmas/holiday cups. In the early 2000s, the designs they used were from an illustrator by the name of Gary Alphonso. His work can be found, over here. Today, his cups and other packaging designs are considered vintage. And so if you search online, I'm sure you can find someone reselling them.
Here's what the cups look liked:
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:
Bloomberg recently interviewed the outgoing head of San Francisco's transportation agency -- Jeffrey Tumlin -- about the impact that self-driving cars have had on the city. Along with maybe Phoenix, San Francisco has the most direct experience. Robotaxis have already been operating in the city for four years.
It's an interesting interview. On the one hand, robotaxis have, according to Tumlin, gotten better than most humans at "seeing" and predicting the behaviours of pedestrians. They offer slow and steady law-abiding rides, which is arguably not how must humans drive. This is a safety improvement.
But on the other hand, robotaxis still represent a fundamentally inefficient use of roadway space. They take up just as much space as human-operated cars, but importantly, they offer a less frustrating driving experience. Meaning they tend to induce demand, much like ride-hailing platforms.
In a 2018 study by San Francisco County, they found that roughly 50% of the increase in vehicle miles traveled in the region was due to Uber and Lyft. So not surprisingly, there are important things that will need to be figured out as robotaxis continue to spread across our cities.
I also find the comparison in the interview between San Francisco and Phoenix to be particularly interesting. The former is walkable. The latter is not. And this seems to be creating a different experience with self-driving cars because robo or not, in Phoenix, traveling by car is pretty much the only option.
For the full interview, click here.
Tim Hortons is a popular coffee chain in Canada (and elsewhere in the world). And every year, similar to other coffee chains, they adopt special Christmas/holiday cups. In the early 2000s, the designs they used were from an illustrator by the name of Gary Alphonso. His work can be found, over here. Today, his cups and other packaging designs are considered vintage. And so if you search online, I'm sure you can find someone reselling them.
Here's what the cups look liked:
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:
And here's what this illustration looks like unrolled:
It's a romantic notion of winter. There's kids making a snowman. People skiing and walking with snowboards. People drinking beverages (presumably from the nearby Tim Hortons) while being pulled on horse-drawn sleighs in a large public space. And in the background, there's a mixed-used main street with Tim Hortons naturally at the center of it. It's a kind of ideal winter moment. But to what extent is this a fantasy?
According to the 2021 Canadian Census, approximately 78.4% of the Canadian population living in our 11 largest CMAs (census metropolitan areas) lived in a suburb. Only about 21.6% lived in an urban core (either a downtown or an inner ring). So for the majority of Canadians, it is statistically probable that this an uncommon winter scene (never mind, for a second, the horses and stuff). A more likely scenario might be a suburban Tim Hortons with a drive-thru window.
I find this ironic. I find it ironic that the places we yearn to visit on vacation and the places we romanticize on coffee cups tend to be different than the ones that the majority of Canadians choose to live in. In fact, if you ask people across North America (this is a survey covering the US), the majority often say that they would prefer to live in a community where the houses are further apart and where you need to travel/drive to things.
Is it because we all just like fantasies on our coffee cups, or could it be that we've simply forgotten how to build walkable mixed-use communities?
Images by Gary Alphonso via i2i Art
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
And here's what this illustration looks like unrolled:
It's a romantic notion of winter. There's kids making a snowman. People skiing and walking with snowboards. People drinking beverages (presumably from the nearby Tim Hortons) while being pulled on horse-drawn sleighs in a large public space. And in the background, there's a mixed-used main street with Tim Hortons naturally at the center of it. It's a kind of ideal winter moment. But to what extent is this a fantasy?
According to the 2021 Canadian Census, approximately 78.4% of the Canadian population living in our 11 largest CMAs (census metropolitan areas) lived in a suburb. Only about 21.6% lived in an urban core (either a downtown or an inner ring). So for the majority of Canadians, it is statistically probable that this an uncommon winter scene (never mind, for a second, the horses and stuff). A more likely scenario might be a suburban Tim Hortons with a drive-thru window.
I find this ironic. I find it ironic that the places we yearn to visit on vacation and the places we romanticize on coffee cups tend to be different than the ones that the majority of Canadians choose to live in. In fact, if you ask people across North America (this is a survey covering the US), the majority often say that they would prefer to live in a community where the houses are further apart and where you need to travel/drive to things.
Is it because we all just like fantasies on our coffee cups, or could it be that we've simply forgotten how to build walkable mixed-use communities?
Images by Gary Alphonso via i2i Art
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
