Tag: driving

• Is less people walking bad for traffic fatalities?

  Here’s some recent data, via CityLab, suggesting that Americans are walking less and driving less, but killing more people when they do drive around. (The report is based on data from 2019 to 2022.)

  My first reaction to these high-level findings is that they seem to make sense. This time period was the pandemic. And people were locked away at home (though I used to take some seriously long walks around downtown during this dark time).

  So I don’t know, I’m not sure we can conclude that walking less is truly a structural phenomenon. Similarly, I’m not sure that we can immediately conclude that cars are becoming increasingly more dangerous.

  According to Wikipedia, deaths per capita, deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled, and total deaths, have all been generally declining in the US since the 1960s.

  However, I do wonder if there’s some sort of correlation between people walking less and car-related fatalities. The most dangerous streets, in my mind, are often the ones that don’t have a lot of pedestrians.

  That’s why, broadly speaking, it feels safer walking around Manhattan than it does Los Angeles. So maybe less people walking is enough to trigger an increase in pedestrian fatalities.

  2023.11.03

• The end of private car ownership

  

  Here is an argument that Philadelphia-based Diana Lind recently made on her blog, The New Urban Order:

  I believe we’re at the beginning of the end of private car ownership in American cities. This idea came from thinking about the next steps when our RAV4 dies in the coming year or so: not only shouldn’t we replace it, but we won’t want to replace it. Right now only about a quarter of Americans do not drive to work, and only 9 percent of Americans do not have access to a car at all. But I think that in the coming decade there’s going to be a ton of potential to convert people living in dense cities and neighborhoods away from private cars.

  There are a number of reasons for why she believes this is going to be the case and, to quickly summarize, they are: remote work, declining birth rates, more old people, Uber and other services, and autonomous vehicles. And generally, I would agree that there is a strong case to be made here.

  But one thing that she does not explicitly talk about is the relevance of built form in this move away from private car ownership. She does mention “people living in dense cities” (see above), but does this mean that we are to assume density will remain a prerequisite, as it mostly is today?

  Urban density dictates so much of how we move around. When I was driving around Paris during the summer, I couldn’t wait to return our car and get back on foot. You should have also seen the gymnastics we pulled off to refill the tank. Driving in the city was annoying. Paris is designed for walking, taking the metro and, now, cycling.

  On the other hand, when I land in Salt Lake City (Park City), the first thing I do is head to the car rental area. The city is getting better at trying to reorient itself, and there is a tram (Green Line) that runs from the airport through downtown, but it very much remains a driving city. And ideally you want something like a Toyota 4Runner that will take you through snow and up steep pitches.

  So while I agree that, directionally, Diana is right, I think the question remains: What does this mean for individual cities and their built environments? In a city like Paris, it is obvious. Private car ownership is highly likely to continue declining. But in a place like Salt Lake City, I think it’s going to be much more challenging and take a lot longer.

  Photo by Chris Henry on Unsplash

  2023.09.29

• Toronto’s elimination of most parking minimums is now official

  We knew it was coming. But it’s important and worth mentioning again. This week, Toronto City Council adopted new Zoning Bylaw Amendments that will remove most parking minimums across the city. We now join many other cities across North America who have done similar things in order to try and encourage more sustainable forms of mobility.

  If you’d like to take a spin through the draft amendments, you’ll find them linked here. I haven’t gone through them in detail, but I did do a word search for “maximum” given that this week’s adoption represents a pretty clear change in perspective. Here’s an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that speaks to what I’m talking about:

  Recognizing these challenges, this review of the parking standards in the city-wide
  Zoning By-law 569-2013 was guided by the principle that parking standards should
  allow only the maximum amount of automobile parking reasonably required for a given
  use and minimums should be avoided except where necessary to ensure equitable
  access. The previous review, which began in 2005, was guided by the principle that the
  zoning standards should require the minimum responsible amount of parking for a given
  land use. This is inconsistent with Official Plan policies which discourage auto
  dependence.

  One other thing I found in the documents that went to Council was this map of parking spot selling prices in active high-rise developments across the city. Not surprisingly, downtown and midtown are showing the highest prices per parking space. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of all of these dots, but it looks directionally right and I can tell you that at least one of them is correct.

  

  All of us in the industry know how much parking drives decision making. There’s a joke (half-joke) that when you’re designing a building, first you lay out the parking and then you design all of the residential suites around that structural grid. That’s not the way things should be done. The future of this city should not and cannot be centered around the car. This week’s adoption is in service of that.

  2021.12.18

• What tribe are you part of?

  This satirical piece in the Beaverton about “biking everywhere” is hilarious because it touches on so many cycling stereotypes:

  “It’s a great way to get around while also staying in shape,” said McFarlen as he biked through a red light. “From tattoo shops to my job at VICE to even the best Banh Mi in the city – I just hop on my bike and I’m there. Why does anyone drive ever? Gross!”

  But the other thing it does is speak to the trade-off between location and transportation costs. Brian McFarlen, the fictional protagonist from the article, is able to bike everywhere (low cost) because he allegedly lives in a central neighborhood (high cost):

  McFarlen, whose parents paid for him to go to film school and has no mortgage, kids, or debt, condemns people who drive in the city. “I hate cars – we should just get rid of all roads and replace them with bike lanes. Isn’t everyone able to live downtown and spend hours of their day biking around the city hitting up all the best micro breweries?”

  I think it’s natural for us humans to form tribes with others that are similar to ourselves. We have two wheels and you all have four wheels. We live in the city and you all don’t. All of these things make us different.

  But there’s certainly something to be said for having a bit of empathy for those outside of our particular tribes.

  2020.09.10

• EV and ICE vehicles expected to reach price parity by mid-2020s

  Each year, Bloomberg NEF (New Energy Finance) publishes a long-term forecast of how electric vehicles and shared mobility will/might impact our cities. Predicting the future is never easy. And forecasts are never right. But they’re valuable to do.

  By 2040, BNEF believes that 57% of global passenger vehicle sales and 30% of the global passenger vehicle fleet will have some form of an electric drivetrain. Either full battery electric (BEV) or plug-in-hybrid electric (PHEV). Looking at this another way, we have about 17 years (2037) until ICE and electric vehicles are expected to intersect and hit 50/50 in terms of global sales.

  

  A big part of what is driving the adoption of electric vehicles is that the price of lithium-ion batteries keeps coming down. Assuming this trend continues, the price of EVs and ICE vehicles (in most segments) should reach parity sometime in the mid-2020s. Meaning, yes, it’s more expensive to produce an EV today.

  

  All of this will also impact mobility services (ride-hailing and ride-sharing). Today, less than 5% of annual kilometers traveled by passenger vehicles around the world is thought to be done through some form of a ride-hailing app. That’s still a pretty significant number, actually. Though only about 1.8% of this fleet is electric.

  

  By 2040, shared mobility services are expected to rise to 19% (see above) and — because their costs are coming down — 80% of this fleet is expected to be electric. Autonomous vehicles are not expected to meaningfully impact global mobility until the 2030s. But the growth in shared mobility services is still expected to reduce the demand for car ownership, and likely parking.

  Other high-level findings from BNEF’s 2019 Electric Vehicle Outlook can be found here. If you want to access the full report, you’ll need to be a BNEF client.

  Images: Electric Vehicle Outlook 2019 (BNEF)

  2019.11.17

• Semi-automatic parking system

  I can think of at least a dozen buildings in Toronto that use some form of a parking stacker system. And I am seeing firsthand how they are becoming more popular and more commonplace as a result of space constraints, rising costs, and a bunch of other factors. Below is an example of a system that allows you to (almost) triple the number of cars that can be accommodated on a given footprint. However, it does require higher floor-to-ceiling heights and a pit. If you can’t see the video below, click here.

  2019.11.01

• The reversion of European cities

  

  This recent Economist article makes the argument that, despite the recent (and sometimes annoying) proliferation of electric scooters across Europe, we probably shouldn’t be that grouchy about them. And that’s, “because the rise of the electric scooter is part of a broader and welcome phenomenon: the gradual retreat of the car from the European city.” By way of one example, by next year, Paris will have grown its bike lane network by 50% in five years.

  The article ends with the point that, while this may seem like a “revolution,” it’s actually a “reversion.” European cities such as Paris and Antwerp (examples from the article) were both built before the advent of the car and were never really designed for it, although Haussmann’s wide avenues certainly helped. All of this gets back to a point I tried to make over the weekend with this post about driving and parking, and the relevance of urban form.

  Reversion is a lot easier than a revolution. And for most North American cities, a revolution is what’s needed if we are in fact serious about a post-car future.

  Photo by Z Klein on Unsplash

  2019.08.14

• Thoughts on driving and parking

  

  Adrian Cook’s recent blog post about parking got me thinking about a few driving-related issues. Adrian points out that most condo buildings only allow owners to rent out their parking spots to people who already live in the building. But oftentimes, that’s not the customer. The people in the market for a downtown spot are the ones who commute into the city. And so what we are seeing in many downtowns is an oversupply of parking. Municipalities need to adjust their requirements.

  What I have found is that most, but not all, cities are now fairly flexible when it comes to urban parking requirements. They recognize the hypocrisy in trying to encourage alternative forms of mobility while at the same time mandating a certain number of parking spots. And so the driver is more typically the market. Empty nesters and families who buy larger suites — at least here in Toronto — still almost always want parking. And it’s a deal breaker for them. Sometimes they want 2 spots.

  Of course, there are also many instances where the location and unit mix of a project can support building absolutely no parking. There are lots of examples of the market excepting this, and so my view on parking is that there needs to be flexibility. Parking is typically a loss leader. The incentives are in place to build a hell of a lot less of it. But developers build it because they have to.

  Lastly, I find that discussions around car dependency tend to ignore that we have designed vast swaths of our cities to be positively inhospitable to people who aren’t driving. Adrian is right in that if you look at the modal splits for people who live in downtown Vancouver and downtown Toronto, you will find a lot less drivers. And that’s because the environment is much better suited to other forms of mobility. The solution starts with urban form.

  Photo by Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash

  2019.08.11

• Gender earnings in the gig economy

  

  Last year, 5 economists published a research paper called “The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers.” The authors are 2 economists employed by Uber; 2 professors at Stanford University; and the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department.

  The findings were widely discussed, including on Steven Levitt and Stephen Duber’s Freakonomics podcast (Episode 317). What’s interesting about Uber’s ridesharing data is that their compensation algorithm is believed to be entirely gender-blind.

  The formula is pretty simple. It takes into account distance, time, and sometimes a surge multiplier when demand is spiking. Gender does not factor. And the same goes for the actual dispatching of rides. The software doesn’t know who is male and who is female.

  What they discovered is that on average male Uber drives earn about 7% more per hour compared to females. And that 50% of this wage gap can be (apparently) explained by one variable: Men tend to drive a little faster than women. So they complete more rides per hour.

  It’s also worth noting that across the US, only about 27% of Uber drivers are female (at least at the time the report was published). Women also have a higher 6-month attrition rate; 76% compared to 63% for men. In other words, more female drivers drop off the platform.

  If you’re interested in this topic, you should probably have a listen to the Freakonomics podcast. They deliberate on the above in a lot more detail. You can also download a full copy of the research paper, here.

  Photo by Luke Stackpoole on Unsplash

  2019.08.04

• Development is a local business

  

  This past weekend I toured my friend’s purpose-built rental project in Wynwood, called Midtown 29. It was completed last year and has already been stabilized.

  Real estate development is very much a local business. It is that way because so much of it is driven by relationships, but also because every market has its own little idiosyncrasies.

  This is always valuable to see. Sometimes we do things in our home market because it makes perfect sense to do so and sometimes we do it just because it’s, “the way we’ve always done it.”

  One of the most obvious things about development in South Florida is that the parking is always above-grade. No basements. That has the result of bringing down construction costs; though I understand that, with sea level rise, insurance costs are on the rise.

  If (or when) this whole autonomous vehicle thing does in fact take hold, it’s going to be a hell of lot easier to convert all of that excess parking in Miami than it will be in Toronto.

  Image: Midtown 29 (Art by Peter Gronquist)

  2019.05.21