Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
Canada Day weekend was a lot of fun in Toronto. This city was alive and it felt like people had come far and wide to visit downtown. But it was a good reminder that even if all of our cars were electric and even if they were all able to drive themselves, we would still have this problem:
Toronto’s downtown streets were completely broken yesterday. People stuck in cars for hours and barely moving. Only sensible option was to declare bankruptcy, get out, and walk or cycle. That’s what we did. #TOpolipic.twitter.com/Ods6lk3RHA
I was in an Uber on Saturday afternoon heading over to the west side of downtown and we had no choice but to declare bankruptcy and hop out in the middle of Bay Street. We thought about waiting for the Ontario Line to be ready, but that seemed a bit far out.
So we rented bikes instead and rode along the waterfront, which was a considerably better experience. But then we couldn’t find any docks with available slots, so we had to ride up into Liberty Village, drop our bikes off there, and then walk back down to Ontario Place.
Of course, this was still the better option. I’m fairly certain that we’d still be in that Uber had we stuck it out. And maybe not finding a bike dock is just part of life in the big city on a beautiful long weekend in the summer.
Still, it was frustrating. So I’ll use this opportunity to once again ask our city leaders to reconsider their ban on dockless electric scooters. Toronto clearly needs all the mobility support it can get.
There are over 8 million people living in New York City. And if you were to look at the modal split for these people — that is, how they get to work and how they get around — you’ll see that other than Staten Island, the majority of New York City does not rely on cars.
They walk, bike, take transit, and probably use other things like electric scooters. And in Manhattan, the number of people who drive is particularly low.
So if you were tasked with coming up with an equitable way to allocate street space, one logical way to do it would be to allocate based on usage. If 5% of people are driving and 95% of people are doing things that require walking, maybe these are the numbers to use.
The problem, of course, is that cars take up a lot more space than humans and so the math gets a little more nuanced than just a straight 5/95 split.
And if you look at how most cities have decided to allocate space, this problem is reflected. In the case of New York City, about 75% of its street space is used for cars and the balance is for people to walk around and do stuff (see below chart from The Guardian).
Because of this mismatch, New York has just launched a new proposal called NYC 25×25.
The proposal is pretty simple. It is to take 25% of the space that is currently allocated to cars and convert it into space for walking, plazas, green spaces, bus lanes, and dedicated cycle paths (see above chart once more). And the plan is to get it all done by 2025, which seems entirely doable.
It’s hard to think of a better North American candidate for a shift like this than New York City. It is a city that is already heavily reliant on transit and other forms of mobility. But of course, we shouldn’t stop here.
This past weekend it was announced that ground has been broken (i.e. construction has started) on the new Ontario subway line that will connect Exhibition / Ontario Place to the Science Centre by way of the light purple line labeled “C” on the above map. (The other image is a rendering of the proposed Exhibition station.)
This transit line has gone through many permutations over the years and was previously called the Downtown Relief Line (but that was seen as too downtown-centric); the Yonge Relief Line (still too specific); the Relief Line (not Ontario-specific enough, I guess); and probably a bunch of other names corresponding to various lines on a map.
So it is exceedingly easy to be cynical when you hear of an announcement like this. Is it really happening? Are we actually building new and much-needed transit? And as you might imagine, if you read through the chatter on Twitter, you will find an overabundance of this sort of cynicism, along with what appears to be a general dissatisfaction with the current state of everything.
But in my simple view, I reckon that it is far better to be starting construction on an important new transit line than not starting construction on an important new transit line. So this is exciting! Let’s go! If you’d like to learn more, I also tweeted out the initial renderings for the 14 stations that are planned for the Ontario Line.
Uber’s recent investor day presentation (link here) is interesting if you’re an investor or thinking about becoming an investor, but it’s also interesting from an urbanism standpoint. Part of the promise of Uber was that it was going to help lure people away from owning cars. Looking at the data though (see below), ridesharing penetration is still pretty low in even Uber’s largest markets: 3.9% for the US and 3.3% for Canada. Brazil is a leader here, which you might think is because of a lower cost per mile, but Australia isn’t far behind.
At the end of the day, the vast majority of mobility trips are still being done through personal vehicles. This is certainly the case in the US with 6.6 billion weekly trips in personal vehicles versus 191 million on public transit and 22.6 million with UberX (all 2019 data). And for those taking Ubers, about 90% of riders are using some form of UberX — that being a solo, on-demand, point-to-point trip with a 4-door car. So sharing a car with strangers and using different/multiple modes of transport hasn’t really caught on here.
So slime mold, which is a fungus-like single-celled organism, has a tendency to build highly optimized networks across its food sources. In other words, if you scattered a bunch of food on a surface and then dropped in some slime mold, it would naturally create an interconnected web of linked veins across this surface. And this web would be based on the shortest and most efficient paths of travel between the various food sources.
I am mentioning this odd factoid because ten years ago researchers in Tokyo used this naturally occurring phenomenon for the purposes of trying to improve transportation planning. What they did was map out greater Tokyo. They then placed oat flakes (i.e. food) in spots that correspond to the various cities and urban centers that surround the city. Alongside this, they blocked off the areas where transportation networks do not typically run, such as through mountains and into the water. They then dropped in some slime mold, wet the surface, and watched it grow.
What they found was that the resulting network was remarkably similar to Tokyo’s actual rail network. The slime mold had found the most efficient routes, eliminated redundancies, and generally discovered the optimal way in which to connect its food sources. And if you think about it, this is basically what transit networks are supposed to do. They should connect clusters of people in the most efficient way possible.
It has been a decade since this slime mold transportation discovery was first publicized, and it would seem that it hasn’t really caught on as an invaluable planning tool. So I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that we should take out a map of every major city in the world, plot its population centers, drop down some oat flakes, and then let slime mold tell us all the ways in which we are screwing up and over-politicizing our transportation planning efforts.
Thank you to Angus Knowles for making me aware of this study. Angus writes an occasional newsletter about cities and housing, over here.
This is a great 30 minute talk by Horace Dediu that is structured around his 10 commandments of micromobility. If you can’t see the embedded video above, click here. What I think that many of you will appreciate about the talk is that he focuses on smaller interventions. Think bike lanes over big hyperloop moonshoots. In his words, we’re going to get to where we want to go not through hyperbole, but through humility. And micromobility is all about humility.
I’m also a big fan of his last commandment. It is titled: cities always win. Yup.
A Pigovian tax is a tax on market activities that produce some kind of negative externality for society. The basic idea behind the tax is to try and use it to correct something that is happening, but that isn’t all that desirable. Examples of negative externalities might include things like pollution and traffic congestion.
Traffic congestion is a bad thing, which is why I have long been a supporter of road pricing. We know how to do this. It has been proven to work in countless cities, including Singapore, London, Stockholm, as well as many others. But in most cases, there isn’t the political will. That has certainly been the case here in Toronto.
Maybe this post will help.
A recent study by ETH Zurich, the University of Basel, and ZHAW has looked at the effects of Pigovian pricing on mobility within Switzerland. The study included 3,700 participants and spanned both French and German-speaking parts of the country.
The way the study works is pretty simple. They took thousands of people, gave them a transportation allowance (in Swiss francs), and then assigned costs to the various mobility options. These costs were intended to be commensurate with their amount of negative societal impact.
Driving, for example, came at a cost of 0.1 Swiss francs per kilometer. Whereas participants actually earned money for walking, since you could fairly easily argue that walking produces a net benefit to society. At the end of the four-week experiment, participants were allowed to pocket whatever money was left in their transportation wallet. So in theory there was an incentive to spend less.
What the researchers were trying to do was simulate Pigovian transport pricing and give people a more direct understanding of the societal costs associated with how they move around. And based on their results, it looks to have worked.
What the results show is that when you start pricing transport in this way, all mobility declines slightly (the “all modes” line). But that the biggest hit is, not surprisingly, driving. Car use declined by almost 5%, whereas walking, biking, and using public transit all increased. (The price elasticity of demand for car travel was found to be similar to when the cost of gas increases — people drive a bit less.)
The authors go on to argue that longer-term Pigovian pricing is likely to produce an even greater impact on mobility, as people would likely adjust and start making bigger decisions about where and how they live. That seems plausible to me.
Food was, not surprisingly, very resilient during this pandemic. In the case of Uber, food delivery became its biggest business (higher gross bookings than mobility). But mobility is coming back (first chart above) as our cities continue to reopen. In fact, Uber’s mobility business is probably a good proxy for our return to normal. Big and sudden drop in March 2020 and a longer climb back. You’ve seen this graphic before. We’re not fully back, yet, but we’re getting there. Based on this metric (mobility), it looks like we could get there by late summer or early fall in many cities.
Luminar Technologies, which is an autonomous vehicle technology company that I have written about before, just hosted its first ever “Studio Day” in New York City this week. And at the event they announced two new technologies.
The first is called Iris, which is a small lidar device that is intended to be integrated into regular consumer production vehicles — on the roof just above the windshield. And supposedly the company is on track to have these into full production and available to their OEM partners by the end of next year (2022).
The second technology is something that they are calling Blade, which is a lidar system that can offer a 360 degree field of vision and is intended for use in robo-taxis, trucks, and other consumer vehicles. It’s called Blade because it’s kind of like a blade that wraps around the tops of these vehicles.
We’ve been talking about autonomous vehicles for what seems like a long time. And it is now clear that this is not an easy problem to solve. But from what I have read, lidar seems like the promising technology and something that will become necessary for full autonomy. So I am now long $LAZR. Whether this is the right move is still to be determined.
The full Studio Day video is embedded at the top of this post. If you’re reading via email subscription and can’t see it, click here.
I liked the bit (just after the 9 minute mark) about how headlights were first introduced and how it took some time before they were fully absorbed and integrated into the design of cars. Today they are now a signature design element for most car brands. It’s a clever parallel for what Luminar is trying to do with Iris and Blade.
This week, Lyft announced that it is going to be selling its autonomous vehicle division to Toyota for some $550 million. (Apparently $200 million of this will be paid upfront, with the remaining $350 million paid out over a five year period.) This is notable because Uber did the exact same thing last year when it sold its autonomous vehicle business to Aurora (which happens to be working with Toyota), and because the reasons for selling seem clear: getting to full autonomy is going to cost a bunch more money and both Uber and Lyft are determined to reach profitability sooner rather than later.
The other thing that you might be able to glean from these announcements is that neither company seemingly feels like they need to fully own/control the autonomous piece. Presumably the thinking is that someone else can spend the money on developing full autonomy and they’ll just stick to building out their ride-hailing network. Once we have autonomous taxis, they’ll need a network to run on anyway, right? I guess. But wouldn’t this dramatically undermine the network effects of Uber and Lyft?
If you go back to Uber’s S-1, there was a diagram that explained Uber’s “liquidity network effect.” See above. It starts with more drivers and more supply (1), because more cars driving around means that wait times and fares are lower (2) and so more people are likely to use Uber (3). Network size matters. But if you no longer have drivers — only autonomous vehicles — isn’t it relatively easy to add more supply to any network? I suppose this partially depends on how the ownership structure will end up working for these autonomous taxis. Still, I wonder about the barriers to entry under this scenario.
