Services like Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb have revolutionized private taxis and temporary housing rentals. At the same time, these large-scale sharing economy services are in their infancy, and legislators often disagree about whether or not to regulate them, and if they do, how to regulate them.
Many cities, like New York, are concerned about the effects that Airbnb may have on affordable housing, while others have been far more accepting. Following the footsteps of San Francisco, London recently announced that they will be legalizing Airbnb, which is prohibited under the current legislation. The new legislation will allow homeowners to rent out their properties for up to 3 months of the year. While some support the move, stating that the current legislation is outdated and inconsistently reinforced, others fear that legalizing Airbnb will disrupt neighborhoods and reduce the amount of long-term housing for locals, therefore driving up the cost of rent.
Services like Uber are also troubling to local governments, because they operate outside the scope of traditionally established laws for private taxis. As a result, they’ve forced traditional taxis to reform their operations and improve the quality of their service. However, because they aren’t governed by traditional taxi laws, there are concerns over whether or not their insurance is adequate and if their drivers have been vetted enough. Not only that, there are currently no laws requiring Uber to provide services to people with disabilities, or to people who don’t have Internet access or credit cards.
Despite all the headaches that these sharing economy services give to legislators, one thing is certain: they are innovative and challenge the status quo. It’ll be interesting to see how cities will regulate these services, but hopefully they’ll able to do it in a way that won’t stifle innovation.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
How Technology Transforms Planning
Tech is transforming everything, and urban planning hasn’t been overlooked.
Uber recently offered to share its private trip data starting with the city of Boston, and this, as well as other private data, has some big implications for traffic planning. Private car data can be lifted from phones, taxis, sensors, and cameras. It can elucidate real-time traffic patterns and has the potential to help planners drastically improve street networks and remedy traffic congestion. It does have some downsides however with the data coming from certain demographics and geography limitations.
Tech has also introduced some really useful tools that have the potential to make planning far more efficient, simple, and transparent. Transitmix was created as a fantasy bus route tool, where users could create bus routes, see their costs, plan their stops, and even overlay Census data such as income. It soon became apparent that a tool like this could be invaluable to professionals--it’s almost difficult to imagine that transit planners went so long without a specialized tool to quickly map out transit possibilities.
Social media opens up a channel of communication between transit agencies and their constituencies. In December, New Jersey Transit decided to take a much more proactive stance to their Facebook and Twitter pages, and it’s allowed them gauge rider opinions as well as provide updates to users. Social media is also being used as a means of promoting California’s extensive but struggling state park system. A new app, called CaliParks, pulls images from Instagram and Flickr to allow users to get a dynamic and appealing view of over 12,000 green spaces in California.
Technology has proved to be a disruptive force in planning, and many of the innovations it brings forth forces us to upgrade some of our archaic and inefficient practices, as well as rethink some of the incorrect perceptions we based our planning decisions on.
Talking Headways Podcast: Discussing Atlanta, Denver and Seoul
This week on Talking Headways, UrbanCincy's Randy Simes joins me to
talk about his current home in South Korea and his previous home in
Atlanta.
We chat about transit, infrastructure including wood pipes, and feeder roads in Texas. What a strange concept.
We also celebrate the Denver Fastracks vote 10th Anniversary.
Check it out below.
~~~~
Want to Read About Cities Daily? Join the Direct Transfer.
We chat about transit, infrastructure including wood pipes, and feeder roads in Texas. What a strange concept.
We also celebrate the Denver Fastracks vote 10th Anniversary.
Check it out below.
~~~~
Want to Read About Cities Daily? Join the Direct Transfer.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
The Only Thing That Will Fix a Housing Shortage Is More Housing
A shortage of affordable housing has been a huge problem for urban areas, and a recent pair of charts from Trulia’s chief economist really highlights a big issue with housing development in the US. For the past few years, housing development has grown the most in suburbs and less in urban areas, but the price of housing in urban areas is rising the fastest. Basically, the housing supply in urban areas is not growing quickly enough to meet demand.
This problem has been illustrated perfectly in San Francisco. The city’s population has grown rapidly, but the growth in its housing stock has lagged behind. Since 2010, the population of San Francisco has increased by 45,000 people, but the housing stock has only increased by 7,500 units. With that kind of population growth and the relatively meager amount of housing development, it’s really no surprise that housing prices in the city have skyrocketed.
A similar phenomenon is happening in San Diego, which was recently named America’s least affordable city by Realtor.com. San Diego is slated to have 590,000 more people by 2050, and the only way to accommodate all these new residents is to increase the city’s density and develop more housing.
Developing more housing is what Austin did in response to its growing population, and it’s had some promising results so far. Though the cost of housing in Austin rose for the past several years, the addition of 10,000 new units to the area last year seems to have somewhat stabilized rents. The occupancy rate in the Austin area dropped by 4% down to 94% last year, the lowest it has been since 2012. While we have to see how the housing stock will hold up over the years, it’s no question that some cities, like San Francisco, would probably benefit from an increase in housing development.
This problem has been illustrated perfectly in San Francisco. The city’s population has grown rapidly, but the growth in its housing stock has lagged behind. Since 2010, the population of San Francisco has increased by 45,000 people, but the housing stock has only increased by 7,500 units. With that kind of population growth and the relatively meager amount of housing development, it’s really no surprise that housing prices in the city have skyrocketed.
A similar phenomenon is happening in San Diego, which was recently named America’s least affordable city by Realtor.com. San Diego is slated to have 590,000 more people by 2050, and the only way to accommodate all these new residents is to increase the city’s density and develop more housing.
Developing more housing is what Austin did in response to its growing population, and it’s had some promising results so far. Though the cost of housing in Austin rose for the past several years, the addition of 10,000 new units to the area last year seems to have somewhat stabilized rents. The occupancy rate in the Austin area dropped by 4% down to 94% last year, the lowest it has been since 2012. While we have to see how the housing stock will hold up over the years, it’s no question that some cities, like San Francisco, would probably benefit from an increase in housing development.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
The Many Reasons for the Decline In Car Culture
Car culture seems to be declining worldwide, and urbanization and technology may play a big part in that. Millennials are more willing to live in cities and stay there rather than move to suburbs, unlike the previous generation. This means that they’re less likely to own cars and more likely to take public transit, walk, or use private taxis like Uber. Not only that, social media allows people to stay in touch without ever leaving their home, and e-commerce makes it possible for people to purchase things online, decreasing the overall number of trips that people need to make. The number of cars per driver in the US has fallen from 1.2 in 2007 to 1.15 this year.
This trend is global. For instance, in London, cycling levels have risen rapidly over the last couple years, to the point where cycling now makes up one-sixth of all traffic in central London. This is a record-breaking level of cycling in the city, and part of it is due to the increased availability of bike share docks and bicycles. In San Francisco, the majority of trips are made without private cars, and it’s been that way for several years. In addition, the prevalence of shared-use structures like pedestrian and bike bridges has grown all over, and we’re only going to see an increase in infrastructure dedicated to car-free transit in the coming years.
Another major reason for the decline in car culture is that automobiles are simply not sustainable. Global leaders, such as Al Gore and former Mexican president Felipe Calderon, have proposed a radical idea: why don’t we spend the $90 Trillion that will be invested in infrastructure over the next 15 years toward developing cities that aren’t car-centric?
Some will argue we'll never get there, but the times, they are changing.
Right now is a crucial time in shaping the future of urban transportation. 75% of the infrastructure that will exist in 2050 hasn’t been built yet, so the decisions that we make about the direction of our cities’ transportation systems over the next few years will be critical. Let's not take them for granted
This trend is global. For instance, in London, cycling levels have risen rapidly over the last couple years, to the point where cycling now makes up one-sixth of all traffic in central London. This is a record-breaking level of cycling in the city, and part of it is due to the increased availability of bike share docks and bicycles. In San Francisco, the majority of trips are made without private cars, and it’s been that way for several years. In addition, the prevalence of shared-use structures like pedestrian and bike bridges has grown all over, and we’re only going to see an increase in infrastructure dedicated to car-free transit in the coming years.
Another major reason for the decline in car culture is that automobiles are simply not sustainable. Global leaders, such as Al Gore and former Mexican president Felipe Calderon, have proposed a radical idea: why don’t we spend the $90 Trillion that will be invested in infrastructure over the next 15 years toward developing cities that aren’t car-centric?
Some will argue we'll never get there, but the times, they are changing.
Right now is a crucial time in shaping the future of urban transportation. 75% of the infrastructure that will exist in 2050 hasn’t been built yet, so the decisions that we make about the direction of our cities’ transportation systems over the next few years will be critical. Let's not take them for granted
When You Can Put a Face to Hardship
I always marvel at the generosity of people when it comes to strangers. But especially to strangers who are shown to have a hardship on television or in the news. So it came as no surprise this week that a Detroit man, James Robertson, who travels almost a marathon every day gets the attention of folks who really want to help.
I would however love to see the demographics and opinions of those generous people. Perhaps the biggest thing I would ask is...
"Do you support paying more in taxes for a better transit network?"
The reason I would ask this questions is because while in urbanist circles we understand the connection between housing and transportation costs and supply and demand for affordable housing (apparently though in SF we still don't get it) I wonder how much people actually do understand.
There's always so much push back to giving "those people" access but when there is a face put to the masses, they are more charitable with their money and time.
And people put up over $260K for a car for James, but that money would probably fund a few bus routes for more than just one person.
I think Ben Adler at Grist puts it best when he says:
There was a great City Metric piece recently on this issue. They explain how much transit means to EU economies. It's pretty huge.
But not just that, it's about access, just like in James' case.
Check out the piece, it makes a compelling case for other co-benefits as well. And if you want a US case, just check out New York.
And sure, we can connect people with cars. But there's a tax on that. There's roads to build, parking to provide and upkeep to the car for each individual. And if you're sitting in traffic, your time is a tax.
James couldn't keep his car running because it cost too much. But he and others wouldn't have to worry about that if they are paying into a larger system. One where everyone benefits, not just those who happen to have a car.
~~
Consider joining The Direct Transfer, news on cities daily!
I would however love to see the demographics and opinions of those generous people. Perhaps the biggest thing I would ask is...
"Do you support paying more in taxes for a better transit network?"
The reason I would ask this questions is because while in urbanist circles we understand the connection between housing and transportation costs and supply and demand for affordable housing (apparently though in SF we still don't get it) I wonder how much people actually do understand.
There's always so much push back to giving "those people" access but when there is a face put to the masses, they are more charitable with their money and time.
And people put up over $260K for a car for James, but that money would probably fund a few bus routes for more than just one person.
I think Ben Adler at Grist puts it best when he says:
Only in America would we assume that Robertson’s 46-mile commute is the natural order of things and the problem is that some people don’t have cars. Robertson’s situation demonstrates that low-income residents of Detroit and other cities around the U.S. need two things: mass transit and affordable housing near jobs.So what do we need to do to educate people about this? How do we explain the concept of economic competitiveness and access?
There was a great City Metric piece recently on this issue. They explain how much transit means to EU economies. It's pretty huge.
In fact, the sector accounts for €130-150bn of the EU’s GDP each year, as well as providing 1.2m jobs and indirectly creating the conditions for an estimated 2-2.5m more.
But not just that, it's about access, just like in James' case.
That’s why, in London, one of the major advocates for the soon-to-be completed Crossrail project was the business sector: it realised that investment in public transport is key to matching employers with appropriately skilled employees, and retailers with customers.
Check out the piece, it makes a compelling case for other co-benefits as well. And if you want a US case, just check out New York.
The more jobs you can reasonably commute to within an hour, the more job opportunities you'll have, and the higher your wage will be.
...
In New York, mass transit is the path to economic mobility, not education, It’s far more important to have a MetroCard than a college degree.
And sure, we can connect people with cars. But there's a tax on that. There's roads to build, parking to provide and upkeep to the car for each individual. And if you're sitting in traffic, your time is a tax.
James couldn't keep his car running because it cost too much. But he and others wouldn't have to worry about that if they are paying into a larger system. One where everyone benefits, not just those who happen to have a car.
~~
Consider joining The Direct Transfer, news on cities daily!
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Talking Headways Podcast: Speeding By Design
This week my guest host Tim Halbur and I chat about how we set speed limits, the design of complete streets for trucks, and the airbnb-ification of parking spaces. You might also hear some stories about selling parking spaces to fund parties. Listen in below.
Monday, February 2, 2015
The Role of Mayors In Transportation Planning
Last week, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced the “Mayors Challenge for Safer People and Safer Streets.” Foxx, who was the mayor of Charlotte from 2009 to 2013, urges mayors to make pedestrian and bike safety a priority for the next year. While road deaths in other categories have dropped over the last few years, the rate of biking and pedestrian deaths in the US has trended upwards since 2009.
A big part of pedestrian and bike safety is street design, and a major part of the Mayors Challenge is committing to take a Complete Streets approach to making transportation decisions. The Mayors Challenge isn’t a funding solution, but it is an opportunity for mayors to take on the challenge of assessing the current state of their street design guidelines and actively pursue the best practices to transform their transportation networks
A study of over 70 US mayors finds that regardless of city size, mayors often had the same priorities: growing their cities while managing transportation and operations within their limited budget constraints. The three most common policy priorities cited by US mayors for the next year are economic development, quality of life and infrastructure.
However, mayors can’t transform their cities completely on their own. The mayors of San Francisco and Seattle, in particular, have come out and said that they do need the help of the federal government on transportation issues, particularly infrastructure. As American cities continue to grow, a national urban agenda and support from the federal government is necessary to ensure that our cities succeed.
But it looks like we'll need the mayors of our cities to get it started.
A big part of pedestrian and bike safety is street design, and a major part of the Mayors Challenge is committing to take a Complete Streets approach to making transportation decisions. The Mayors Challenge isn’t a funding solution, but it is an opportunity for mayors to take on the challenge of assessing the current state of their street design guidelines and actively pursue the best practices to transform their transportation networks
A study of over 70 US mayors finds that regardless of city size, mayors often had the same priorities: growing their cities while managing transportation and operations within their limited budget constraints. The three most common policy priorities cited by US mayors for the next year are economic development, quality of life and infrastructure.
However, mayors can’t transform their cities completely on their own. The mayors of San Francisco and Seattle, in particular, have come out and said that they do need the help of the federal government on transportation issues, particularly infrastructure. As American cities continue to grow, a national urban agenda and support from the federal government is necessary to ensure that our cities succeed.
But it looks like we'll need the mayors of our cities to get it started.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Atlanta's Transportation Barriers
Atlanta has had an issue with freeways for a long time. Just yesterday an article from Curbed Atlanta reported out how freeways tore apart the fabric of the city in the 1950s. (Also see the Institute for Quality Communities for some fun time series maps)
But that was just the start, it's been a long slow devolution in a region of highways, sprawl, and ridiculous county boundaries for a long time. I remember in college reading Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full and thinking that the region was crazy, with lots of development leapfrogging and questionable deals.
The place sprawls like no other city and is hard to serve with transit due to freeway blockages and absent a grid or rationally organized street network. Seems like MARTA CEO Keith Parker is working to fix it, but it's a long, very winding, road even if they end up reworking all the transit routes.
And the region could be the archetype for Chris Leinberger's favored quarter where much of the jobs march North as the Southern parts flounder. When I was at Reconnecting America, I did some work in Atlanta and for kicks made the chart below. While not as stark as I thought it might be when I started pulling the numbers, it still shows the imbalance between jobs and where workers live. Many low and moderate workers live in the southern part of the region while the vast majority of the jobs are above I-20.
And then look at where people who make low wages live...
And where they work...
VS. Where High Wage Workers Live
That to me is the biggest transportation issue. Connecting low wage workers with low and moderate wage employment. I wonder if the next SPLOST will address this more.
But that was just the start, it's been a long slow devolution in a region of highways, sprawl, and ridiculous county boundaries for a long time. I remember in college reading Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full and thinking that the region was crazy, with lots of development leapfrogging and questionable deals.
The place sprawls like no other city and is hard to serve with transit due to freeway blockages and absent a grid or rationally organized street network. Seems like MARTA CEO Keith Parker is working to fix it, but it's a long, very winding, road even if they end up reworking all the transit routes.
And the region could be the archetype for Chris Leinberger's favored quarter where much of the jobs march North as the Southern parts flounder. When I was at Reconnecting America, I did some work in Atlanta and for kicks made the chart below. While not as stark as I thought it might be when I started pulling the numbers, it still shows the imbalance between jobs and where workers live. Many low and moderate workers live in the southern part of the region while the vast majority of the jobs are above I-20.
And then look at where people who make low wages live...
And where they work...
VS. Where High Wage Workers Live
And where they work...
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Keep Austin Employment Downtown
Julio G. makes the case that Austin's general transit ridership is stagnating and that population decline in the most transit productive areas is to blame. Part of that comes from NIMBYs and a restrictive development code. But I would also argue that transit ridership is on the decline because the most productive destination for transit is declining in share as well.
Employment drives a large percentage of transit ridership and Austin is likely to be no different. 16% of all trips are by transit, but 34% of transit trips (p5) are work trips. APTA on board surveys have put that number around 59%.
So we can't just think of residential, but rather employment in the region. We know Austin has been sprawling for some time, but let's look at the numbers.
Julio says that for the last 15 years, population has increased 34% in the region. Because data from LED is only available from 2002 on, that leaves us with a 13 year period. But the growth in jobs in that 13 years has been 26% or ~675K to ~852K according to LED data.
But for downtown, which I looked at as West of I-35, North of Barton Springs Road, East of Lamar, and South of MLK employment growth is much smaller. Only an 18% change, from ~112K in 2002 to ~132K in 2011. The share of employment that resides in this downtown sector has gone down too. In 2002 it was 16.5% of total jobs in the region, while in 2011 it was 15.5% of total jobs.
1% isn't huge, but its enough to show that employment sprawl is a big issue. And if you depend on employment to drive transit ridership, and your #1 market is losing share, it gets hard to serve.
So in addition to getting more housing in Austin's core, I would argue that for VMT reduction, getting employment into the core is just as important. Right now people are driving to Round Rock or 360 or many other places. Create centers, serve them with good transit, and the ridership will grow.
Obviously easier said than done.
15 Year Population Change
34%
12 Year Employment Change
26%
Austin 2002
Regional Jobs - 675K
Downtown Jobs - 112K
Downtown Share - 16.5%
Austin 2011
Regional Jobs - 852K
Downtown Jobs - 132K
Downtown Share - 15.5%
Employment drives a large percentage of transit ridership and Austin is likely to be no different. 16% of all trips are by transit, but 34% of transit trips (p5) are work trips. APTA on board surveys have put that number around 59%.
So we can't just think of residential, but rather employment in the region. We know Austin has been sprawling for some time, but let's look at the numbers.
Julio says that for the last 15 years, population has increased 34% in the region. Because data from LED is only available from 2002 on, that leaves us with a 13 year period. But the growth in jobs in that 13 years has been 26% or ~675K to ~852K according to LED data.
But for downtown, which I looked at as West of I-35, North of Barton Springs Road, East of Lamar, and South of MLK employment growth is much smaller. Only an 18% change, from ~112K in 2002 to ~132K in 2011. The share of employment that resides in this downtown sector has gone down too. In 2002 it was 16.5% of total jobs in the region, while in 2011 it was 15.5% of total jobs.
1% isn't huge, but its enough to show that employment sprawl is a big issue. And if you depend on employment to drive transit ridership, and your #1 market is losing share, it gets hard to serve.
So in addition to getting more housing in Austin's core, I would argue that for VMT reduction, getting employment into the core is just as important. Right now people are driving to Round Rock or 360 or many other places. Create centers, serve them with good transit, and the ridership will grow.
Obviously easier said than done.
15 Year Population Change
34%
12 Year Employment Change
26%
Austin 2002
Regional Jobs - 675K
Downtown Jobs - 112K
Downtown Share - 16.5%
Austin 2011
Regional Jobs - 852K
Downtown Jobs - 132K
Downtown Share - 15.5%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)