Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 585

McKinsey published a report last month on the future of electric vehicles and what that will mean for the industry. Many countries, cities, and companies have set some sort of electrification target for 2030. The US is targeting 50% EVs by 2030. Several countries have announced a flat-out end to ICE sales by 2030. And a number of OEMs have committed to the same.

But there are already cities, such as Oslo, which have reached EV majority. In July of this year, its passenger EV adoption figure was 66%, making Norway a global leader. What is clear is that the electrification of personal transport is well underway. Anecdotally, we are seeing that play out with the number of people now inquiring about electric charging infrastructure in our buildings (here in Toronto).

This move to electric will have many repercussions, including a major shift in the entire supply chain (which McKinsey outlines in their report). While ICE vehicles and EVs still both have things like tires, EVs require a whole slew of new and now growing components:

It is also going to force new public infrastructure:

But in parallel to the electrification of personal vehicles, we are also seeing a number of other trends and shifts. The electrification of public transport (Shenzhen has already electrified its entire bus and taxi fleets). The rise of micro-mobility (things like e-scooters). The ongoing push to discourage driving in urban centers. And the continuing goal of autonomous vehicles.

What all of this suggests to me is that the electrification of personal vehicles is only part of the story. The entire mobility landscape in our cities is changing and it will probably look a lot different by 2030.

Bloomberg CityLab has a new video out talking about how Vienna has seemingly solved the housing unaffordability problem that is impacting most global cities around the world. Each year Vienna builds about 14,000 new housing units and about half of this is supply is "affordable." Already over 60% of Viennese live in an affordable home. The title of the video suggests that their approach is radical, but is that really the case?

What was clear to me when I watched the video is that there are perhaps two key differences in terms of how Vienna approaches this problem. One, they quite simply care about delivering high-quality affordable housing to the middle class. They think it's culturally important and they believe that architecture and design matters. Two, they are willing to invest in it, both up front and over time (maintenance).

In the video, the former Vice Mayor of Vienna talks about how the City will go out and buy land (or use already owned land) and then make it available (sale or lease) at discounted rates so that it makes economic sense for non-profit housing developers. If the math still doesn't work for the private sector, then there are other subsidies available.

I'm certainly not an expert on Vienna's approach to housing delivery. And I'm not suggesting it's perfect. My knowledge base comes largely from one 13 minute episode by CityLab. But I think it's notable that I didn't pickup anything in the video about inclusionary zoning leading the way (which I have argued before tends to shift the burden to the remaining market rate housing units). Instead, they value it and they invest in it. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Image: CityLab

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.

For a full copy of the study, click here .