4 ms·
> 30-40% more cars on the road When the population density increases over a certain limit, it becomes more economical (also faster and more efficient) to move
by sampo 11y ago
> 30-40% more cars on the road
When the population density increases over a certain limit, it becomes more economical (also faster and more efficient) to move people around by a combination of walking, subway, and buses. Like in London, Paris, New York, central Boston etc. After that, adding more people will not add more cars.
Of course, in the ultra-nimby San Francisco, building a subway would also get more resistance than in most other cities of the world.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> When the population density increases over a certain limit, it becomes more economical (also faster and more efficient) to move people around by a combination of walking, subway, and buses. Only if the infrastructure for those things (particularly subway) exists. Which has to be built -- in advance of the increase in population, if quality of life isn't going to drop before it gets better. So when we start seeing concrete proposals for infrastructure improvements first, it makes sense to start talking about density increases. > Of course, in the ultra-nimby San Francisco, building a subway would also get more resistance than in most other cities of the world. If true, this suggests that people who want to build a new high-density utopia should find some other city to descend upon.
- sampo 11y ago> this suggests that people who want to build a new high-density utopia should find some other city to descend upon. Yes. As far as I understand the situation, of the first world cities of similar size or larger, San Francisco was probably the worst possible choice to base the tech boom in. As it has the most conservative attitude and least desire towards growth and building new homes and infrastructure. And poor quality houses and infrastructure to begin with. Almost like a joke of history.
- ghaff 11y agoWhat really happened (and this is true to some degree in the Boston area as well), is that the tech boom(s) actually started in what was (at least then) largely suburban or even semi-rural areas. Silicon Valley and Route 128. This was, after all, a period when there was largely a migration away from cities. When I was working in the Boston area tech industry (actually near 495) in the 80s/90s out of school, relatively few people I knew lived in the city proper or had a particular interest in doing so. But then this interest in migrating to at least a handful of specific dense cities by young professionals blossomed and the nearby cities to these booms aren't really prepared for it.
- tptacek 11y agoOr, as the demography shifts, they can just vote the NIMBYs out. It's not like the realistic alternatives are "high-density utopia" and "low-density utopia". The low-density alternative is terribly distorted.
- enf 11y agoThere are only about 5 walkable cities in the US. Boston would have been the other possibility for the computer industry. It might have worked but doesn't have that much better odds than San Francisco for making room for everyone.