4 ms·

I'm not sure there is much value in measuring this in simply spatial terms, like miles per hour. A mile of dense city covers a lot more "ground" than a mile of

I'm not sure there is much value in measuring this in simply spatial terms, like miles per hour. A mile of dense city covers a lot more "ground" than a mile of desert. How about a measure which accounts for population or economic density, say "people per hour". Hard to make the units work though, as density is a "per square mile" type of quantity. How about "number of people/businesses accessible within 1 hour" or 5 hours etc.

atoav 4y ago
I would factor energy into this. Number of people able to access necessary points of interest per hour per joule of energy used in that trip A place where everybody can access all the things needed for life literally by walking out their front door is far superior to one where you have to step on a rocketship to go for groceries. Also there has to be a point where you use so much space and energy for transportation that you will not be able to have any given unit of area support a lot of people.
mike_hock 4y ago
The "1-2 hours of commuting every day" he gave is a pretty good (inverse) metric for quality of life. Edit: Not as in, 1 hour of commuting is good, but as in, commuting time is a good way to measure quality of life.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  If someone lives in a small village where everything is 5 minutes walk away, that person might still decide to work at the better paid job 30 mins drive away, or shop at the bigger shop in the next town over. And in his free time, he may choose to fly to a beach rather than spend his holiday in his garden or local park. People trade off travel time for other benefits.
  - mike_hock 4y ago
    True, I mean it's an important metric, not that it's directly inversely proportional to quality of life. Like air quality, for example. It's important, but pretty much everyone living in a city trades it for something else.

atoav 4y ago

I would factor energy into this. Number of people able to access necessary points of interest per hour per joule of energy used in that trip A place where everybody can access all the things needed for life literally by walking out their front door is far superior to one where you have to step on a rocketship to go for groceries. Also there has to be a point where you use so much space and energy for transportation that you will not be able to have any given unit of area support a lot of people.

mike_hock 4y ago

The "1-2 hours of commuting every day" he gave is a pretty good (inverse) metric for quality of life. Edit: Not as in, 1 hour of commuting is good, but as in, commuting time is a good way to measure quality of life.

londons_explore 4y ago
If someone lives in a small village where everything is 5 minutes walk away, that person might still decide to work at the better paid job 30 mins drive away, or shop at the bigger shop in the next town over. And in his free time, he may choose to fly to a beach rather than spend his holiday in his garden or local park. People trade off travel time for other benefits.
- mike_hock 4y ago
  True, I mean it's an important metric, not that it's directly inversely proportional to quality of life. Like air quality, for example. It's important, but pretty much everyone living in a city trades it for something else.