

One Path to Better Jobs: More Density in Cities - cwan
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/one-path-to-better-jobs-more-density-in-cities.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

======
mnemonicsloth
...which is why Google is doing god's work with it's self-driving cars.

    
    
        Pundits don’t seem to realize just how big a deal 
        this is – it could let cities be roughly twice as big,
        all else equal.
    

[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/who-will-pioneer-
auto-...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/11/who-will-pioneer-auto-
autos.html)

~~~
_delirium
I would put the odds of that being used _in cities_ in the foreseeable future
pretty low. Much more likely to get approved for low-density, straight-line
highway travel imo, like what the current talks in Nevada are contemplating.

Alternatives also have political problems, but overall I'd probably bet on the
miracle of cities actually building decent subway systems, unlikely as it is,
before betting on the miracle of cities approving fully automated cars in
urban traffic. I think both are basically political problems, as well,
contrary to his claim that mass transit is inherently difficult due to the
size of investment. It's not super-cheap, but a city in a wealthy Western
country can build a subway network without that much trouble, and some
American cities have done so much more recently than NYC, but have been
stymied mainly by politics. For example, DC's system has been built out pretty
well, and Atlanta's started, but expansion was killed in the 80s for political
reasons (some of them race-tinged).

~~~
chipsy
I would guess that PRT systems will start to make inroads in favor of new
subways or rail. They share a lot of the benefits of autodriving cars, but
they're based on far more mature technologies, and the cost of rail and
rolling stock is far below older rail systems because the scale is smaller.

But like you say, the issues are mainly political.

------
michaelochurch
There's another solution that's more politically palatable: better
transportation. Physical distance is only marginally relevant to the health of
a city. Travel time is what actually matters. How do you get 100 million
people or more within a 30-minute diameter? Improve transportation.

Human transportation in the United States is a fucking joke. We stalled out in
the 1950s and haven't improved. Our trains are expensive and slow, air travel
is expensive and inconvenient with terrible service, and automotive travel has
the obvious problems of scaling abysmally and belching greenhouse gases. We
need _fast_ and affordable trains: 75 mph and $0.10/passenger-mile from
suburbs to cities, 300 mph and $0.03/passenger-mile cross-country. Going from
New York to Chicago should be a $25 train ride that takes 2 hours. That's what
it would be if we were an actual first world country. New York to San
Francisco should be doable overnight for under $100 each way.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see the assholes in Greenwich Village who keep
their neighborhood sky-high expensive by blocking new development get their
shit scrambled by a government that actually had the masculine force to stand
up to them. I think the whiny bastards deserve to have their windows painted
black every night for what they are doing to this city (making it hard to
build, thus expensive, because they're emotional 4-year-olds who can't handle
change in their pweshus widdle views). All that said, I think improving
transportation is more of a winning battle than busting NIMBY monsters (but we
should be doing both).

~~~
adamjernst
For the most part I agree. Transportation investment is key and much wiser
than trying to deal with NIMBYs.

But: $0.03 per passenger mile?! Even subsidized HSR systems come out closer to
$0.40. How are we supposed to come to an order of magnitude improvement?

<http://www.cc-hsr.org/assets/pdf/bnote-14.pdf>

~~~
michaelochurch
Here's why $0.03 per passenger mile is not unreasonable. The automobile is one
of the most energy-inefficient modes of transportation out there and it costs
about $0.40 per mile, per vehicle. That's $0.10 per passenger mile for a
family of four. On the most expensive, dangerous, environmentally costly
common mode of transportation out there.

There's no good reason why trains should be _less_ efficient than the car.
None at all. That gives us a starting point, which should be easy to beat, of
$0.10 per passenger per mile for a 75 mph train.

Now, most costs in transportation are labor costs, so it stands to reason
(below the sound barrier) that what things "should" cost (excluding fuel) can
be measured on a per-hour basis. Travel at 300 mph should be _cheaper_ , for
this reason-- perhaps not 4 times cheaper because energy costs increase, but
definitely 3.

That's what's counter-intuitive here: slow travel is more expensive, in terms
of what it actually costs the provider, than fast travel because it sucks up
more employee time.

Realistically, $0.05 per passenger mile would be a substantial accomplishment.
I would be happy to see that. The Category 5 embarrassment is that we're not
even trying.

------
dreamdu5t
Confusing and hypocritical article.

The title asserts that density causes jobs, or somehow leads to better jobs,
yet the article goes on to say, "One can’t create wealth just by crowding
people together."

This article is all over the place, contradicts itself multiple times, and has
no conclusion. It constantly appeals to authority by vague references like
"... according to two decades’ worth of research from economists." Never
mentioning which economists or what research.

Save yourself 10 minutes. This is all the article says: "Cities have more jobs
due to many different factors, some of which are exclusive to cities."

~~~
wynand
I found it neither confusing nor hypocritical. My take-away is that with an
educated work-force and working market, a city can improve its productivity by
allowing density to increase. Cities that don't do this - typically cities
with well-heeled citizens who don't want their backyards ruined - will see
their competitive advantages eroded.

