Re:The Rent Is Too Damn Algorithmic
by em-bee on Tuesday October 10, 2023 @09:44AM
(#37832026)
there are a few dozen cities with a population density high enough that they could have much better public transport.
for example compare stuttgart in germany with los angeles.
stuttgart has half a million inhabitants. LA has 4 million. both cities have a very similar population density of 3000 people per sqkm.
stuttgart has 350km of rail and about 300 stations.
los angeles has 175km of rail with about 100 stations.
now, i don't know how much the stuttgart network extends beyond the city. i only looked at the city rail, and ignored regional trains. but i didn't spend much time to research, so i am going to guess on the safe side that it's city rail network serves 1 million people.
for LA to compete with that it would need 1400km of rail with 1200 stations. so, it could be 10 times as large.
another comparison, vienna: 2million people, 4500 per sqkm. 1100 stations on 250km. most the stations are light rail, which is very dense.
in other words, the population density argument is nonsense. there are plenty of cities with a population density of 3000 people or more per sqkm. and none have public transport comparable to european cities.
the problem is not density. the problem is how many people are willing to use public transportion instead of cars.
if you can motivate more people to use public transport, then you can grow the infrastructure.
this is something that will only change slowly as public transportation improves. if you can motivate more people to use public transport, it will grow. even european cities have not reached the end yet, and many cities are investing in more rail.
for example compare stuttgart in germany with los angeles.
stuttgart has half a million inhabitants. LA has 4 million. both cities have a very similar population density of 3000 people per sqkm. stuttgart has 350km of rail and about 300 stations. los angeles has 175km of rail with about 100 stations.
now, i don't know how much the stuttgart network extends beyond the city. i only looked at the city rail, and ignored regional trains. but i didn't spend much time to research, so i am going to guess on the safe side that it's city rail network serves 1 million people.
for LA to compete with that it would need 1400km of rail with 1200 stations. so, it could be 10 times as large.
another comparison, vienna: 2million people, 4500 per sqkm. 1100 stations on 250km. most the stations are light rail, which is very dense.
in other words, the population density argument is nonsense. there are plenty of cities with a population density of 3000 people or more per sqkm. and none have public transport comparable to european cities.
the problem is not density. the problem is how many people are willing to use public transportion instead of cars.
if you can motivate more people to use public transport, then you can grow the infrastructure.
this is something that will only change slowly as public transportation improves. if you can motivate more people to use public transport, it will grow. even european cities have not reached the end yet, and many cities are investing in more rail.