Urban planners, land-use scientists, and other experts often argue for greater population density. But economist Tyler Cowen Interesting blogs Here’s a post suggesting that the US would be better off promoting mobility instead. His arguments about mobility have a lot of value. But it depends a lot on what kind of mobility you’re talking about. Currently, increasing mobility in the sense of transportation speed is less important than increasing mobility in the sense of making it easier for people to “move to opportunity” by getting from one place to another. Increasing the latter type of mobility often requires increasing population density (though, as we’ll see below, this can be compatible with increasing living space per person).
Tyler’s argument is as follows:
American history is much more about fast, cheap transportation than it is about extreme population density. Even New York, the most densely populated large city ever, became densely populated relatively late in American history. To this day, America is not extremely densely populated, even by European or East Asian standards.
But in American history, we have horses, faster ships, safer ships, toll roads, canals, our An incredible river networkThe railroad, the automobile, and the airplane have been absolutely central to our development. America has performed extremely well in all of these areas. In terms of density, our victories are few and far between….
Lately, the urban movement seems obsessed with density rather than mobility. I’m in favor of relaxing or eliminating many of the restrictions on urban density. American cities would be better off as a result. Economic mobility would increase and Oakland would thrive. But I’m more interested in mobility, because it has bigger benefits.
One problem is that urban density simply seems to reduce fertility. It’s not clear whether the same is true for mobility.
And do you really want to propagate and reproduce the politics of our most densely populated areas?
Density advocates are very interested in high-speed rail. I support it (strongly) in the Northeast Corridor, but elsewhere, at least for the US as a whole, I don’t see much hope for it. Outside of that, density advocates work to promote many slower modes of transportation, including cycling.
I hope for a better future where faster transport is affordable and environmentally friendly. After all, slow transport is for poor countries….
I don’t want to see America become a poor country.
If you’re a mobility guy, you’re going to put a lot of emphasis on Uber, Waymo, self-driving cars more generally, and better aviation technology. To me, these are big advances, and they can all get even better…
These points were obvious to many people in the 1960s: The Jetsons had (safe) flying cars; the ultimate innovation in Star Trek was the transporter.
Like Tyler, I’m a huge fan of fast transportation. Flying cars like in the Jetsons would be awesome! Star Trek transporters would be even better. I also love Uber, Lyft, and similar companies that make transportation faster and cheaper. Like Tyler, I’m not a huge fan of bicycles and dislike how they tend to slow down traffic.
Yet I think Tyler emphasizes the wrong type of mobility: what really built America wasn’t rapid transit (though that certainly helped), but the ability of people to “vote with their feet” by moving to places with more freedom and opportunity. Foot voting opportunitySpeed ​​of transportation, not speed of shipping, is the greater secret of America’s success. Most obviously, America developed as a result of large-scale walking voting due to international migration. But in addition, there is a long history of walking voting within the country, as a result of westward expansion and the migration of groups to places with greater economic opportunity and freedom from various forms of oppression. I outline that history and its importance in this book. “A country that votes with its feet”
Today, the United States suffers more from restrictions on walking-voting mobility than from traffic speed restrictions. Exclusionary Zoning It prevents millions of people from migrating in search of opportunity.This denies people better job and education options, slowing growth and innovation. Immigration restrictions have a similar negative impact on international migrants, A major hindrance to growth and innovation.
Reducing these barriers leads to greater population density, especially in metropolitan areas with more jobs and educational opportunities. This is often a good thing. Density often produces beneficial things. “Agglomeration” effect Increase your productivity.
Population density is usually thought of as causing crowding. But population density can be increased in ways that simultaneously increase living space per person. Removing barriers to housing construction makes it cheaper and easier for people who want more living space to buy or rent larger homes. Reducing immigration restrictions increases the number of construction workers (to which recent immigrants contribute disproportionately), which in turn increases the amount of housing available and makes it cheaper. Thus, contrary to Tyler’s concern that population density leads to lower birth rates, the extra population density created by removing barriers to walking to the polls would: Actually pro-natalby Making housing more affordable and abundant.
Tyler and I agree more than we disagree. I’m in favor of faster transportation — flying cars are a thing — but the real-life Jetsons and others like them would benefit even more from more transportation options that allow people to vote by foot.
