Matthew Yglesias » Transit and Density

Sep 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Transit and Density

Here’s a cool chart showing what proportion of a given city’s population use transit versus the city’s population density in terms of thousands of people per square mile:

DC is an interesting outlier and shows, I think, that appropriate policies could make a lot of cities more transit friendly without any dramatic increase in density. One also wonders from New York’s status whether density above a certain level starts to decrease transit use because people walk more.

Comments
72

72 Responses to “Transit and Density”

Nicholas Beaudrot Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
That’s easy, instead of plotting Transit-vs-density, plot “doesn’t use a car to commute”-vs density
Matt B Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
What is their definition of “use transit?”
Daily, weekly, monthly? Commuting only, or any reason?
goethean Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
It’s such a nice chart you can’t even read the damn thing. Is Miami on there, or not?
Mixner Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
What the chart actually compares is proportion of commuters (not proportion of city population) using transit vs. residential density. Residential density is not the same thing as employment density, which may partly explain the outliers.

And obviously there are ways of increasing transit use other than increasing density, such as reducing transit fares or reducing the supply of parking. Equally obviously, that doesn’t mean they’re good policies.
Al Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
How exactly are the cities chosen for this chart? Where’s Miami, Oakland, Minneapolis, Seattle, St. Louis, Atlanta, etc?

Does this just exclude the the data points that don’t fit, similar to Matthew’s quotation of Nate Silver earlier today?
ryan Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Yeah, Portland is also missing, from what I can tell, and I’m pretty sure our diamond would be way the hell off that line. A quick look on the Trimet site showed over 40% of adults ride it twice a month or more, and we’re not dense at all.
Kolohe Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
DC is an interesting outlier and shows, I think, that appropriate policies could make a lot of cities more transit friendly without any dramatic increase in density.

As some of the comments in GGW state, part of the reason it’s an outlier is that the largest employer in the region gives significant incentives for its employees to use transit – *on top* of the money spent by the same entity for capital and operating costs. I doubt other regions have the resources to make similar commitments, unless you want the federal government to give every worker in america a $100 voucher per month for transit (which may not necessarily be a bad idea).

The other primary reason for the outlier is cultural; unlike just about every other transit system in America, Metrorail ridership has been a middle/upper-middle class phenomenom, especially in the first two decades of its existance. Indeed until the Green Line finally got completed, it was almost a conspiracy to keep poor people off of it by keeping it out of poor neighborhoods.
Zippy Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
As some of the comments in GGW state, part of the reason it’s an outlier is that the largest employer in the region gives significant incentives for its employees to use transit.

I doubt this has much to do with it. Lots of employers in transit-rich cities offer public transport benefits.
aleks Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Note to other cities: Be like DC!
sara Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
NYC is a town where you can get everywhere faster by subway than by driving.

Yes, “the trains run on time.”

Having moved back to DC, I now endure the snail pace of the DC Metro.
Graeme Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I’m living in SF after a move to Chicago. MUNI and BART could do a much better job, methinks. A huge part of the problem is that they don’t actually collect fares. We used the hell out of the CTA, but walking is preferable to MUNI. So we walk. My wife has been running to work, lately, as there’s a shower available there.

Just sayin’ they could make public transit more user-friendly in SF…

I give CTA high marks due to the bus system. They’re doing everything they can to make the El impossible to use. I gave up on the blue line, and I’d either take the Milwaukee bus downtown or, weather permitting, biked.
Graeme Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Shoulda proofed that. We moved FROM Chicago.
Mixner Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
NYC is a town where you can get everywhere faster by subway than by driving.

I strongly doubt this is true for most trips within NYC outside of rush hour, especially if “driving” includes taxis. It’s even more unlikely to be true for trips within Manhattan.
Zippy Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
It’s even more unlikely to be true for trips within Manhattan.

How do you figure? I wouldda thought Manhattan’s extremely bad traffic and the fact that it’s pretty small, area-wise (compared to the other four boroughs) would definitely mean that Manhattan is the one borough where you can be certain that taking the subway beats trying to drive (again, at least compared to the less dense and more spread out boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn and The Bronx).
Ed Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
New York’s subway system is literally falling apart due to years of “deferred maintenance”. Also about a third of the five boroughs aren’t covered by subways at all since they stopped building them around 1950. People don’t use the subways in NY despite the density because, well, they can’t.
BruceMcF Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Another possible reason for the position relative to the straight line is that a straight line does not actually describe the relationship. If the relationship was allowed to bend, it might pass somewhere through the Boston/Philly/Chi-town cluster with both DC and NYC closer to the line.
Peter Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I think D.C.’s outlier position reflects its strict height laws; no tall buildings allowed, basically. Population isn’t as dense because it can’t be.
DTM Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I’d like to see this redone using weighted densities for the urbanized areas, and all the urbanized areas above a certain population cutoff.
bdbd Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
why would anyone put Miami on a chart?
Mixner Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Note to other cities: Be like DC!

Small and expensive housing. Slow and inconvenient travel. Bad schools. Lots of crime. What’s not to like?
ixnermay Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Ew, people.
Ephus Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
NYC is a town where you can get everywhere faster by subway than by driving.

I strongly doubt this is true for most trips within NYC outside of rush hour, especially if “driving” includes taxis. It’s even more unlikely to be true for trips within Manhattan.

As a Manhattan resident (Midtown East) I am certain that it is faster to take a subway most places during rush hour than take a taxi. Particularly if you need to get across town, taking a taxi, bus or driving yourself are the slow ways to go. After rush hour (before 7:30 am or after 7:30 pm), taking a taxi is faster because the streets are emptier and the subways run less frequently.
mwg Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
How are they making the El impossible to use? I used it pretty extensively when I was visiting Chicago last summer (we borrowed a friend’s condo). That was all weekend and non rush hour use, though. I’m not doubting you, I’m just curious.
Mixner Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
After rush hour (before 7:30 am or after 7:30 pm), taking a taxi is faster because the streets are emptier and the subways run less frequently.

I’d say taxis are probably also faster for most trips between weekday rush hours (say, 10am to 4pm) and all day on weekends. It’s not just a matter of the actual travel time on the train, but the time required to walk to and from the subway station at each end of the trip, to wait for the train(s) to arrive, and to make any transfers. Even within Manhattan, there are many locations that are a considerable distance from any subway station. That’s why they’re building the new Second Avenue line.
neb Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Metro is a fabulously planned system. If there were one or two more lines, and the trains ran more frequently (they aren’t at NYC levels), they system would be phenomenal.
Rafael Says:
September 19th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I’ve lived in Manhattan for fifty-four years. Taxis are faster only after ten at night until seven in the morning. That’s partly because of less traffic, but mostly because subways run much less often late at night. However for events at locations such as Lincoln Center, the theater district, Carnegie Hall, Madison Square Garden–because they let out lots of people at once–are best left by subways or bus. This isn’t simply because there aren’t enough taxis. The taxis that exist create tedious traffic jams. I have also been caught in horrendous jams in the usually clear middle of the night caused by street construction or something as uncity-like as a tree falling. Once you are caught in traffic in Manhattan on a particular avenue or cross street, you are trapped. I don’t wish to engage with Mixner’s Ahab-like hatred for mass transit, but his understanding of moving around Manhattan is poorly informed. During the daytime hours in Manhattan taking a taxi is playing Russian Roulette with your arrival time. A single double-parked car can leave you stuck in traffic for forty-five minutes. During the day time hours any point in Manhattan can be reached by subway within forty-five minutes. (I mean door to door, not subway stop to subway stop.) Indeed, it is faster to walk most crosstown trips in Manhattan during the day than to take a cab. Many native Manhattanites walk two miles routinely, including late at night, rather than take a cab. Whatever the merits of cars may be in the rest of the world, they are a foolish choice in Manhattan.
piotr Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 12:06 am
A have a passing familiarity with transportation in NYC.

First, taxis are tad expensive for a regular transportation option. Personal cars are astoundingly slow in Manhattan, ot astoundingly expensive, as you either finish your trip parking for 20+ bucks, or searching for a parking spot for 30 minutes or more.

Second, wide swaths of Queens are not accessible by subways, while there are no express lines in Brooklyn, and no radial connections Staten Island — Brooklyn — Queens — The Bronx.
If you live in “outer” Queens and work in The Bronx, your life is a living hell until you get some access to parking, afterwards, you drive to work. And the traffic is not THAT bad.

Lastly, my investigation concerning the density of population in Brooklyn remain inconclusive. Any attempt to measure a distance in Brooklyn suggest enormous linear distances — I would say, several parasangs across (parasang = a distance that a cararavan in ancient Persia could cover in one day), and in standard geometry that should translate into a vast area. A substantial body of evidence suggest that standard geometry does not apply to Brooklyn.
Mixner's Psychiatrist Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Ephus and Rafael: Mixner gets his information from his ass.

Just to spare us the next 20 comments: He will next demand a detailed study as proof of your claim, because Stuff Out Of Mixner’s Ass automatically has greater weight if you’re Mixner. Then he will ignore everything you say, and end up calling you names.

Mixner doesn’t get out much.
S.P. Gass Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Al has a good point. There are major cities not readable on the chart.

Matt B also has a good point in wondering what constitutes “uses transit.”

As is, this post is pretty much meaningless.
piotr's caretaker Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I must apologize for piotr’s shameful behavior. He had a bad reaction to his meds this evening.
John Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 1:16 am
One also wonders from New York’s status whether density above a certain level starts to decrease transit use because people walk more.

There is no statistical reason for commenting on New York as though it represented anything other than what is seen on the whole chart. DC which appears more as an outlier may be worthy of special comment (I don’t have the data), but is not really way off the line.
Mixner Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Rafael,

Taxis are faster only after ten at night until seven in the morning.

Sorry, not remotely plausible. The average New York taxi ride takes just 13 minutes. What’s the average duration of a subway ride? This includes the time needed to walk from the point of origin to the departure subway station, buy a metrocard if needed, walk to the platform, wait for the subway train, travel on the subway car to the destination subway station, making any transfers and waiting for additional trains as needed, exiting the destination subway station and walking from the station to the final destination.
Mixner's Psychiatrist Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Oh, I forgot: Mixner will also lash out at innocent bystanders. As I hinted, he doesn’t get out much, and his behavior in social situations can be embarrassing.

Sorry, not remotely plausible.

Because a New York taxi is always there when you need it. In fact, Mixner just thought to himself that he needed a cab, and, poof!, a yellow Crown Vic appeared in his basement.

Remember, Mixner’s Ass Knows All.
Mixner's Psychiatrist Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Because Mixner’s Ass Knows All, he completely skipped over the very obvious points made by Rafael. Except the NYC taxi commission backs Rafael up:

At venues such as theaters and transit hubs, there may be
enough passing cabs to serve all potential customers, but the limited physical
space at the curb and on the street limits how many cabs can simultaneously
load their passengers.

That’s page 117 of the Yellow Book.

Because Mixner’s Ass Knows All, he dropped in a factoid via Jennifer 8. Lee (without linking) from the Yellow Book, but didn’t bother reading the source. He doesn’t include the time needed to walk from the point of origin to somewhere you have a chance of hailing a cab, the time needed to hail said cab, the time needed to negotiate whether or not your driver will take F.D.R. or similar, etc.

Another precise cite, something that will likely scare our sociophobe shitless:

The average distance of a yellow-cab trip in NYC is 3.7 miles, but the vast majority of trips (two-thirds) are 2 miles or shorter (Figure EF3). The average trip distance throughout the day varies from slightly over 3 miles at noon to approximately 5.3 miles between 5 to 6 a.m. (Figure EF4). Ninety-five percent of the trips are under half an hour in duration—the average is thirteen minutes. But over half are only three to twelve minutes long (Figure EF5). The trips are pretty speedy, as cabbies average 15 miles per hour once they have you in the cab; they cruise a little more slowly when looking for a fare, at about 7 miles per hour.

That’s to say, the mean in the distribution is skewed by long trips (such as to LGA or JFK) as Figure EF3 on page 121 of the Yellow Book makes clear. The median trip distance is less than 2 miles; the median trip length (excluding wait time) is around 10 minutes.

The Yellow Book didn’t collect data on wait times — its survey used electronic trip-sheet data from journeys — but it acknowledges ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ zones where, depending upon the time of day, the streets may be jammed with cabs or there are none to be hailed. (The ‘Efficiency’ section begins on page 115.)

In short, Mixner is pulling yet more ‘facts’ out of his ass. I’m sure you’re all unsurprised by this. He does know that it makes him look a fool, but his behavior is pathological.
Jer Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 2:58 am
I know I shouldn’t engage Mixner, but I just can’t help myself.

Mixner: “The average New York taxi ride takes just 13 minutes.”

Taxis charge per minute. The subway is a flat rate. Hence, people will take short rides in taxis and long ones by subway. No one in their right mind is going to take a taxi from Washington Heights to Greenwich.

That is, of course, assuming you didn’t pull that number out of thin air.
Jer Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Apologies to Mixner’s psychologist. I obviously should have left the work to the professionals.
Steve Sailer Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Top of the chart: NY, DC, and SF. What else do they have in common?

A study of census data by the New York Times found that “Manhattan’s 35,000 or so white non-Hispanic toddlers are being raised by parents whose median income was $284,208 a year in 2005.” Second was San Francisco, where the 50th percentile of income for white parents of small children fell at $150,763. That explains a lot about why the city by the bay is last in the country in percentage of residents under 18, below even retirement havens such as Palm Beach.

The total fertility rate (babies per lifetime) for non-Hispanic white women in DC was 1.1 2002. The replacement rate is, of course, a little under 2.1.

So, basically, white people in Matt’s kind of high density, transit friendly cities reproduce about as avidly and at about the same level of cost as the pandas at the National Zoo.
jeff Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 8:20 am
They don’t seem to have included Pittsburgh in the chart but it would be an outlier as well with 21% transit use and 5,600 people/sqmile.
Marshall Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I don’t think that New York is a statistical outlier, based just on the evidence in the plot presented.

NYC is a town where you can get everywhere faster by subway than by driving.

I strongly doubt this is true for most trips within NYC outside of rush hour, especially if “driving” includes taxis. It’s even more unlikely to be true for trips within Manhattan.

I do not live in New York, but I have frequent business in Manhatten. I find that the subway is almost always the fastest way to get around, at least during normal hours. I sometimes take a cab if I am in a hurry and one presents itself as I come out of whatever building I was in, and generally regret it.

Of course, it pays to do a little study of the complicated subway maps in advance (I have gotten on the wrong train, which really slows things down) and this may not apply if you are leaving the island.
marshall Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am
During the daytime hours in Manhattan taking a taxi is playing Russian Roulette with your arrival time.

That is exactly my experience, except that I don’t get shot if I am late for a meeting.
Cranky Observer Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 10:16 am
> Mixmaster:
> I’d say taxis are probably also faster for most trips
> between weekday rush hours (say, 10am to 4pm) and all day
> on weekends. It’s not just a matter of the actual travel
> time on the train, but the time required to walk to and
> from the subway station at each end of the trip, to wait
> for the train(s) to arrive,

Interesting: Mixmaster hates and despises central cities and thinks car-based exurbs are the peak living experience in human history. He has never visited any of the 1920ish mixed-mode neighborhoods in Chicago (or anywhere else IIRC) where millions of people live. Yet he is also an expert in optimization of transit modes in New York City. Funny – I have met people who were born and lived their entire lives in NYC and London and will happily participate in the spirited arguments that break out whenever you ask a NYer or Londoner “how should I go from here to here” yet do not claim to know all their is to know about comparative transit times (which is a mathematically unsolvable problem by the way). Yet Mixmaster, the consummate exurbanite, is quite certain.

Unless – just possibly – Mixmaster is a composite persona generated by the Scaife Counter-Blogging Project?

Cranky
notrelevantintherealworld Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“I think, that appropriate policies could make a lot of cities more transit friendly without any dramatic increase in density.”

Yeah, all other cities need is a primary employer that is willing to subsidize public transportation, as said public transportation will be in that employers best interest, just like D.C. The question is what company is large enough to pay for an entire metro system?
HK Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
You betcha. Put Hong Kong on this chart. Or Tokyo. And you will quickly see that the world’s densest cities are the ones the best public transportation (India excluded).
Jer Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Steve Sailer: ” white non-Hispanic toddlers … white parents of small children … non-Hispanic white women … white people”

Wow.
BruceMcF Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
John Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 1:16 am

“One also wonders from New York’s status whether density above a certain level starts to decrease transit use because people walk more.”

There is no statistical reason for commenting on New York as though it represented anything other than what is seen on the whole chart.

And to add precision, New York show an increase in transit use, not a decrease … its just at not the same average rate as the straight line trend, which is easily explained by the fact that its beyond the point of half of trips by transit. Growing your share is simply harder once you hold the dominant share.

(P.S. Thanks all for the Mixmeister follies … much of it is quite amusing.)
piotr's caretaker Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Mixner’s psychiatrist,

The average taxi ride takes 13 minutes and covers 3.7 miles, for an average speed of 17 mph. The average speed of a New York subway train is 18 mph. Subway trips involve additional time spent walking to and from the subway stations at each end of the trip, additional time spent waiting for the train to arrive at the departure station, additional time spent waiting for second or subsequent trains if the trip involves a transfer, and additional time spent inside stations buying a metrocard or getting to and from the platform. In light of these facts, it is not remotely plausible that subways are faster than taxis only for trips between late night and early morning.
piotr's caretaker Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
….it is not remotely plausible that taxis are faster than subways only for trips between late night and early morning.
Mixner's Psychiatrist Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
The average taxi ride takes 13 minutes and covers 3.7 miles, for an average speed of 17 mph

Statistical innumeracy from our patient. As mentioned upthread, with appropriate citation, in both cases the mean is skewed upwards by a small number of long trips.

Stop playing games, Mixner. You never bothered reading the source of the statistic you cited, and you were made to look stupid because of it. You still haven’t. You’re only digging yourself deeper, and embarrassing yourself further. The NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission accepts and endorses the problems of wait time, and the existence of hot and cold spots where there’s either cab congestion or no cabs to be found.

Now take your meds.
Mixner's Psychiatrist Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
In short, as the New Yorkers in this thread have already said, the quintessential NYC cab trip is one where you need to cover a dozen blocks faster than walking, and ideally can see that the traffic is clear. For longer distances, or trips with any degree of uncertainty over traffic, the cab is a crapshoot and the subway a better option. Of course, residents generally have more local knowledge of the subway than visitors.

In Mixner’s delusional world, a cab is always available within three seconds, no matter where you are, and the streets of Manhattan empty the moment you step inside. Also, the roof of the Chrysler building is made of ice cream. Quite a remarkable case.
piotr's caretaker Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
As mentioned upthread, with appropriate citation, in both cases the mean is skewed upwards by a small number of long trips.

The “skewing” of the mean renders your claim even more implausible. Most trips are short, and short trips favor the taxi over the subway even more than longer trips.
The shorter a subway trip, the more the total trip time will be dominated by the time required to walk to and from the subway stations and wait for the train(s). Subway trains are no faster on average than taxis even while the vehicles are in motion, let alone when the additional time required to get and from subway stations and wait for the train is added.

Stop playing games, Mixner.

Stop making a fool of yourself, piotr, and put those restraining straps on before the men in white coats come back.
a.sanders Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
7th Annual Great NYC Commuter Race

Starting location: Myrtle Ave & Clinton Ave, Brooklyn
Ending location: 14th St and Union Sq East, Manhattan

Thursday, May 29th 2008, 7:40am

Driving: 22 minutes
Subway: 29 minutes

If driving is faster than the subway even for commutes at rush hour on a weekday, it’s obviously going to be faster still at other times.
Jeremy Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Re: driving in DC or any other big city — all driving times really need to include the time it takes to find parking in the. Working near Eastern Market, the drive to Dupont on a Friday night was only about 10 minutes, but it was at least twice that to find parking on the other end, not to mention the walk from the car to Dupont. Made the metro a lot more attactive.

Re: rating cities by transit availability — Any proper discussion should include transit options outside of the urban core. DC and NY have good coverage outside of the city limits (for DC) and outside of Manhattan (for NY). SF is absolutely TERRIBLE in this respect by comparison. BART is obscenely expensive for trips from the east bay (and non-existent in Marin) and is only cost effective for commuters who would otherwise pay a bridge toll and up to $20 a day for parking (not to mention gas). In DC, I would take the metro in from Crystal City every weekend. There’s no way I would do that to go out in SF.

I know there are lots of urban hipsters on this site (Matt included) who disdain all things outside of the city limits. But seriously, DC and SF are both tiny cities geographically speaking — lots and lots of people live outside them (often densely — Crystal City for example) and need ways to get into the city without driving. In SF, that option doesn’t exist. So no, the SF Bay Area does not deserve to be near the top of these ratings.
Mixner's Magic Cabs, Inc. Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Introducing Mixner’s Magic Cabs: They’re There When You Think Of Them!™

Need a ride? Try our fleet with a difference! Just stand on the curb, snap your fingers, and through the power of imagination*, a fully equipped Crown Victoria will appear on the street, ready for hire!

* They’re the brainchild of an addled shut-in who thinks he knows more than the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission when it comes to wait time and availability, but don’t let that stop you.
Sam M Says:
September 21st, 2008 at 7:17 am
This seems a strange read of the graph, particularly for someone so strongly interested in
reality.”

The graph obviously shows a very strong connection between density and transit use, which would seem to offer at least some support to transit skeptics. That is, you could make an argument that while transit works in tightly packed cities such as NYC, it’s harder to make it work in Cleveland.

There are other arguments, sure. But that’s a reasonable conclusion to draw from the graph.

Now imagine of someone from, say, the Corner, had dones omthing similar. Let’s say there was a graph measuring “happiness” versus “transit use.” And the graph showed a really srong correlation. In almost all cities, people using transit were happier. Except in Toledo.

So soomeone like Goldberg looks at the chart, sees this really strong correlation between happiness and transit, and concludes, “I think there is a real lesson to be learned here by studying an outlier like Toledo.”

Well.. OF COURSE he’s want to talk about the outlier. And MY would certainly kick the crap out of him for it.
Hector Says:
September 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Jer,

Does it make you feel good to dismiss Mr. Sailer as a racist without engaging his argument?

Mr. Sailer is a racist, or course, you’re correct. But he has a serious point that birth rates among educated white people in the coastal metropolitan cities are lower than they should be. American couples need to be reminded that, in the words of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, “children are an essential and fundamental good of marriage, and not an optional extra.”

A morally healthy sexual and romantic relationship should ideally be at least open to the eventual good of childbearing.
Hector Says:
September 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
It’s also rather silly of Mr. Yglesias to interpret this graph too literally. The idea of fitting a line to the points is somewhat silly. You would not expect a strictly linear relationship, since the y-axis is bounded (by 100%) but the x-axis is effectively unbounded (up to some maximum density well above what New York reaches). At some level, further increases in density will not much affect transit use since most people are already using transit. So it would make more sense to fit the data to some type of saturating curve, and depending on your model you could probably get a curve that fitted pretty close to DC and New York.

I’m not sure what type of model one would use, but perhaps a logistic, monomolecular, or Monod function.
Chris Bradford Says:
September 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
It is meaningless to compare densities using cities’ political boundaries.

I’ve analyzed the association using the 32 largest urbanized areas. See here

There is virtually no association between standard density and mode of commuting. However, there is a robust association between weighted density and commuting mode (although it is weaker when NY is omitted).
Jer Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 am
I came back to this thread late, so there’s a good chance no one is reading. But,

Hector: “Does it make you feel good to dismiss Mr. Sailer as a racist without engaging his argument?”

What argument? That transit causes infertility in white people? That SF and NY are expensive?

Sailer didn’t have an argument. He had a bout of explosive logorrhea.

“[Sailer] has a serious point that birth rates among educated white people in the coastal metropolitan cities are lower than they should be.”

Was that his point? Are you divining it, or just replacing his lack of argument with one of your own?

“A morally healthy sexual and romantic relationship should ideally be at least open to the eventual good of childbearing.”

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with transit and density?
cialis Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 10:05 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
zyban Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:16 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:11 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
viagra cheap Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Great site, Good info
viagra

Matt Yglesias

Transit and Density

72 Responses to “Transit and Density”

Blogroll