Mobility is more important than density

[Tory]

Bill Reeves sent me a great link to a Marginal Revolution blog post by Tyler Cowen arguing that mobility has been more important than density in shaping American history and its future, which I 100% agree with. It highlights the historical importance of mobility in the US and challenges current urbanist trends favoring density. He makes some key points:

• America's success is attributed more to advancements in transportation and infrastructure than to population density.
• Historical examples range from horses and ships to modern aviation, showing a consistent focus on movement and connection.
• Urban density is linked to lower fertility rates and the potential replication of undesirable political climates.
• Mobility, on the other hand, is seen as fostering a stronger national defense and better immigrant assimilation.
• Low-speed options like bicycles are viewed as impractical and even dangerous - "low-speed transport is a poor country thing"
• The future lies in high-speed, affordable, and eco-friendly transportation solutions, such as self-driving vehicles and improved aviation.

I made my own comment over there, which I'll repeat here: 

Mobility is one of the secret sauces to Houston's success. In Jane Jacob's world, mobility was fixed and limited but density was variable. In today's world, density is fairly limited (by cars and higher living standards in terms of living space per person), but mobility is highly variable. My own thoughts on this:

Applying Jane Jacobs' 4 tenets of vibrant neighborhoods to car-based cities