Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (370391)	2/9/2008 12:09:22 AM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575489

What I said is that a subway will encourage LA's density to increase. In fact, that was one of the reasons Manhattan became so dense.....the development of subways. Quite the contrary. Subways were the solution to the crowded streets due to dense population. The subway only opened around 1904 and as has been discussed, Manhattan's residential population density peaked around 1910.

To: tejek who wrote (370391)	2/27/2008 4:05:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575489

Manhattan was dense before the subways, or even before the elevated trains you mention in a later response. Manhattan was more densely populated before 1830 than LA is today. Even in 1800 the whole island of Manhattan was at least a third of LA's current population density (despite the fact that a significant percentage of the Island was still rural), and the "populated wards" of Manhattan where almost 5 times as dense as LA is now. LA subways might increase LA's population density, but probably not by a lot. Consider how low the percentage of commutes (or trips of all types) in LA come from subway trips. It doesn't matter whether you use passenger miles or numbers of trips the percentage is very low.