# How to deal with (sub)urban sprawl? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831 "2009-05-09T05:57:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/241 "2009-05-19T14:25:23Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > People in the suburbs don’t get out and meet one another spontaneously except in carefully choreographed car-centric interactions at church, little league, etc. Baloney. Every store I go to has people EVERYWHERE. Work, Walmart, Starbucks, PF Changs, the Bars, the schools, the library, the hardware store, the parks. Hundreds if not thousands of people I can choose to and often do spontaneeously interact with every single day. I can sit on my front porch, which I often do, and wave to the neighbors driving by (one guy, retired preacher, makes of point of honking every time he sees me out there, friendly guy), and I’ll often chat up the folks taking their daily walk or bike ride. As far as I can tell, the only real difference between the city and the burbs is that when you go somewhere, the burbs has lots of people, and the city has lots and lots of people. But I already got way more people than I could possibly interact with as it is. The other difference is I drive somewhere in comfort rather working my way through a sea of people that are elbow to elbow basically ignoring them in the process of trying to get there (as another poster noted). ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/242 "2009-05-19T14:38:22Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > My issue is that suburbs offload many of their costs on the rest of the world. Surely you recognize that, if carbon were priced more rationally, suburbs would lose out vis a vis urban areas. > > . EVERYBODY is riding that free carbon spewing gravy train right now. Some people use more energy than others. Some people consume more consumer crap than others (which still means energy). Actually not even some. Half of the people do statistically speaking. Pick virtually any persons consumption/lifestyle and we can ask “do you REALLY need that”? And the answer is usually going to be no. The answer to the problem isnt to get all holier than tho about YOUR eco perfect lifestyle and someone else’s greedy earth raping lifestyle. For two reasons IMO. First it won’t work. And second, its hypocritical BS. And third, Opal doesnt like it either. The answer is for society as a WHOLE to either tax carbon as a way to moderate the amount being put out, or just decide exactly how much can be spewed annually or some other CO2 limiting mechanism. Then let peoples economic choices work it out. I’d have no problem with that, and I doubt any of the suburb lovers here would either. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/243 "2009-05-19T14:39:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > no it’s not. Your assertion is meaningless, I live on this planet too and in this nation. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/244 "2009-05-19T14:43:36Z")
> [@Zephyurs](#): > > Magiver, how do you (and anyone else who’s arguing otherwise) answer the problem that externalities offer your defense of the suburbs? > > Really, it’s up to each individual community to determine what kind of urban planning they want. If a place thinks it can attract people through lots of single use development, not spending tax money on sidewalks and bike lanes, and very big lots, all the more power to it. I’m genuinely fine with it, because whether you live there or not is all personal preference. > > My issue is that suburbs offload many of their costs on the rest of the world. Surely you recognize that, if carbon were priced more rationally, suburbs would lose out vis a vis urban areas. > > All I’m asking for is fair market mechanisms so that people who choose to live in very car-dependent, energy intense environments have to bear their fair costs instead of offloading them on others. If they want to continue doing that (as many will undoubtedly do), all the more power to them. Individual choice and all that. It would be interesting actually how New York State would fair if the taxes were actually distributed based upon how they are paid. New York City subsidizes upstate greatly. The defenders of suburbia don’t really address this fact. They talk about how they are ‘Ok’ that their sales tax they pay when they go to the city finances the city’s resources that they don’t use, a line of nonsense of course because they are using the resources when they are in the city. I don’t know how it is in other states, but there is a net outflow of tax money from New York City to New York State. So it would seem that New York City is certainly subsidizing the suburban lifestyle in upstate New York. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/245 "2009-05-19T14:49:06Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > EVERYBODY is riding that free carbon spewing gravy train right now. This is true, and every topic related to the subject is fair game. If you want to start a thread bitching about my 50 inch HDTV have at it. > [@](#): > > Some people use more energy than others. Some people consume more consumer crap than others (which still means energy). Actually not even some. Half of the people do statistically speaking. Yes, absolutely. > [@](#): > > Pick virtually any persons consumption/lifestyle and we can ask “do you REALLY need that”? And the answer is usually going to be no. Yep, I don’t need to be on my computer arguing with you or anyone else on this forum. > [@](#): > > The answer to the problem isnt to get all holier than tho about YOUR eco perfect lifestyle and someone else’s greedy earth raping lifestyle. For two reasons IMO. First it won’t work. And second, its hypocritical BS. And third, Opal doesnt like it either. No one is getting holier than thou, we are talking about the problems with urban and suburban sprawl, you’re personalizing it more than is necessary. I am not offended by your critiques of the city, why are you offended by my critiques of the suburb? > [@](#): > > The answer is for society as a WHOLE to either tax carbon as a way to moderate the amount being put out, or just decide exactly how much can be spewed annually or some other CO2 limiting mechanism. Yes, we’ll figure that out eventually. Carbon off-sets are patently ludicrous as it is. > [@](#): > > Then let peoples economic choices work it out. I’d have no problem with that, and I doubt any of the suburb lovers here would either. It would be nice if we could figure out a way to reorganize sprawl that works organically and within market mechanisms. As it is that’s going to be the only thing that actually accomplishes it as there won’t be a proactive reordering of the suburbs. ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/246 "2009-05-19T15:12:37Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > EVERYBODY is riding that free carbon spewing gravy train right now. Yes, but to different extents. > [@](#): > > The answer is for society as a WHOLE to either tax carbon as a way to moderate the amount being put out, or just decide exactly how much can be spewed annually or some other CO2 limiting mechanism. > > Then let peoples economic choices work it out. I’d have no problem with that, and I doubt any of the suburb lovers here would either. I apologize for being unclear; that’s exactly what I was arguing for. Of course it’d be silly and just as distortionary to hit only suburbs for their carbon use. I don’t think I really have any disagreement, at least on public policy, with any suburbophiles who sees similarly. Of course, lifestyle and aesthetics are a different matter 😃 Les gouts et les couleurs and all. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/247 "2009-05-19T15:27:01Z")
If we’re going after the suburbs for their externalities, are we going to start counting the externalities of city life as well? Or is this just a one-way street? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/248 "2009-05-19T15:27:37Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If we’re going after the suburbs for their externalities, are we going to start counting the externalities of city life as well? Or is this just a one-way street? Since this thread is about sprawl and not about suburban vs urban, any discussion of urban sprawl and its externalities are perfectly fair game. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/249 "2009-05-19T16:05:20Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your assertion is meaningless, I live on this planet too and in this nation. Nothing from the suburbs affects you negatively. If anything, the inefficiencies of cities means state tax dollars are wasted. You’re desire to piss away money is lost echo dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/250 "2009-05-19T16:13:52Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If we’re going after the suburbs for their externalities, are we going to start counting the externalities of city life as well? Or is this just a one-way street? Which externalities are you referring to? If you mean carbon and pollution, then yes, of course. A ton of CO2 emitted from an urban area is as bad as one from a suburban or rural one. I’m not aware of many other externalities of cities that exist on an extra-local (regional or global) level. Noise and relatively higher crime rates are two I can think of associated with dense urban living, but those effects don’t hurt people outside the immediate vicinity (indeed, that’s one reason people move to the suburbs!) But yeah, if they exist, correct them–can you suggest a couple examples, though, so we know what we’re considering? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/251 "2009-05-19T16:19:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If we’re going after the suburbs for their externalities, are we going to start counting the externalities of city life as well? Or is this just a one-way street? Its actually a one way subway of eco bliss. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/252 "2009-05-19T16:29:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your assertion is meaningless, I live on this planet too and in this nation. Did I (or the concil of elders) give you persmission to have you own special rugrat? Your kid is going to be eating up valuable resources for DECADES that greedy old suburban living me could be using instead, thereby driving up the cost of everything for ME. Heck, who knows, that kid might even set off a whole clan of welfare breeders that do nothing but consume valuable resources having an economic impact (without any return) that would make my slightly longer commute pale in comparision. You had a kid because 1, you wanted it. 2 you could afford it. I seriously doubt you did an environmental impact statement before knocking boots. Welcome to the burbs. I hope you kid moves here as well. ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/253 "2009-05-19T16:34:39Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Its actually a one way subway of eco bliss. I’m confused. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/254 "2009-05-19T16:37:14Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Nothing from the suburbs affects you negatively. If anything, the inefficiencies of cities means state tax dollars are wasted. You’re desire to piss away money is lost echo dollars. Cities are much more efficient than suburbs, so your argument has no legs. Come back when have argument. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/255 "2009-05-19T17:09:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Cities are much more efficient than suburbs, so your argument has no legs. > > Come back when have argument. Please explain what the hell you mean by efficient, because all you’re doing is repeating that mantra. And don’t give me all that wasted gas crap because suburbanites pay for every drop of gas they use. It’s not like someone gives it to us. If anything, millions of cars idling at stop lights in NYC is much more wasteful that the relatively efficient highway/expressway/thruway system that suburban people use to commute. ---
**Author:** ![Zephyurs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/dfb087/32.png) [@Zephyurs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zephyurs)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/256 "2009-05-19T17:16:20Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Please explain what the hell you mean by efficient, because all you’re doing is repeating that mantra. > > And don’t give me all that wasted gas crap because suburbanites pay for every drop of gas they use. It’s not like someone gives it to us. > > If anything, millions of cars idling at stop lights in NYC is much more wasteful that the relatively efficient highway/expressway/thruway system that suburban people use to commute. Untrue. As has been mentioned, the costs of gas is not fully paid for, nor is that of coal-derived energy, both of which disproportionately benefit suburban areas. As for your second point, that’s where muddy notions of efficient come in and muck up the situation. Carbon emissions, from cars or otherwise, are substantially less per capita in urban areas than suburban ones. At least when I’m talking about efficiency, that (Pareto) is what I’m talking about ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/257 "2009-05-19T17:21:42Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Please explain what the hell you mean by efficient, because all you’re doing is repeating that mantra. Uses fewer resources per capita. It’s a pretty simple metric really. > [@](#): > > And don’t give me all that wasted gas crap because suburbanites pay for every drop of gas they use. It’s not like someone gives it to us. What does paying have to do with anything? > [@](#): > > If anything, millions of cars idling at stop lights in NYC is much more wasteful that the relatively efficient highway/expressway/thruway system that suburban people use to commute. Yeah this has been addressed if you can’t bother to read what’s posted then don’t ask me to explain what I’ve already explained. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/258 "2009-05-19T17:25:58Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Nothing from the suburbs affects you negatively. If anything, the inefficiencies of cities means state tax dollars are wasted. You’re desire to piss away money is lost echo dollars. Magiver, the rules apply to you, too; if cities are so monumentally wasteful, you should have no problem defining said waste and providing detailed evidence in support of its existence, as opposed to just saying it over and over. [QUOTE=mswas] Uses fewer resources per capita. It’s a pretty simple metric really. [/QUOTE] Again, cite? How are you measuring this? What externalities are you accounting for? What are the relevant opportunity costs? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/259 "2009-05-19T17:34:43Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Again, cite? How are you measuring this? What externalities are you accounting for? What are the relevant opportunity costs? Fewer cars per capita in a non-sprawl city of course. Do I really need to come up with cites that there are fewer cars per capita in areas with proper mass transit? This is useful: > **[File:USCommutePatternsTimeCommute.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USCommutePatterns2006(2).png)** > > Data shown is for the central city itself, not the metropolitan area. > Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. > You cannot overwrite this file. The following file is a duplicate of this file (more details): > **[Transportation in New York City | Mass transit use and car ownership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City#Mass_transit_use_and_car_ownership)** > > New York City is distinguished from other U.S. cities for its low personal automobile ownership and its significant use of public transportation. New York City has, by far, the highest rate of public transportation use of any American city, with 55.6% of workers who commute getting to work by this means in 2023. About one in every three users of mass transit in the United States and two-thirds of the nation's rail riders live in New York City or its suburbs. However, New York City also has New Y... > [@](#): > > Mass transit use and car ownership > New York City is distinguished from other cities in the United States by its significant use of public transportation. New York City has, by far, the highest rate of public transportation use of any American city, with 54.2% of workers commuting to work by this means in 2006.[4] About one in every three users of mass transit in the United States and two-thirds of the nation’s rail riders live in New York City or its suburbs.[5] New York is the only city in the United States where over half of all households do not own a car (Manhattan’s non-ownership is even higher - around 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%).[6] > Percentage of workers using public transportation for their commute and the mean travel time for major cities in the United States in 2006 > New York City also has the longest mean travel time for commuters (39 minutes) among major U.S. cities.[7] > [edit]Environmental and social issues > New York City’s uniquely high rate of public transit use makes it one of the most energy-efficient cities in the United States. Gasoline consumption in the city today is at the rate of the national average in the 1920s.[8] New York City’s high rate of transit use saved 1.8 billion gallons of oil in 2006 and $4.6 billion in gasoline costs. New York saves half of all the oil saved by transit nationwide. > The reduction in oil consumption meant 11.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution was kept out of the air.[9] The New York City metro area was ranked by the Brookings Institution as the U.S. metro area with the lowest per-capita transportation-related carbon footprint and as the fourth lowest overall per-capita carbon footprint in 2005 among the 100 largest metro areas of the United States, outranked only by Honolulu and Los Angeles and Portland.[10] > The city’s transportation system, and the population density it makes possible, also have other effects. Scientists at Columbia University examined data from 13,102 adults in the city’s five boroughs and identified correlations between New York’s built environment and public health. New Yorkers residing in densely populated, pedestrian-friendly areas have significantly lower body mass index (BMI) levels compared to other New Yorkers. Three characteristics of the city environment – living in areas with mixed residential and commercial uses, living near bus and subway stops and living in population-dense areas – were found to be inversely associated with BMI levels.[11] So as you can see from the graphic, the more densely populated cities have the greater usage of mass transit. Again I am using New York City as the best example of an efficient city. I recognize that it is a unique outlier. As you get outside of New York sprawl is an increasingly greater problem and works against the ability to have mass transit. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831/260 "2009-05-20T00:45:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > So as you can see from the graphic, the more densely populated cities have the greater usage of mass transit. Fine. I pay sales tax for a free bus system in the county that I work. I can’t use it. And don’t want to. But hey, those that want to use it can. I suppose that I get a tiny bit of benefit because there are fewer cars on the road. Who do you think is providing the city with food? You don’t seem to understand that suburbs and x-urbs provide the link to rural. Or do you simply want to build a fence. If you want the fence, I’m pretty sure more will be leaving the city than trying to get in. I’m not convinced that for distances under 500 miles mass transit is the way to go. Not in todays environment. Or that mass transit, buses and trains are what we should be looking at. I sure wouldn’t bother flying 500 miles. No point in it. I’ll drive and probably beat the plane due to driving to the airport, parking, bus to the airport, checking in, security checks, boarding, needing to be 2 hours early and on and on…… So. Suburbs and exurbs are actually a needed commodity. People do still drive from town to town. Services are still required unless you are Mad Max. People that live in cities seem to be isolated from this fact. A different social and business model would make more sense. Employers that allow work from home, and encourage it. More walk able suburban areas would be fine too. Provided that the business model supports it. I live ex-urban. When I’m home I’m home. I don’t make the 1-2 mile trips that I guess suburban folks do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-deal-with-sub-urban-sprawl/495831.md?page=14)