6 ms·

You described the key issue: "such neighborhoods are illegal to build in the whole rest of North America." I don't think it's productive to think of the suburb

You described the key issue: "such neighborhoods are illegal to build in the whole rest of North America." I don't think it's productive to think of the suburbs as "bad" or "wrong," because that just turns into an angry debate about whose lifestyle is better. What I think is productive is to recognize that we shouldn't be legislating that there can only be one way to live, and we especially shouldn't be prohibiting that the traditional neighborhood development patterns that have worked for thousands of years. If we actually had a free market, there would be both a fair amount of auto-oriented suburban development, and massively more traditional, walkable neighborhood development.

OxO4 6y ago
Would your "free market" also mean that the people living in the suburbs pay the true cost of living in suburbs? Including higher taxes to offset the higher infrastructure costs and the higher impact on the environment?
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Of course, if it didn't, it wouldn't be free market. The government would still have their finger on the scale.
- quantumwannabe 6y ago
  Sure, as long as people living in dense areas pay the true cost of living there. No more free or subsidized fares that only pay a fraction of the operating costs and zero of the capital costs of transit. Be ready to pay carbon tax on the steel and concrete used to construct tall buildings that the wooden suburban house doesn't have to pay. Maybe move some jobs out of the city to the suburbs; it's not fair that suburban commuters subsidize city people's lifestyles with the goods they buy while there for work and the taxes their employers pay on the property they work in. You can't just make up "externalities" for something you dislike; I guarantee you, anything you like has lots of "externalities" as well that may cancel out whatever you're trying to charge someone else for things they like. Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs. Be careful what you wish for, you may not like what you get.
  - teclordphrack2 6y ago
    Wow, that comment is not based in reality.
    - quantumwannabe 6y ago
      Maybe you could counter my points so we can have a discussion instead of downvoting and dismissing me...
      - lmm 6y ago
        If you just flatly assert that received wisdom is false then of course you'll just be dismissed. Have you got anything to substantiate your claim that "Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs"?
        quantumwannabe 6y ago
        Sure. Can you substantiate the claim that suburbs have infrastructure costs that they do not pay for and that cities do not? That assertion was equally unsourced, and it's not very polite to demand sources when you yourself don't provide any. 53.4% of US roads are paid for by user fees, user taxes, and tolls. [1] Transit comes nowhere close: In the US, 13.1% of capital expenses are paid for by transit agencies, and 33% of operating costs are covered by fares. [2] [1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd/data-product/134401/2018-ntst_1.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd... (Page 12)
        fredophile 6y ago
        Lots of infrastructure in rural areas is subsidized. Remove the requirement for phone companies, ISPs, power companies, and USPS to provide service to unprofitable areas. It is much cheaper to wire up and provide those services in densely populated areas.
- centimeter 6y ago
  The net direction of subsidy from rural to suburban to urban is complex to calculate and subject to dispute. For example, urban centers are net importers (of food, processed goods, building materials, etc.), and benefit disproportionately from heavy freight on roads. An example of a serious but less obvious negative externality imposed by urban centers is the bulk import of population, since urban centers always reproduce below replacement rate. The urban centers basically take most of the intelligent people from non-urban areas and then ensure they don't reproduce.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    More road space means people living further from one another. People living further from one another means exponentially more energy consumed to move mass further distances. Hence roads cause a huge externality of pollution.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      That's not what exponential means. Cities also rely on roads, just in a different way; they require road networks to bring them food and manufactured goods, transported at greater distances than similar products in rural areas.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        You need less road space to distribute resources to more people in dense areas. For example, the resources to deliver everything people need in Manhattan is less than if you took all those people out of Manhattan and spread them around in detached houses. By exponential, I meant when you increase the distance between them, you multiply everything consumed by an extra factor. More pipe for water and sewer and gas, more wire for electricity, more road for more intersections and wider roads, more miles driven for garbage trucks, more schools, it has a knock on effect of all consumption. And it’s just as simple as that - the more you consume, the more you pollute. The more you consume space, the more you consume everything since the further everything has to get pushed (assuming you’re still expecting all the trappings of modern life). I am guessing that the extra space I am consuming now is probably a luxury that future generations won’t have, assuming population levels of people who live an American lifestyle hold steady or rise.

OxO4 6y ago

Would your "free market" also mean that the people living in the suburbs pay the true cost of living in suburbs? Including higher taxes to offset the higher infrastructure costs and the higher impact on the environment?

bilbo0s 6y ago
Of course, if it didn't, it wouldn't be free market. The government would still have their finger on the scale.
quantumwannabe 6y ago
Sure, as long as people living in dense areas pay the true cost of living there. No more free or subsidized fares that only pay a fraction of the operating costs and zero of the capital costs of transit. Be ready to pay carbon tax on the steel and concrete used to construct tall buildings that the wooden suburban house doesn't have to pay. Maybe move some jobs out of the city to the suburbs; it's not fair that suburban commuters subsidize city people's lifestyles with the goods they buy while there for work and the taxes their employers pay on the property they work in. You can't just make up "externalities" for something you dislike; I guarantee you, anything you like has lots of "externalities" as well that may cancel out whatever you're trying to charge someone else for things they like. Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs. Be careful what you wish for, you may not like what you get.
- teclordphrack2 6y ago
  Wow, that comment is not based in reality.
  - quantumwannabe 6y ago
    Maybe you could counter my points so we can have a discussion instead of downvoting and dismissing me...
    - lmm 6y ago
      If you just flatly assert that received wisdom is false then of course you'll just be dismissed. Have you got anything to substantiate your claim that "Gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees pay far more of the total expenditure on roads than transit fares pay for their infrastructure and operating costs"?
      - quantumwannabe 6y ago
        Sure. Can you substantiate the claim that suburbs have infrastructure costs that they do not pay for and that cities do not? That assertion was equally unsourced, and it's not very polite to demand sources when you yourself don't provide any. 53.4% of US roads are paid for by user fees, user taxes, and tolls. [1] Transit comes nowhere close: In the US, 13.1% of capital expenses are paid for by transit agencies, and 33% of operating costs are covered by fares. [2] [1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd/data-product/134401/2018-ntst_1.pdf https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd... (Page 12)
        fredophile 6y ago
        Lots of infrastructure in rural areas is subsidized. Remove the requirement for phone companies, ISPs, power companies, and USPS to provide service to unprofitable areas. It is much cheaper to wire up and provide those services in densely populated areas.
centimeter 6y ago
The net direction of subsidy from rural to suburban to urban is complex to calculate and subject to dispute. For example, urban centers are net importers (of food, processed goods, building materials, etc.), and benefit disproportionately from heavy freight on roads. An example of a serious but less obvious negative externality imposed by urban centers is the bulk import of population, since urban centers always reproduce below replacement rate. The urban centers basically take most of the intelligent people from non-urban areas and then ensure they don't reproduce.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  More road space means people living further from one another. People living further from one another means exponentially more energy consumed to move mass further distances. Hence roads cause a huge externality of pollution.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    That's not what exponential means. Cities also rely on roads, just in a different way; they require road networks to bring them food and manufactured goods, transported at greater distances than similar products in rural areas.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      You need less road space to distribute resources to more people in dense areas. For example, the resources to deliver everything people need in Manhattan is less than if you took all those people out of Manhattan and spread them around in detached houses. By exponential, I meant when you increase the distance between them, you multiply everything consumed by an extra factor. More pipe for water and sewer and gas, more wire for electricity, more road for more intersections and wider roads, more miles driven for garbage trucks, more schools, it has a knock on effect of all consumption. And it’s just as simple as that - the more you consume, the more you pollute. The more you consume space, the more you consume everything since the further everything has to get pushed (assuming you’re still expecting all the trappings of modern life). I am guessing that the extra space I am consuming now is probably a luxury that future generations won’t have, assuming population levels of people who live an American lifestyle hold steady or rise.