4 ms·

That paper makes a city-to-city comparison, not a urban-to-suburban comparison. But what it does say is: > These results indicate that a 10% increase in densit

That paper makes a city-to-city comparison, not a urban-to-suburban comparison. But what it does say is: > These results indicate that a 10% increase in density would reduce operational costs for fire protection by 1.3%, streets and highways by 2.7%, sewer by 3.1%, etc. Not sure about you, but this is the exact opposite of "doesn't go down a lot". If you want actual urban-to-suburban comparisons there's the case studies done by urban3 who map fine-grained expenditure and tax income: * https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ * https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/eugene-or/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/eugene-or/ * https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/south-bend-in/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/south-bend-in/ Not only do these show the urban areas being much more efficient, the suburban areas are so inefficient they're not even breaking even.

cyberax 3y ago
Or maybe this one: > Holcombe and Williams [25] found mixed results. They found that for cities with population less than 500,000, higher population density was associated with lower per capita expenditures on highways and sewers, but this relationship did not hold for larger cities. Further, per capita expenditures on services, such as police, increased with density for cities with population above 500,000, and there was no relationship for smaller cities. Their general conclusion was that for cities larger than 50,000, per capita expenditures are not associated with density. Further research by Holcombe and Williams [26] found no relationship between sprawl and highway expenditures and, actually, a positive relationship between population density and highway expenditures. ... > Fewer studies have shown reductions in costs for water, sewer, or sold waste, though this may be expected. Some costs have also been shown to increase with density, such as housing and community development or police. My own research (will publish on Github once I validate it) finds similar results. Municipalities peak in efficiency around 100-200k people. > If you want actual urban-to-suburban comparisons there's the case studies done by urban3 who map fine-grained expenditure and tax income Woohoo. Yet another propaganda outlet. Note that it tracks _tax_ _income_, which is misleading. It's skewed towards Downtowns, simply because that's where companies are registered and pay taxes. But people who _work_ there don't typically live nearby. In fact, if you look at total _personal_ income taxes per zip code collected in the US, it's not even close. Suburbs are paying for most of the US.

cyberax 3y ago

Or maybe this one: > Holcombe and Williams [25] found mixed results. They found that for cities with population less than 500,000, higher population density was associated with lower per capita expenditures on highways and sewers, but this relationship did not hold for larger cities. Further, per capita expenditures on services, such as police, increased with density for cities with population above 500,000, and there was no relationship for smaller cities. Their general conclusion was that for cities larger than 50,000, per capita expenditures are not associated with density. Further research by Holcombe and Williams [26] found no relationship between sprawl and highway expenditures and, actually, a positive relationship between population density and highway expenditures. ... > Fewer studies have shown reductions in costs for water, sewer, or sold waste, though this may be expected. Some costs have also been shown to increase with density, such as housing and community development or police. My own research (will publish on Github once I validate it) finds similar results. Municipalities peak in efficiency around 100-200k people. > If you want actual urban-to-suburban comparisons there's the case studies done by urban3 who map fine-grained expenditure and tax income Woohoo. Yet another propaganda outlet. Note that it tracks _tax_ _income_, which is misleading. It's skewed towards Downtowns, simply because that's where companies are registered and pay taxes. But people who _work_ there don't typically live nearby. In fact, if you look at total _personal_ income taxes per zip code collected in the US, it's not even close. Suburbs are paying for most of the US.