Suburban Sprawl Costs a Bundle

A new report pegs the cost of sprawl at $1 trillion a year due to increased per capita land use and higher transportation costs

By斯科特吉布森|March 30, 2015

**Suburban sprawl is expensive.**Development patterns that favor suburban development over compact housing in more urban areas increases expenses in a variety of ways — from reduced farm production to forcing people to drive longer distances.
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

More Green Building News

Suburban sprawl means less farmland and reduced agricultural productivity, dirtier air and water, and more traffic congestion, a new study says, and it all adds up to increased costs of about $1 trillion a year in the U.S.

研究by The New Climate Economy is an attempt to quantify the economic costs of sprawl (“dispersed, automobile-oriented, urban-fringe development”) while pointing out the benefits of compact, mixed-use building (“smart growth”).

“蔓延提供了各种益处，但这些优势主要是庞大的社区居民的福利，而许多成本是外部的，对非居民施加了外部，”报告称。“这种分析表明，在美国的外部成本中蔓延超过4000亿美元，美国每年每年均为6.25亿美元，表明鼓励更有效的发展的智能增长政策可以提供大的经济，社会和环境效益。”

换句话说，蔓延可能是伟大的，如果昂贵，对于住在那里的人，但对那些没有的人并不是那么伟大。

Higher transportation expenses, less mobility

生活在郊区不可避免地意味着更多的驾驶，而且步行更少，这让这是一个令人惊讶的高价。

在增加与旅行时间，车辆运行，停车，空气污染，水污染和交通事故相关的成本之前，车辆每年单独接近3,000美元。

交通死亡率在“智能增长社区”中，庞大的城市地区高达两到五倍。

And because suburban development discourages walking, cycling, and public transportation, the authors said, it tends to impose “particularly large burdens on physically, economically and socially disadvantaged people.”

“蔓延到城市社区贫困的程度，往往会加剧犯罪和功能失调家庭等社会问题，”它继续。

The authors said costs cited in the report reflect conditions in North America, but were transferable to developing countries.

“Although many of these costs are lower in absolute value in developing countries, due to lower wages and property values, they are probably similar relative to incomes and regional economies,” the report says. “As a result, smart growth policies that create more compact communities can provide substantial economic, social and environmental benefits in both developed and developing countries.”

查看评论

6 Comments

彼得L.|2015年3月30日09:16 PM|#1

I know where this is heading...
将人们进入城市，堆积高层高层，并使像老鼠一样生活的人，一个人爬过另一个人。围栏他们进入和传统，没有更多的个人车辆。不，谢谢，我会通过！

我听说过（你抓到了同音词吗？）这个环境德鲁布皮。他们（这群生态局域作主义者）希望人们生活在拥挤的城市，没有汽车，使用批量交通，生活在500平方英尺的公寓高上升，基本上围栏在人类中，以便他们不会逃离农村土地。

幸运的是，我们住在美国，我可以选择住在我想要的地方。如果这意味着BUSB或一些农村地区然后开车，那就是我的自由，我的选择，我的生活。谢谢你的优惠，但我将通过熟悉的甲型大都市。纽约市，洛杉矶等，不谢谢。
GBA Editor

马丁·霍洛拉|2015年3月31日05:19 AM|#2

回应彼得l
彼得，
极端之间有一个中间道路 - 拥有高层公寓或郊区蔓延的拥挤城市。

许多欧洲城市投入了设施和基础设施，以使城市生活愉快。一些周到的功能使得所有的差异：干净，经济的公共交通;自行车车道 - 真正的自行车道;对车辆交通的限制（包括将某些街道关闭到汽车和卡车）;良好的公共设施（学校，公园和游泳池）由广泛的税收支持。

I know that most Americans will never have the chance to visit Amsterdam, Copenhagen, or Stockholm. But those who get that chance will probably be amazed at how civilized urban life can be -- if only citizens expect it, insist on it, and are willing to make investments that support livable, walkable, bikable cities.
丹弗曼仑|Mar 31, 2015 08:40am|#3

回应GBA顾问
I visited Amsterdam and found it to be the most depressing city I have ever been to.
Jud Aley|2015年4月1日12:27 PM|#4

You no longer need to go to
You no longer need to go to Europe to experience this kind of city. Portland Oregon is probably the best example in the USA. Other good examples in North America that Ive visited are Toronto, Quebec, Vancouver, San Francisco and Seattle. Even small city’s like New Haven CT and Buffalo NY are becoming more and more livable and “Walkable”. If you’re interested to know more about this topic a great book is “Walkable City" by Jeff Speck.
Wes Stewart|Apr 01, 2015 03:41pm|#5

波特兰？真的吗？
I've been to Portland, OR a few times. (My step-daughter used to live there). I noted that the same snowbird bums who sleep on the streets of Tucson in the winter are sleeping on the streets of Portland in the summer.

图森市是由保守派海洋包围的自由民主党之城。市议会在波特兰的思想中积极送礼。由于波特兰有一辆街头车，这座城市“领导者”决定了图森也应该有一个。尽管基于波特兰的公司合同建造他们的街道汽车落后于日程安排，但无论如何都与他们合同，以建立我们的街道汽车落后时间表。但抛出足够的联邦资金（你的税金270米，非常感谢你）终于完成了它。

For the heck of it, I rode it on opening day when it was filled with feeders at the public trough. It was SRO, The next day, and the day after that and the day after that too..., it was essentially empty.

所有这些“振兴”市中心。但是the only things vital downtown are government buildings, the courts, the lawyers that populate them and some trendy restaurants. On nights and weekends, the government goes home...to the suburbs.
Nate G|2015年4月01日04:20 PM|#6

旧金山？真的吗？
SF是一个爆炸的地狱孔，正处于定价中产阶级的中间，已经成功地通过可怕的土地利用政策开辟了家庭和穷人。它充满了精神病患者无家可归的人，即市政府拒绝做任何事情。税收很高，生活费用是脱离图表。除非您富有，否则这是一个绝对可怕的地方，并且能够在一个时尚的社区和通勤者通过互补的科技总线带到南湾。步行性只是拼图的一部分。我住在一个高度客场的郊区，附近的杂货店，餐馆，购物，银行，教堂，公园和公共游泳池。