Sprawl Should Pay It's Fair Share

Kaid Benfield on how sprawl’s extra costs are rarely fairly distributed:

This is because it costs more per unit to build and maintain linear infrastructure such as roads and sewer lines when that the lines have to extend farther per unit. Common sense. Nelson and his co-authors say that total initial municipal costs per person can be as high as $13,426 in sprawl.

The same logic also applies to police and emergency services, which must travel longer routes per unit in low-density areas, and it can be extended to private services as well, such as postal and package delivery, and power, telephone, and cable TV lines. On the other side, studies have shown that there is less use and less wear and tear on streets and roads in high-density areas that are near good public transit service.

Kaid makes the case that these additional per capita costs should be fairly reflected in the fees collected during the development process. It makes sense to me. A frequent argument is that the market wants sprawl. I think that’s not entirely true but even if it were perhaps the market would adjust if the real costs of sprawl were apparent and accounted for. Let’s stop subsidizing sprawl and then we can talk about what the market wants.