If Only...

Donna St. George reports for The Washington Post on the new adolescence: "Gas prices are too high for a day trip to Dewey Beach. They are too high for a quick visit to see a friend in College Park. They consume enough of 18-year-old Ashleigh Krudys's paycheck that she second-guesses her social plans."

This is going to be a critical issue for our future. If we stay on our current course, more and more folks are going to find that discretionary trips -- teens driving to hang out with friends, etc. -- are something of an unaffordable luxury. Of course you don't have that problem if you live in a walkable neighborhood with good transit links, but there are so few such neighborhoods that most families can't afford them. But if we increase density in the vicinity of our existing transit nodes, and build new nodes and new networks that are planned for dense walkable growth, that we can shift out of that equilibrium.

Comments

You leftist authoritarian! Those teenagers are Americans, and as Americans they live in car dependent suburban sprawl because they prefer it! Teenagers have been living in the suburbs for decades! Why are you trying to force good young Americans into trains and high rise tenements?

Posted by Ixnermay | July 21, 2008 9:18 AM

And, of course, you can ride a bike. Might do something to counteract the trend reported last week that by 15 kids become much less physically active than when they were 10 (or whatever it was). Seems like a win-win situation to me.

Posted by kurzbein | July 21, 2008 9:21 AM

Plus, isn't College Park on the Green Line? I guess we don't know where Ashleigh lives, but it seems like it wouldn't be impossible for her to take public transportation.

There are a lot of suburbanites who just never think to do so.

Posted by Noah | July 21, 2008 9:23 AM

Kids won't quit driving. They'll hit up their parents for additional gas money. Work more hours at their jobs. They'll pump it and drive off. They'll buy gas legit and rob liquor stores, individuals or others for money. They'll visit friends but skip the shopping or eating out that goes with socializing. They won't stop driving. They'll adapt and move on.

Posted by steve duncan | July 21, 2008 9:29 AM

If you cannot afford to put gasoline in your car, then the family definitely cannot afford the expensive private school that is one of the requirements for living in a dense urban area with good transportation. I doubt if the Ashley's of the world really want to go to a high school that is 75% minorities and I doubt that her parents can afford to pay for something like the Dalton School.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 21, 2008 9:32 AM

I grew up in the exploding suburbia of the 50s. (The suburbs of the 80s and 90s actually exploded far more.) But bus service wouldn't be drastically curtailed by city governments until the 70s. Kids used buses. On their own. Without parents. Or we rode bikes. We went all over the place. And when we got where we were going, very often we spent money. Commerce was on-going. It didn't dry up because we hadn't used an automobile to get wherever it was we were going.

If the atomic-bomb horror movies of the 1950s were going to be remade today, they could do far worse than menace us with Not Driving a Car!!!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2008 9:34 AM

Just how far is precious Ashleigh driving to see her "friends"? Most teens I know have friends in the same school district and live within a few miles of each other. This might cost them a buck or two unless they are driving a Hummer of RV (Note to parents: not a good idea to buy your teenage daughter an RV!)

Posted by Scott Ferguson | July 21, 2008 9:34 AM

If you cannot afford to put gasoline in your car, then the family definitely cannot afford the expensive private school that is one of the requirements for living in a dense urban area with good transportation. I doubt if the Ashley's of the world really want to go to a high school that is 75% minorities and I doubt that her parents can afford to pay for something like the Dalton School.

Then again, Superdestroyer, not everyone is a racist fuckwad like you either.

Pick up your white robes at the cleaners from last weekends crossburning yet?

Posted by calipygian | July 21, 2008 9:36 AM

calipygian,

Senator obama is not even politically correct enough to put his own children into the Chicago Public Schools. The DC public schools are 95% minority and the rich whites of DC all send their children to private schools that costs anywhere from $10K to $30K per year.

If a middle class family in Rockville Maryland cannot afford to a $40 dollar tank of gas, I doubt that they can afford Georgetown Visitation or National Cathedral so that they can live in walkable DC.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 21, 2008 9:46 AM

It's called a Bike.

I used it until I could afford a used car and pay insurance.

Used to bike 30+ miles a day in the summer, all over my 5 town region to chill with middle school and high school friends, in a rural/suburb area.

these brats can too.

Posted by ComeOn | July 21, 2008 9:46 AM

This is going to be a critical issue for our future.

OMG, 18 yr girls not being able to hit the beach? Not being able to see their BFF Jill?

Posted by Really? | July 21, 2008 9:47 AM

It's called a Bike.

I used it until I could afford a used car and pay insurance.

Used to bike 30+ miles a day in the summer, all over my 5 town region to chill with middle school and high school friends, in a rural/suburb area.

these brats can too.

Posted by ComeOn | July 21, 2008 9:48 AM

At the time and in the place that I was a teenager, cars were not a means to social life; they were the substance of social life.

Rent American Graffiti. It's practically a documentary.

Posted by roac | July 21, 2008 9:53 AM

This is going to be a critical issue for our future.

OMG, 18 yr girls not being able to hit the beach? Not being able to see their BFF Jill?

I, too, am pretty unimpressed. The United States is practically the only country in the world where driving a car is a birthright and is done as a teenager. In Europe, you have to go through an extensive and expensive training course (thousands of dollars in Spain) before you get your license.

I drove a nuclear submarine before I ever drove a car. I'm sure teenagers will find a way to cope.

Posted by calipygian | July 21, 2008 9:59 AM

There are no transit links in Maryland ivo the DC Beltway? You want to extend the Metro system out to Delaware? Does CAP understand what they are getting?

Posted by Piling On | July 21, 2008 10:01 AM

Being a teenager in the United States means it's not easy to see your friends without a car.

I do sympathize: they spent all this time waiting to get a driver's license, at which time they'd be able to function like a normal person in their neighborhoods, finally able to go to stores and see friends on their own, and now they realize that they can't afford the cost of driving and don't have any alternatives.

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 10:04 AM

I understand your deep attachment to urban living, becuase I share it. But most people don't, so they move to the leafy surburbs as soon as they can afford it.

That lesson that came home to me when visiting Moscow in 1993. Only a few years after the Wall came down, Russians with money were already building themselves surburban houses.

Will Americans abandon surburban living due to high gas prices? Much more likely that they'll just shift to smaller cars with more-efficient powertrains (e.g., hybrids).

Posted by pireader | July 21, 2008 10:34 AM

I drove a nuclear submarine before I ever drove a car. I'm sure teenagers will find a way to cope.

Frankly, this attitude seems a bit elitist. Growing up, my family was poor and had to rely on cars for transportation. We couldn't even dream of affording a nuclear submarine.

Only the richest people in the town could afford their own submarines--although, since the town was in the mountains of New Mexico, the submarines were more status symbols than practical transportation.

Posted by James Gary | July 21, 2008 10:45 AM

Bah. We'll be in a new equilibrium before you know it, and it won't require Americans to shift to a denser, more urbanized way of life. Most Americans don't want to revert to the condition of huddled masses, clustered in co-dependent urban despondency around public transportation nodes, riding the train with a bunch of disgusting strangers, and yearning to breath free out in more open, private spaces. We are much more likely to see a move to somewhat smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, including cars running on new technologies, which will decrease both monthly car payments and the weekly energy layout.

Car culture makes sense for Americans on every level except the fuel efficiency level. But the latter can be addressed technologically, and will be addressed rather quickly as the new energy reality continues sink in.

I just picked up my wife and son at Logan Intl. Airport a couple of days ago. The airport has recently gone through some re-design. Did I see a bunch of new public transportation options? No. But I did see parking garages that now have blocks of premium parking spaces reserved for hybrid vehicles. That's only a tiny piece of the economic response and readjustment of American car culture.

A big city is a great place to live for an young man on the make, socially and professionally. But once Matt grows up, settles into a stable job and gets a family, he'll be singing a different tune.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 21, 2008 10:50 AM

James Gary wins the thread.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2008 10:53 AM

But bus service wouldn't be drastically curtailed by city governments until the 70s. Kids used buses. On their own. Without parents. Or we rode bikes. We went all over the place.

This is a huge factor: parents feel much more compelled to shelter their kids than they did when I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s. I was taking the train by myself when I was 11 years old from one suburb to another (Highland Park to Winnetka). When I was a teenager, we would take the train to downtown Chicago and wander around the Loop all day.

Now, in Los Angeles, I know people who won't let their 14-year-old cross Wilshire Boulevard on their own, much less wander around Westwood unescorted. Because if, God forbid, something happened, the chorus would be, "But why did you let your child ride the bus/go to the store/walk to school by him/herself? Didn't you know it's dangerous?!?!"

Remember the shitstorm that developed when a NY Post writer let her 9-year-old son ride the subway by himself? There were practically calls for child protective services to investigate her.

Posted by Mnemosyne | July 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Kervick, what do your children think about the fact that they're stranded at home unless you have the time and inclination to drive them anywhere? Doesn't sound like a very pleasant way to grow up.

On the other hand, plenty of people consider places like Newton, Wakefield, Roslindale, and West Roxbury, with ample nearby amenities to be perfectly fine places to live. I'm not sure why you consider those areas so horrible, and, for that matter, it seems like a fairly pleasant place for a kid to grow up, without the level of isolation that you seem to believe that everyone wants.

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 11:03 AM

Growing up in the suburbs, I couldn't wait to get out and never return. That was 20 years ago and I've never looked back. My urban neighborhood is full of life, has great places to shop, eat and be entertained. We have fantastic parks, great city schools (public) and best of all, having a car is optional. I myself have one but I rarely use, prefering to walk or ride my bike.

On the rare occasions that I have to venture out into the suburbs, I find myself in shock at the sheer ugliness of it all. The strip malls, the fast food joints, the souless shopping centers with big box retailers, homes that are cheaply built and will be gone long before my 60 year old home begins to show signs of age are all to much to bear and I find myself mocking those poor creatures who choose to live in this hell.

Posted by Kellygirl | July 21, 2008 11:07 AM

Growing up in the suburbs, I couldn't wait to get out and never return. That was 20 years ago and I've never looked back. My urban neighborhood is full of life, has great places to shop, eat and be entertained. We have fantastic parks, great city schools (public) and best of all, having a car is optional. I myself have one but I rarely use, prefering to walk or ride my bike.

On the rare occasions that I have to venture out into the suburbs, I find myself in shock at the sheer ugliness of it all. The strip malls, the fast food joints, the souless shopping centers with big box retailers, homes that are cheaply built and will be gone long before my 60 year old home begins to show signs of age are all to much to bear and I find myself mocking those poor creatures who choose to live in this hell.

Posted by Kellygirl | July 21, 2008 11:08 AM

Growing up in the suburbs, I couldn't wait to get out and never return. That was 20 years ago and I've never looked back. My urban neighborhood is full of life, has great places to shop, eat and be entertained. We have fantastic parks, great city schools (public) and best of all, having a car is optional. I myself have one but I rarely use, prefering to walk or ride my bike.

On the rare occasions that I have to venture out into the suburbs, I find myself in shock at the sheer ugliness of it all. The strip malls, the fast food joints, the souless shopping centers with big box retailers, homes that are cheaply built and will be gone long before my 60 year old home begins to show signs of age are all to much to bear and I find myself mocking those poor creatures who choose to live in this hell.

Posted by Kellygirl | July 21, 2008 11:10 AM

This is a huge factor: parents feel much more compelled to shelter their kids than they did when I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s. I was taking the train by myself when I was 11 years old from one suburb to another (Highland Park to Winnetka). When I was a teenager, we would take the train to downtown Chicago and wander around the Loop all day.

Now, in Los Angeles, I know people who won't let their 14-year-old cross Wilshire Boulevard on their own, much less wander around Westwood unescorted.

This is indeed a big factor. Because absent this, even suburban kids could get around pretty well with bikes and buses.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 21, 2008 11:25 AM

Well the gas prices go UP, and rate of pay stays right were it is. No wonder Teenagers are having a hissy fit on this. Start wlaking, riding bikes, public transit. Those are the only ways to survive for those who do not make a desent living. My 2 cents on the matter...

Posted by Jim Jernigan | July 21, 2008 11:27 AM

Well the gas prices go UP, and rate of pay stays right were it is. No wonder Teenagers are having a hissy fit on this. Start walking, riding bikes, public transit. Those are the only ways to survive for those who do not make a desent living. My 2 cents on the matter...

Posted by Jim Jernigan | July 21, 2008 11:29 AM

A friend of mine had a long-distance relationship that took him to Germany. His US license allowed him to drive his girlfriend to the driving school track, where lots of German teenagers get to drive around cones and learn how not to put their cars into ditches. He got to learn how to ride a motorbike.

Still, Kervick's more honest than [expletive deletedner] about the whole eew-the-smelly-masses thing.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 21, 2008 11:30 AM

Well the gas prices go UP, and rate of pay stays right were it is. No wonder Teenagers are having a hissy fit on this. Start walking, riding bikes, public transit. Those are the only ways to survive for those who do not make a desent living. My 2 cents on the matter...

Posted by Jim Jernigan | July 21, 2008 11:30 AM

Well the gas prices go UP, and rate of pay stays right were it is. No wonder Teenagers are having a hissy fit on this. Start walking, riding bikes, public transit. Those are the only ways to survive for those who do not make a desent living. My 2 cents on the matter...

Posted by Jim Jernigan | July 21, 2008 11:31 AM

Start walking, riding bikes, public transit.

As Matt pointed out, they do not live in neighborhoods where these are viable options. Their neighborhoods were designed around automobile travel, with no transit options, little within walking distance, and streets and routes that make biking more difficult than it would be had their neighborhoods been designed to accomodate biking. That is the problem.

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 11:32 AM

As someone who rides a bike daily in a typical U.S. suburban sprawl city, I don't really recommend it for teens. It's dangerous as hell, drivers don't respect you and most suburban areas have narrow streets that were not built with bikes in mind.

I tend to stick with residential side streets. Someone who wants to go to the mall on a bike is going to have to brave four-six-eight-+ lane urban corridors on a bike. That's not particularly wise.

We built our cities and suburbs for cars. Biking on many of our streets is a high-risk sport.

Posted by Wilm | July 21, 2008 11:40 AM

Kellygirl,

Unless you give us the name of the city or general area, it is hard to believe your claims. My guess you are talking about a college town and not really talking about living in Manhatten, Chicago, DC, or Philly.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 21, 2008 11:44 AM

Minneapolis suburbs of the 1960's. Thousands and thousands of homes replaced the rows of corn
and beans. No stores. No community centers. No bus service. No restaurants. No movie theaters.
These were called bedroom communities, and they
weren't kidding either.

Schools fed by buses, using some random address-to-school algorithm; our friends were scattered over the entire county. Bikes were useful - a few months out of the year.

We teenagers lived for the day the bus service finally
arrived. One line, which stopped 2+ miles away,
but at least we could get back into the city that
our parents hated and fled.

It was a great life for our parents, probably.

Never lived in a suburb since.

Today, those suburbs are filled with stores,
restaurants (buses not so much, but better).
Bad thing is that every creek and forest that
still existed in the 60's is completed paved
and replanted with dwellings.

Posted by Ancient one | July 21, 2008 11:47 AM

Still, Kervick's more honest than [expletive deletedner] about the whole eew-the-smelly-masses thing.

No, you missed the comment last week where Mixner came clean about this. His position was exactly what you said - buses are unrideable because of the foul body odors of their passengers.

Posted by roac | July 21, 2008 11:50 AM

superdestroyer, what on earth are you babbling about? Your comment makes no sense.

In any case, many "college towns" are also "cities." And, as MattY always repeatedly points out to the particularly thick-skulled, living in a denser are does not mean "living in Manhattan." It can mean living in Madison, Wisconsin or Ann Arbor, Michigan or Newton, MA.

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 11:51 AM

Tyro,

Kellygirl stated that she lived in an urban area with great public schools (I assumed she is sending her kids to the great public schools but she did not say).

If you look at the public schools in NYC, Chicago, Philly, DC, LA, SF, there are a few magnet programs that whites try to get their children into or they send their children to private schools.

Anyone who argues that living in a dense urban area with children is cheaper is insane. In DC, there is a very high premium on any condo/apartment within walking distance of metro. the Bus/metro combination is much slower than driving and less reliable even given traffic.

I just wanted to hear the name of the urban area that has a high quality of life and great public schools. Somehow, I doubt that she will answer.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 21, 2008 11:59 AM

I live in Tokyo which has 130 subway and rail lines. The service and speed are unimaginable for people living in the states. Every train stop has a walkable neighborhood surrounding it. Biking is also quiet popular. People have a standard of living about that as Americans. Getting a car is seen more of an expensive hobby that lasts a few years... driving school usually takes six months and costs $3000.

In addition most people aren't fat. Not driving and not eating convenience food seems to keep most people fit... give it a try.

Posted by bob | July 21, 2008 12:08 PM

Does anyone have faith in the teenagers? I myself am a teenager-and i see this dilema not as a problem, but as an opportunity. People can rise to this situation, it is not just the problem of the teens, other people drive too.

(Biking is)dangerous as hell, drivers don't respect you and most suburban areas have narrow streets that were not built with bikes in mind.-Wilm

I have taken up biking as a resort to the gas prices sometimes, but not everyone is immediatly going to switch. I truely think that we all need little adjustments before big dramatic ones. For example, carpooling. It takes the number of cars on the road dramatically down-and its a social ploy. Its a trick to meet new people and develop social skills that so many of us today are lacking as a result of wireless devices constantly in our faces.

Just to put my views out there. There is a way, we just need to accomodate it.

Posted by we can do it | July 21, 2008 12:13 PM

Pretty sad, really, but superdestroyer is pretty much correct on everything. I am a super liberal, ultra progressive, uber democrat. However, I would never send my kids to public school in the medium size city i live in. no way. So we pay for private school ($20K total a year for two kids, plus many additional associated expenses). That's the choice we made by living in the city and having a short commute and being able to walk to restaurants and other cool things. I don't know of any non-black family that sends their kids to the public schools. I wish it was different but it just isn't. Calling superdestroyer a racist for stating what is just plainly true is not going to solve the problem.

Posted by Sebsi | July 21, 2008 12:17 PM

urban public schools can be as good or better than any suburban public schools

all it takes is funding

and for anyone who says that's just throwing money at the problem, well, that conservative line of crap is so untrue it's laughable, and most people who say that send their kids to very very very expensive private schools

this country can pay for prisons or it can pay for schools, but we will pay one way or another

i live in a very rich suburb where the property taxes are extremely low and there is no crime, and people -- 99.9999 percent white so race is not an issue -- all choose private school because there is no funding and no support for public education

but it doesn't have to be that way

Posted by etf | July 21, 2008 12:27 PM

urban public schools can be as good or better than any suburban public schools

all it takes is funding

and for anyone who says that's just throwing money at the problem, well, that conservative line of crap is so untrue it's laughable, and most people who say that send their kids to very very very expensive private schools

this country can pay for prisons or it can pay for schools, but we will pay one way or another

i live in a very rich suburb where the property taxes are extremely low and there is no crime, and people -- 99.9999 percent white so race is not an issue -- all choose private school because there is no funding and no support for public education

but it doesn't have to be that way

Posted by etf | July 21, 2008 12:29 PM

roac: oh, I saw [expletive deletedner]'s comment, and it's not as if we couldn't tell it's all a projection of his sociophobia. He does bury it in Fresh Kills-sized heaps of bullshit, though.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 21, 2008 12:33 PM

I live in the BIG BAD MURDER FILLED CITY of Baltimore (duck and cover, people) and *GASP* even raise my TEENAGER IN THE CITY!!! *DOUBLE GASP*

WOAH! I even send her to PRIVATE SCHOOL!!! with her scholarship award and a decent reduction in tuition from financial aid (both my husband and I are still working on our own higher educations and they actually take that into consideration when evaluating means of payment) The cost I pay for my child to attend is less then my friends in the 'burbs with small children pay for child daycare. While B-more city taxes kinda sucks, I paid a pretty reasonable price for my home in a nice neighborhood. While crime is a problem in Baltimore,(not bad in my 'hood) the burbs have their own issues as well....Crime is everywhere in all forms. it's how it's reported....

When I lived in the affluent suburbs of DC,(probably the same suburb that Ashleigh Krudy lives) I found that infrastructure did not accommodate the explosion in growth. Schools were grossly understaffed and overpopulated. Teachers had 40-45 students per class and were hardly prepared to deal with the large class sizes.
When I was a teen living in this area, REC centers originally designed to be places for teenagers to hang out within the planned community of Columbia, MD were either phased out and turned into "gymborees" and small child rec centers. We started to hang out at the McDonald's and 7-11 after they started "Cracking down" on teens hanging out at the mall. By the time my sister graduated HS in 1997, most of her friends (who came from affluent families) were hooked on heroin. why? They were BORED.

While living in the horrible, evil city, My daughter has community projects to involve herself in. (Theater projects, community development, social justice leagues) She can spend her social time with her friends at the local park that hosts music on certain days and performances on others. She has the community pool at her disposal for a mere 2$. she can walk to the stores, take the buses to her community theater and her friends houses. Why, she can even ride her bike!

I encourage her freedom and teach responsibilty. she makes her own decisions on certain things and has some pretty good judgment from our guidance. Do I believe this is because she is an urban teen? No, not entirely--I think it might have something to do with our parenting. However, the resources from living in an urban environment are tenfold to what I had growing up in the 'burbs. Her experience is much more enriching and she will grow up with more tolerance then I ever did. She will learn how to depend on both a car (and even a car sharing program) and mass transit. She'll be more aware of her surroundings and better suited to adaptability after her college graduation. Again, parenting plays a huge role, but the city serves as a great classroom.

Posted by TheHolyFatman | July 21, 2008 12:55 PM

Kervick, what do your children think about the fact that they're stranded at home unless you have the time and inclination to drive them anywhere? Doesn't sound like a very pleasant way to grow up.

I never heard that complaint, although I only have one son.

Just for some context, I don't live in the suburbs around Boston. I live in New Hampshire, and the town I live in borders the capital, Concord, and has a population of just a bit over 6,000. Some might describe it as a "suburb" of Concord. But Concord is itself a very small city. Where I grew up in northern Connecticut, a suburb of Hartford with a population of about 15,000, which was smaller than most of the towns and small cities in the vicinity, we would have described the town I live in now as "the country". There are lots of woods and ponds, and the human impact on the natural world is much lighter than it was in the cleared and manicured suburb where I grew up. The property lots themselves tend to be at least half wooded. There are no strip malls in my town, and no fast food restaurants. In fact, there are almost no retail businesses of any kind. We don't even have a pizza shop. But the proximity of Concord makes that all quite bearable.

Concord is itself a lovely little city. There is one ugly suburban-style strip, but the heart of the city is a very attractive, clean, safe, walkable downtown near the capital, dominated by the city's older brick and granite architecture.

Like most kids around here, my son rode his bike everywhere when he was younger, including to downtown Concord, which is about five miles away, and to other neighborhoods in Concord. When he was between 14 and 16, he had lots of older friends with cars, and got around that way, using the bike from time to time when no buddy with a car was available. Now that he is 16, he drives everywhere. We currently subsidize the driving heavily. We have two family cars that my wife and I use for work and tend to keep filled up. Every so often, we give my son grief about not putting gas in the car, and he'll drop ten bucks or so into the tank. We usually make him buy the gas for long trips, which are becoming more frequent. We will probably get him a car for the coming school year, which he will then be responsible for filling up himself.

As someone who is totally dependent on, and addicted to, car travel myself, I can't imagine living with the lack of independence and self-determination that public transportation would require. It is true that when I visit cities, as I do on business, I love putting the car in the parking garage and getting around by rail, or especially on foot. (I can't abide buses.) But in very large cities it is economical to build public transportation systems that run frequent routes, and so the loss of one's own car doesn't limit one's independence. In most places in this country, however, this would not be at all feasible. Public transportation, if it were built at all, would need to run much less frequent routes. This would make it very inconvenient, and unlikely to be used.

Now Matt suggests this can be changed by large-scale move to more dense living. But I imagine a lot of Americans are like me, and prefer less sparsely populated surroundings. Cities are great places to visit, but we wouldn't want to live there. For example, I like to walk my dog for a couple of miles each night at around at midnight or so. There are no cars, hardly any lights on, dead quiet, with stars in the sky, and just me, the dog, and the critters such as owls, bats, some deer, an occasional fox or coyote spotting. I know I couldn't long take the noise, the congestion, the smells, the constant light, the absence of stars, and the permanent round-the clock buzz of human activity in a densely populated urban area.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 21, 2008 12:56 PM

I live in the BIG BAD MURDER FILLED CITY of Baltimore (duck and cover, people) and *GASP* even raise my TEENAGER IN THE CITY!!! *DOUBLE GASP* /snark

WOAH! I even send her to PRIVATE SCHOOL!!! with her scholarship award and a decent reduction in tuition from financial aid (both my husband and I are still working on our own higher educations and they actually take that into consideration when evaluating means of payment) The cost I pay for my child to attend is less then my friends in the 'burbs with small children pay for child daycare. While B-more city taxes kinda sucks, I paid a pretty reasonable price for my home in a nice neighborhood. While crime is a problem in Baltimore,(not bad in my 'hood) the burbs have their own issues as well....Crime is everywhere in all forms. it's how it's reported....

When I lived in the affluent suburbs of DC,(probably the same suburb that Ashleigh Krudy lives) I found that infrastructure did not accommodate the explosion in growth. Schools were grossly understaffed and overpopulated. Teachers had 40-45 students per class and were hardly prepared to deal with the large class sizes.
When I was a teen living in this area, REC centers originally designed to be places for teenagers to hang out within the planned community of Columbia, MD were either phased out and turned into "gymborees" and small child rec centers. We started to hang out at the McDonald's and 7-11 after they started "Cracking down" on teens hanging out at the mall. By the time my sister graduated HS in 1997, most of her friends (who came from affluent families) were hooked on heroin. why? They were BORED.

While living in the horrible, evil city, My daughter has community projects to involve herself in. (Theater projects, community development, social justice leagues) She can spend her social time with her friends at the local park that hosts music on certain days and performances on others. She has the community pool at her disposal for a mere 2$. she can walk to the stores, take the buses to her community theater and her friends houses. Why, she can even ride her bike!

I encourage her freedom and teach responsibilty. she makes her own decisions on certain things and has some pretty good judgment from our guidance. Do I believe this is because she is an urban teen? No, not entirely--I think it might have something to do with our parenting. However, the resources from living in an urban environment are tenfold to what I had growing up in the 'burbs. Her experience is much more enriching and she will grow up with more tolerance then I ever did. She will learn how to depend on both a car (and even a car sharing program) and mass transit. She'll be more aware of her surroundings and better suited to adaptability after her college graduation. Again, parenting plays a huge role, but the city serves as a great classroom.

Posted by TheHolyFatman | July 21, 2008 12:58 PM

Now Matt suggests this can be changed by large-scale move to more dense living. ...I know I couldn't long take the noise, the congestion, the smells, the constant light, the absence of stars, and the permanent round-the clock buzz of human activity in a densely populated urban area.

Your preferences be able to be reset. Mine were.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 21, 2008 1:03 PM

Dan Kervick provides a compelling explanation for why New Hampshire is one of America's most populous states. Everyone, after all, wants to live someplace sparsely populated.

To date, I've actually been unable to understand why many people do not associate "dense" with places like Portsmouth, NH or Newburyport, MA-- places with neighborhoods that are easily accessible and where there are things to do and places to go within a couple of miles. It's very difficult to have conversations with people whose only conception of society is "isolated exurb" and "huge city." It's why having these conversations on MattY's blog is so difficult.

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 1:08 PM

THF, sounds like you are pretty lucky to have found a private school that offers financial aid. I have not been able to find one that was willing to offer aid at my income level. I really don't know why you sound so snarky. I very much doubt everyone or even a sizable minority of kids in the suburbs are hooked on heroin. that's just silly.

i love living in the city, but i can afford it. most people have to make a choice between living in the wonderful convenience that is urban life and having good free schools for their kids. once you graduate from school and not living on stipends you will find you are on the same boat.

Posted by sebsi | July 21, 2008 1:10 PM

THF, sounds like you are pretty lucky to have found a private school that offers financial aid. I have not been able to find one that was willing to offer aid at my income level. I really don't know why you sound so snarky. I very much doubt everyone or even a sizable minority of kids in the suburbs are hooked on heroin. that's just silly.

i love living in the city, but i can afford it. most people have to make a choice between living in the wonderful convenience that is urban life and having good free schools for their kids. once you graduate from school and not living on stipends you will find you are on the same boat.

Posted by sebsi | July 21, 2008 1:11 PM

I might also add that in all my years of using public transport, I've never thought that there was a problem with the body odor of people sitting or standing near me. Maybe my olfactory system is not nearly as keen and sensitive as those of the other commenters here, but I really can't say this issue ever came up.

As far as troublesome people sitting by me, I've always had more problem with the loudmouthed douche in the pink polo shirt sitting near me in a crowded diner/restaurant that anyone I've sat near on a metro.

Is my experience unusual? Are people confronted daily with foul-smelling neighbors that apparently populate the metro systems of our cities?

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 1:12 PM

Public transport is not a single category sui generis.

There are public transport systems that are a handful of circulator routes to get the poorer folks and retired folks in apartments on the edge of town to the supermarket, and a single main bus route that connects the county seat to the college town to the main strip mall in the area.

There are public transport systems with trains that run every half hour or more during the day and at least once every two hours in the middle of the night.

I've lived with both systems (one, of course, not in the States) ... and the surrender of "freedom of movement" of even a mediocre rail line combined with a folding bike is much, much less than the surrender of "freedom of movement" relying on walking and a bus route that runs infrequently and shuts down fairly early in the evening.

If you live in a small town embedded in Northeast Ohio outer suburbia, a bike is an essential complement to public transport ... relying on public transport alone is too much of a surrender of freedom of movement.

Posted by BruceMcF | July 21, 2008 1:27 PM

sebsi:

I chose to send my daughter to a parochial school, which, in comparison, is far cheaper and offers more in financial aid then a secular private school.
Secondly, there was a weird epidemic of heroin abuse within the community I grew up in in the 90's. I saw neighbors children I had babysat sent to rehab, heard of friends that I had grown up with dying of overdoses. It wasn't widely reported because that would upset the fabric of the blissful suburban community that is such a lovely place to grow up in. My own sister had her own problems with addiction. Two teens died of overdoses in 1999 and there was a small blurb about a possible problem. After that, it was just whispers on the wind about these kids I had known for so long battling their own addictions. It was quite sad, actually.

My point is that it isn't the environment that children grow up in, it's the absence of community involvement and decent parenting. IMHO, there is no sense of community in the suburbs; it's every man for himself. There is something to be said about the whole "It takes a village.." thing.

Posted by TheHolyFatman | July 21, 2008 1:47 PM

I live in one of the least car-friendly major cities in the U.S. and once did six difficult months without a car here. And I now am forced to listen to coworkers complain and scheme against high gas prices for at least an hour a day.

For the people with newer cars, which is many if not most of us and many blue-collar folks, whether they're dealing with financing payments, leasing payments or depreciation, they're paying, on the low end, $250/month plus insurance of, what, $100 month. Let's imagine a car gets 20 mpg and drives 1000 miles a month. That's 50 gallons a month, which is $200 now versus around $75 in the mid-'90s. The total cost of owning and operating a vehicle then is around $550/month versus $400/month, or $18.33/day versus $13.33/day. An all-day pass on local transport is $3/day or $2/day for an allocated-rate monthly pass, which means you're saving a paltry three bucks. For a lot of people, that's not worth having to adhere to schedules, sharing space with people who many harbor irrational fears of, not having the freedom to scoot out for lunch or an emergency, etc. If you have to pay a decent amount to park, that $3 of saving might suddenly jump to $10 or more. If public transport causes you less stress or you can get work or other stuff done while riding, it may be well worth it to you. However, it's just not a life-changing discomfort yet.

What is rational is a couple subsisting with one car, which would save money, be healthy, etc. But if you own a car, unless you really enjoy public transport and/or live in a location very convenient to it, it's not worth it unless you live in a very small number of cities.

Posted by Mike | July 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Um, I'm an idiot and forgot to factor in that the public transport folks won't be paying that $75 in gas and may instead be paying $25/month on gas, which means around $5/day savings for public transport at a convoluted and generic but somewhat generous estimate.

Posted by Mike | July 21, 2008 2:13 PM

For a lot of people, that's not worth . . . sharing space with people who many harbor irrational fears of

There it is again.

Posted by roac | July 21, 2008 2:40 PM

not having the freedom to scoot out for lunch or an emergency

Well, if they're taking public transport to a destination in which many offices and retail facilities are close by, then, yes, you can do this. That's why you can't just lay down a public transport infrastructure and assume it will "just work." You also have to support better design of the areas along the public transport corridor.

I went from having a job in a downtown office building where I would "scoot out" for lunch or other appointments all the time, or even stop to get coffee with my coworkers. By contrast, I now find myself working in an office building in a huge office park where the front gate is a long walk, to say nothing of any available amenities. So, yes, having a car makes it more convenient in the location I work in now, but that's because where I work was designed with the assumption that everyone comes here by car. If it had been designed differently and placed in a different neighborhood, that wouldn't be an issue.

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 2:47 PM

eft said :urban public schools can be as good or better than any suburban public schools

all it takes is funding

The problem is the (sub)urban planning of the postwar era has devastated the tax base that paid for urban schools. The development of the suburbs was in James Howard Kunslter's words "a gigantic exercise in futility and a waste of precious resources". It took a long time to get us in this misallocation of resources; will take many decades to get out.

Posted by e | July 21, 2008 3:48 PM

E,

the urban areas receive spend more per student than suburban areas. Urban areas generally have lower fertility and a higher percentage of students in private schools.

Utah disproves the idea that money = education. They have the lowest school funding of any state and there schools are in the top half of states.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 21, 2008 3:56 PM

the urban areas receive spend more per student than suburban areas

That's where I think you're wrong. Let's see your numbers.

Posted by e | July 21, 2008 4:26 PM

i would love to see some research on whether sinking money into bad public schools makes a difference. when i was shopping for private schools, the only thing i looked at was the quality of the other children and their parents. i can't imagine how the quality of the teacher, much less what kind of supplies she has in her classroom could possibly make a difference. the public school down the road from the private school my kids go to has 100X nicer facilities. they pay their teachers more. none of it seems to make a difference. the place is a hellhole. i don't know what the solution is.

Posted by Sebsi | July 21, 2008 4:29 PM

the urban areas receive spend more per student than suburban areas

Also, superdestroyer, please don't forget to include cost of transportation in the per-student spending figure, and extrapolate that over the next 10 years given current and future petroleum prices.

Posted by e | July 21, 2008 4:32 PM

i can't imagine how the quality of the teacher, much less what kind of supplies she has in her classroom could possibly make a difference.

Quality of teachers does make a difference. Didn't you ever go to school? Part of it is that the nature of private school student bodies allows (and attracts) teachers to speak above the students' level and bring them along with him, rather than forcing the teacher to spend time doing semi-remedial work trying to make sure the students at the bottom of the class can catch up. And it's not a matter of better supplies maknig a difference so much as money buying the ability for teachers to simply not have to worry about supplies issues.

All I know is the following: the very best private schools cost $20k/yr in tuition, and usually have expenses that run $30k-$40k/student/year (the difference made up by donations and endowment income).

By contrast, money spent in cities, even if it approaches the $15k-$20k/student range, ends up being spent on special education services, administration, and much more expensive vo-tech instruction. Private and elite suburban schools generally don't face those same expenses. Nevertheless, "e" is in the wrong regarding *relative* levels of spending. In general, you see poor rural and suburban school districts spending less money per pupil than poor urban school districts.

If you've ever stepped inside a DC school building, however, you will quickly notice that the facilities and physical plant are terrible and not anything close to what one can get for one's money in a suburb.

On the other hand, I can imagine that the situation in cities like Madison or Minneapolis are much different.

Posted by Tyro | July 21, 2008 5:08 PM

As Matt pointed out, they do not live in neighborhoods where these are viable options. Their neighborhoods were designed around automobile travel, with no transit options

This is simply not true for the person Matt pointed out. In 2008, in neighborhoods inside or next to the Beltway, there are *plenty* of options. College Park, is well, a college town, with a Metro rail stop and connecting bus service. And North Bethesda is at the north end of a bike trail which follows Rock Creek park, plus some connecting trails that can get you from Mont to PG counties. And North Bethesda has bus service. and other modes.

And the complaint was also "Wah! I can't go to the beach" which has nothing to do with walkable neighborhoods or transit options. Unless you want a rail system from DC to the shore (not an entirely terrible idea actually. But good look getting a new bridge across the chesapeake anytime this century)

As Brad Delong would say 'why can't we have better bloggers?'

Posted by Kolohe | July 21, 2008 6:11 PM

"look" -> "luck" - why can't i do a better preview?

Posted by Kolohe | July 21, 2008 6:23 PM

Nevertheless, "e" is in the wrong regarding *relative* levels of spending. In general, you see poor rural and suburban school districts spending less money per pupil than poor urban school districts.

Tryo, you went from comparing all suburban schools to all urban to poor suburban + rural to poor urban.

Posted by e | July 21, 2008 6:43 PM

e,

If you look at /schoolfinder.globalscholar.com you can look up the per pupil spending for most school districts. As an example, Baltimore City spends more money per pupil than Balitmore County (the suburbs do). DC spends over twice per student than Utah.

Now there are a few suburban schools district in NY, NJ, And Conn that spend an enormous amount but if you look at most urban areas, the urban school distirct spends more money per student than the suburbs and especially the far suburbs.

Since you brought up transportation, I bet that DC spends more money on transportation and other fuel related costs than Salt Lake City because of busing programs, unionized bus drivers, and mismanagement.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 21, 2008 6:52 PM

I think this is my favorite piece from the story:

But as prices rose, (Jessica Fainberg, 18, of Potomac, a recent graduate of Winston Churchill High School) has come up short. "Half the time, I can't afford to even fill up my gas tank halfway," she said. She said part of the problem is the vehicle she fell in love with: a Nissan Xterra. "The first day I filled up, it was like $65, and I was like, 'Oh, man.' "

Aww, gee, what a shock: you bought an off-road land barge that you'll probably never get further "off-road" than a gravel parking lot, and you're surprised that you can't afford to fill it up?

Zero sympathy here. Live by the gas-guzzler, die by the gas prices.

Perhaps we'll start waking up to the petroleum reality. But I'm not optimistic, if Ms. Fainberg is any indicator.

Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman | July 21, 2008 7:49 PM

As an example, Baltimore City spends more money per pupil than Balitmore County (the suburbs do).

http://schoolfinder.globalscholar.com/schools/state/maryland/md.aspx

superdestroyer, you are right - the City spends more than the County - $11085 versus $10747. Wow, a whopping 3% - is that enough to prove that spending of money has no bearing on quality of education? And if you're going to compare Salt Lake City to Baltimore, shouldn't you adjust for the relative cost of living, given that Baltimore's a more expensive location and close to DC? Why not compare, Baltimore County with Montgomery County, right next door, where the per-pupil spending is a princely $14,372?

And also, isn't it odd that this site even bothers to post spending per pupil, given that it has no bearing on educational quality?

Posted by e | July 21, 2008 8:11 PM

e,

I can look up the racial makeup of public schools but every progressive who has their own children in private schools keeps telling me that the racial makeup does not matter.

If you look at DC, at over $18K they are more expensive than the surrounding near suburbs or Montgomery County, Arlington County, City of Alexandria, Fairfax county.

What should really be humorous is that the mean SAT score in white students Fairfax County Virginia is sligtly higher than the mean SAT score for white students in Montgomry County. I guess the additional $2K that Montgomery county spends is not really paying off. Of course the mean SAT scores for the college prep schools is a bout 100 points higher than the white/Asian score in either county.

It still reinforces my initial point, it is cheaper for middle class whites to live in the suburbs and pay for gasoline than live in the walkable neighborhoods that are safe enough for whites and pay for private school (along with higher insurance costs and higher fuel costs for the one car they do have.

Also, something Matthew being single forgets is that public transportation has a much higher marginal costs for each additional family member than driving does.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 21, 2008 9:03 PM

it is cheaper for middle class whites to live in the suburbs and pay for gasoline than live in the walkable neighborhoods that are safe enough for whites and pay for private school

Too bad those are are only choices. Some might suggest revitalizing cities and investing in infrastructure that makes it possible to live a normal life without driving everywhere, but both of us know that's crazy talk.

Posted by e | July 21, 2008 9:22 PM

I thought teens were dependent on game consoles and text messaging in lieu of "hanging out." These kids need to get with the program. Nothing ever comes of "hanging out" with friends except that misguided kids end up performing inexpert oral sex on each other, just so they can say they did something "dirty" before they died. Remote communication via personal computing devices is WAAY more sexy...

Posted by Mr Blifil | July 21, 2008 10:04 PM

I thought teens were dependent on game consoles and text messaging in lieu of "hanging out." These kids need to get with the program. Nothing ever comes of "hanging out" with friends except that misguided kids end up performing inexpert oral sex on each other, just so they can say they did something "dirty" before they died. Remote communication via personal computing devices is WAAY more sexy...

Posted by Mr Blifil | July 21, 2008 10:04 PM

e,

since there is not politically corect way to revitalize inner cities, then yes it is crazy talk, The demands that revitilization would make on law enforcement, management of municiple government, public school administration make the idea insane. At best the rich can stake out small areas to estalbish safer neighborhoods and good private schools.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 22, 2008 5:14 AM

Superdestroyer, thanks for clearing that up and dispelling everyone's naive hopes. The American dream is over, welcome to Brazil/Russia/South Africa, where a tiny upper class lives in security and opulence and everyone else lives in squalor...awesome.

Posted by e | July 22, 2008 12:11 PM

One of the odd things about a place like Washington, DC is the absence of blue collar whites. You will never see a white person busing a table, delivering your furniture, picking up the garbage, or working in a convenience store. If you ever talk to a white tradesmen, you quickly realize they are from Hagertown, Winschester, Baltimore County, etc.

It is a shock to go to someplace like Huntsville Alabama with a long term DC resident and see them freak out that the guy working at the convenience store is white or to see a white 20-something female busing tables at a restaurant.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 22, 2008 12:22 PM

superdestroyer, you know what shocks me about places like Huntsville Alabama? That the guy working in the convenience store is a SOUTHERNER!

You would think there would be more blue-collar Yankkes in Huntsville, but you want around, and everyone, from the convenience store clerk to the waiter is speaking with a southern accent! I know, it was hard to get over.

Posted by Tyro | July 22, 2008 1:03 PM