Why suburbia sucks (Atlanta, Marietta, Alpharetta: apartment complex, cost of living, gym)

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by arjay57

As to daily activities, I'd point out that Americans have some of the shortest commuting times in the developed world.

While I can walk to places such as grocery stores, restaurants, banks, movies, retail, etc., within 15 minutes or less, it's generally easier, faster and more comfortable to do those errands by a short car trip.

I'm not sure I understand why that's significant.

Yes, lots of car trips are, in fact, quite short. I remember marvelling at that fact when we lived in Dunwoody. Very seldom did I need to venture more than a mile or two in any direction, and often half a mile. And yet, as you say, it was generally easier, faster and more comfortable to drive. It's because the place was designed for driving, not walking.

And given the extent to which the US is decentralised, it follows that a larger proportion of Americans live in small or small-ish places and so aren't stuck in gridlock. But "average" obscures a lot. I would guess that American cities rank fairly high on commute time globally, though they will still be outstripped by numerous large cities that were not designed for cars but to where the link between car acquisition and social status has been exported.

Anyway, what's the point? That not everywhere does one need to drive 38 miles to work and that not everyone is 5 mi from their nearest grocery store? Or is the novel thesis here that cars go faster than humans? (Except in gridlock.) No controversy on either point. :-)

Commute times are an opaque concept that doesn't give weight to overall economic efficiency, sustainability, or the qualitative dimension of the commute. An hour-long commute on a decent train (think Japan--that's why so many choose to live further out) is a lot more tolerable than an hour or more stuck on I-75.

I would be interested to see a comparison of average commute distances rather than commute times, as well as a comparison of percentage of GDP spent on transportation.

[sstsunami55]

Originally Posted by abalashov

I'm not sure I understand why that's significant.

Yes, lots of car trips are, in fact, quite short. I remember marvelling at that fact when we lived in Dunwoody. Very seldom did I need to venture more than a mile or two in any direction, and often half a mile. And yet, as you say, it was generally easier, faster and more comfortable to drive. It's because the place was designed for driving, not walking.

And given the extent to which the US is decentralised, it follows that a larger proportion of Americans live in small or small-ish places and so aren't stuck in gridlock. But "average" obscures a lot. I would guess that American cities rank fairly high on commute time globally, though they will still be outstripped by numerous large cities that were not designed for cars but to where the link between car acquisition and social status has been exported.

Anyway, what's the point? That not everywhere does one need to drive 38 miles to work and that not everyone is 5 mi from their nearest grocery store? Or is the novel thesis here that cars go faster than humans? (Except in gridlock.) No controversy on either point. :-)

Commute times are an opaque concept that doesn't give weight to overall economic efficiency, sustainability, or the qualitative dimension of the commute. An hour-long commute on a decent train (think Japan--that's why so many choose to live further out) is a lot more tolerable than an hour or more stuck on I-75.

I would be interested to see a comparison of average commute distances rather than commute times, as well as a comparison of percentage of GDP spent on transportation.

In Japan, even if may people choose to live further out, that doesn't affect the density there. There are still plenty of people living closer in. And if an hour-long commute on I-75 is so intolerable, then why do people choose to live farther out?

[demonta4]

Originally Posted by Aubie16

Everybody here has a tendency to grossly oversimplify complicated issues.

That's because it's simple. A community thrives because of the people there. If the people leave it declines. What's there to complicate?

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by sstsunami55

And if an hour-long commute on I-75 is so intolerable, then why do people choose to live farther out?

A combination of (1) strong folk traditions angled against cities and (2) affordability, since most housing stock is in suburbia.

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by sstsunami55

In Japan, even if may people choose to live further out, that doesn't affect the density there. There are still plenty of people living closer in. And if an hour-long commute on I-75 is so intolerable, then why do people choose to live farther out?

Drive to qualify, they feel they can get 'more house for their money' further out, but they do not factor in the cost of gas/maintenance, buy a new car year few years, the cost on their QoL that they endure long commutes and do not get to see their families at evenings.

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Drive to qualify, they feel they can get 'more house for their money' further out, but they do not factor in the cost of gas/maintenance, buy a new car year few years, the cost on their QoL that they endure long commutes and do not get to see their families at evenings.

Indeed. The dominant aspiration is to own a product called a "house", and the things that make it desirable as reputed to be "square footage". Very little thought is given to its relationship to the surrounding community or life at large, at least, beyond the level of "Publix is a convenient two-mile drive away".

But to be fair, certainly suburban car commuters are not the only ones with a lengthy commute. Not everyone is a 10-minute train ride from their work, even in the most compact cities with the most effective transport systems. When commutes involve regional trains or multiple modes, things can get complicated.

However, for many reasons already discussed here, that is a more rational, affordable and sustainable form of commuting misery than more freeways.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by abalashov

But to be fair, certainly suburban car commuters are not the only ones with a lengthy commute. Not everyone is a 10-minute train ride from their work, even in the most compact cities with the most effective transport systems. When commutes involve regional trains or multiple modes, things can get complicated.

Folks with the best commutes are those who (a) live and work in the suburbs and (b) those who live and work in the central city. They both average about 21 minutes.

If you're doing the mass transit thing it will typically take about twice as long, but that includes those who are taking the bus.

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Folks with the best commutes are those who (a) live and work in the suburbs and (b) those who live and work in the central city. They both average about 21 minutes.

I don't know if the second one is true in Atlanta.

In my time employed in the corporate world (out in the suburbs), almost everyone I ran into lived "in the suburbs" too, but different ones. For example, almost everyone at a company I worked for in Alpharetta was coming in from Marietta, Woodstock, Kennesaw, Dacula, Duluth, or in quite a few cases, Stone Mountain, Tucker, Acworth and the like. Every single one of those people spend substantially, royally more than 21 minutes each way, even without traffic.

[Big L]

Originally Posted by abalashov

I don't know if the second one is true in Atlanta.

In my time employed in the corporate world (out in the suburbs), almost everyone I ran into lived "in the suburbs" too, but different ones. For example, almost everyone at a company I worked for in Alpharetta was coming in from Marietta, Woodstock, Kennesaw, Dacula, Duluth, or in quite a few cases, Stone Mountain, Tucker, Acworth and the like. Every single one of those people spend substantially, royally more than 21 minutes each way, even without traffic.

Some of it really depends on where the company is located. For example, when I worked in Marietta, a good number of my co-workers had houses in Marietta or Kennesaw because they could still find an affordable home not far from work. On the other hand, at my current job in Alpharetta, hardly anyone owns a home in either Alpharetta or another neighboring suburb due to housing costs. That's how a good number of workers up here end up commuting either from another suburbs or from Atlanta proper in some cases. I can't speak for everyone, but in my family's case the cheapest home in my company's zip code is about $125K more than our current home. Even if less money were spent on commuting by buying closer to work, the difference in the mortgage and taxes would potentially suck that up very quickly.

[Big L]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Folks with the best commutes are those who (a) live and work in the suburbs and (b) those who live and work in the central city. They both average about 21 minutes.

If you're doing the mass transit thing it will typically take about twice as long, but that includes those who are taking the bus.

My best commute ever was when I lived and worked in Marietta (about 8-10 minutes depending on whether or not I missed a light or two). The only drawback was that I was only in a 1-bedroom apartment in a not-so-great complex at that time.