Reading “Triumph of the City” by Edward Glaeser provided an insightful perspective to thinking about cities and the world in general. Frequently when cities are mentioned in conversation, the negative effects of condensed-human-living often are among the first qualities to come to mind: high rates of crime, homelessness, environmentally unfriendly, impoverished, etcetera. The truth of the matter as told by Glaeser and backed with research and statistics actually suggests that cities offer numerous advantages to individuals, society, and the world compared to living in other areas.
While there were many
compelling arguments that Glaeser made with regards to cities being richer,
smarter, greener, healthier, and happier, I found the sections regarding cities
being environmentally friendly to be most interesting (both because
environmental economics is an academic interest of mine and it goes against
some popular notions of cities being less green than other places).
While we can see
differences when looking at a big city compared to another big city (like
Houston and New York City), a significant difference between urban areas and non-urban
areas, in general, is the reliance on cars for transportation. The difference results
from several different reasons and has several different implications.
Historically, more
government funding has gone more towards the development of highway systems
than to the development of public transit systems, such as with the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1921, parts of the New Deal, and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1956. In addition, the subsidization of loans for suburban housing pushed
people away from cities and helped to create a stronger reliance on cars since
public transportation is less effective and more time-consuming for longer
distances. While these measures may not have been anti-urban in intention, the
result has been more sprawling cities with a national over-reliance on cars for
transportation and an under-reliance on public transport.
One reason that people in urban areas tend to drive less is because of the layout of the city and road
real estate. For example, individuals who wish to avoid the time-cost and frustration
of dealing with traffic jams can opt for public transportation instead of
needing to use own/use a car (on a semi-related note, reliable public
transportation also lowers risks associated with driving; for example, New
Yorkers in the 25 to 35 age group are 75 percent less likely to die in a motor
vehicle accident compared to the nationwide average).
While various methods of
public transportation still produce emissions (i.e., carbon), they are much
more efficient for transporting people over a distance compared to cars. The New
York City Transit System, for example, emits an average of 0.9 pounds of carbon
per trip compared to a car trip that would emit ten times as much (on a side
note, it would be insightful to know how a “trip” is defined in this context as
found on page 207-8. Is the carbon cost of a trip from a transit line spread
out over the number of riders, or is it talking about in absolute terms? Also,
what is the baseline measurement for a “trip”?).
While cities may
contribute higher total emissions compared to non-urban areas, the per capita
emissions are less for those who live in cities. The average household in an
area with more than ten thousand people per square mile uses 687 gallons of gas
per year, while an average household in an area with fewer than one thousand
people per square mile uses 1,164 gallons of gas per year. If you factor in the
costs of refining and distribution, a gallon of gas produces about 22 pounds of
carbon emissions. Simple math tells us that the difference in terms of pounds
of carbon emissions annually for city-dwellers compared to non-city-dwellers is
10,494.
Population density is not
directly the driving reason (pun intended) for this difference, but rather an
intuitive correlation since more-dense areas have more amenities in a given
plot of space and thus requires shorter commutes for individuals wishing to
partake in those amenities. Just because someone in a suburban area may living
in a high-population density neighborhood, they still have to drive to get
groceries, drive to pick up kids at school, drive to places for entertainment, and
etcetera.
Part of urban versus
non-urban carbon emissions can also be attributed to energy usage in general.
There is a significantly greater level of emissions from a suburban house
compared to an urban studio apartment when it comes to oil/gas for heat and
electricity for cooling. This logic is supported by the fact that New York
State’s rates of per capita energy consumption are next to last in the country,
in a large part due to the use of public transit in New York City.
It is clear from
Glaeser’s description of different cities (Detroit versus New York City versus
San Francisco versus Houston) that not all cities are the same. What works in
one city might not work in another city. Since local governments best
understand the local needs, policy measures based on the research covered by
Glaser would be most effective if implemented on the local level (such as the municipality)
as opposed to federally mandated.
I am from and (until
moving to Oregon for school) have lived in Kansas City (KC) my whole life and
have been able to observe the difference between a higher population-density
city like Eugene (population density of 3,910.87/sq mi) and the lower
population-density of KC (population density of 1,613.60/sq mi). Having experienced
the difference in characteristics of the two types of cities first-hand, I
thought it would be interesting to think about how KC could utilize principles
and research from Glaser’s book to consider policy alternatives to improve the
quality of the city.
KC has many similar
characteristics to Houston as described by Glaeser. For one, KC is a sprawling
city that relies predominantly on cars for transportation (getting from the
north-side of the city to the east-side of the city takes 45 minutes by car without
traffic). While a public transit system exists, it is not ideal for getting
around in a timely manner.
The effect of a sprawling
city like KC on public transit ridership can be observed when looking at
statistics compared to a place like Eugene. The EmX line in Eugene carries
approximately 12,000 riders each day
Another difference
between KC and Eugene that I have noticed is the difference in gas prices.
Higher gas prices can serve as an incentive for using public transpiration
(with some caveats). As noted by Glaeser, the US in general has lower gas-taxes
compared to other developed countries. Especially when we think about the cost
of the negative externalities created by the combustion of gasoline (and emissions
from refinement and distribution) being $2.30 per gallon, KC could do with some
higher gas prices.
In July 2021, KC passed
the first increase in gas taxes in over 20 years
If public transit options
were developed and expanded, then I could easily use Apple-maps or another app
to find the nearest transit line if I wish to see an event at the Independence
Center in east-KC while staying at my parent’s home in north-KC and can avoid
making the round-trip in a car since the transit lines will run regardless of
my decision to utilize them (and as a result, I can happily indulge myself in a
couple extra adult beverages without having to worry about my or other’s safety
while driving back home afterward). Instead with the way the city currently
is, when I look to search for the address for the Independence Center, I see that
“no transit options are available” and am forced to pollute the Earth while
driving and must attend the event sober.
Something that received
very little attention in “Triumph of the City” is carpooling. As I made the
drive from KC to Eugene, I noticed how many road systems along the way had
HOV+/Express Lanes that are reserved for cars with multiple passengers only or
for paying Express Lane-pass holders. In KC, no such lanes exist.
HOV+/Express Lanes could
have a positive effect if implemented in KC because it would increase the incentives
for carpooling for those who wish to avoid traffic congestion (thereby lowering
the number of vehicles on the road contributing to emissions), it would create
a lane for busses to use to bypass traffic and reduce commuting time for
longer-distance transit lines (thereby strengthening the time-efficiency of public
transportation), and would present the opportunity to collect funding from
fines of misuse and express-lane pass holders that could be used to improve
public transportation (again allowing quality improvements that increase the
incentives to use public transportation).
As I was brainstorming
policy alternatives surrounding this issue, I thought about devising a public
transit option that is essentially a combination of bus lines and ride-sharing,
where a driver could be contracted to drive a given route and pick up/drop off
passengers along the way. This way, transportation options could be low-price (compared
to an individual calling an Uber or Lyft) and could be expanded beyond the reach
of the established bus lines.
After
some googling on the topic, it turns out that this concept has already been
implemented by Uber with UberPool (there goes my tuition-funding big idea),
though it is temporarily unavailable due to the pandemic. Nonetheless,
carpooling in its myriad of possible forms combined with HOV+/Express Lanes
could lead to higher incentives/rates of use of public transpiration and
therefore lower levels of emissions (while also providing quality
transportation options to individuals who don’t own a car).
Each
of the topics covered by Glaeser in “Triumph of the City” contains enough
information to warrant hours of research and analysis to properly begin to
understand. The facts and figures covered by Glaeser in this book portray
cities in a positive light that they sometimes don’t receive and present conclusions
that can be applied to policy composition in a myriad of ways. While there are
drawbacks to condensed urban living, the benefits of cities with high
population densities are numerous. They enable innovation and collaboration
with peers, they provide valuable services to the homeless and impoverished,
and they minimize environmental impact from humans. Recognizing the benefits of
cities and understanding how we can improve them further is not only vital for
improving economic conditions across the country, but also for protecting the
world environment and enable us to have a mindset when legislating policy that
is in the best interests of individuals and the world.
Works
Cited
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2020, July). Economic
Research - US Regional Data. Retrieved from The Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Louis: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/KNCPOP
Fortino, J. (2021, July 13). Governor Parson Signs Off On
Missouri's First Gas Tax Hike In More Than Two Decades. Retrieved from
KCUR: https://www.kcur.org/news/2021-07-13/governor-parson-signs-off-on-missouris-first-gas-tax-hike-in-more-than-two-decades
Glaeser, E. (2011). The Triumph of the City. New
York, New York: Penguin Group.
KC Streetcar. (2016). KC Ridership. Retrieved from
RideKC StreetCar: https://kcstreetcar.org/kcridership/
LTD. (2021). EmX Rider Guide. Retrieved from Lane Transit District: https://www.ltd.org/emx-rider-guide/