It's Not About Cities vs. Suburbs

One of the great divides between myself and most millennial liberals is driven by geography. Much of our millennial liberal base is located in urban centers, and has an urbanista-political bias. I grew up in the suburbs, and while I've lived and worked in some very large cities, i'm not hostile to suburbia. I see it's advantages.

One of the big areas of divide for me is on transit politics. I'm not anti-car. I'm still pro-mass transit, but I'm not in favor of enacting policies to end car use in center cities. I support parking garages and free parking, as do many urban businesses. I still support regional mass transit systems though, and think they work fine. I've seen SEPTA help people who live in the suburbs reach better paying work in the urban core. I don't define mass transit as an "urban" politics thing. I'm also not anti-car though.

The "thinking man's" right-wing is seeking to create a policy and ideology divide between cities/mass transit systems and suburbs/cars. In fact, they want to see Donald Trump drive this wedge:

What President-elect Trump has the opportunity to do now is to launch a third great wave of suburbanization, one that can revive the American Dream for the Millennial generation, produce jobs and wealth that can power the American economy, and take advantage of changing technology to create a new wave of optimism and dynamism in American life.

There’s a confluence of trends that make this possible. In the first place, the Millennials, like the Boomers, are a large generation that needs both jobs and affordable homes. Second, the shale revolution means that energy in the United States will likely be relatively abundant and cheap for the foreseeable future. Third, both financial markets and the real economy have recovered from the shock of the financial crisis, and, whatever hiccups and upsets may come their way, are now ready for sustained expansion. Fourth, revolutions in technology (self-driving cars and the internet) make it possible for people to build a third ring of suburbs even farther out from the central cities, where land prices are still low and houses can be affordably built.

For national politicians, this is a huge opportunity. Creating the infrastructure for the third suburban wave—new highways, ring roads and the rest of it for another suburban expansion—will create enormous numbers of jobs. The opportunity for cheap housing in leafy places will allow millions of young people to get a piece of the American Dream. Funding the construction of this infrastructure and these homes gives Wall Street an opportunity to make a lot of money in ways that don’t drive the rest of the country crazy.

This approach meshes very well both with the President-elect’s economic instincts and with the economic interests of the people who voted for him. It also works for the Republican dominated states around the country. It capitalizes on one of America’s distinctive advantages: less densely-populated than other advanced countries, the United States has the elbow room for a new suburban wave.

I have three main critiques of this line of thought, and none of them is that it's a bad thing if a suburban revival happens. Donald Trump could do a lot worse than trying to be the new Dwight Eisenhower and build an interstate highway system. I'd love to see Paul Ryan's House even consider that though. Anyway, my critiques:

1. Cheap energy? Shale revolution? Are you kidding me? Look, shale is certainly going to be a part of the nation's energy policy in the age of Trump, but saying this is going to drive a cheap energy revolution is nuts. Energy costs are relatively cheap right now, under President Obama's "all of the above" energy policy- more domestic fossil fuel, more renewable energy, and more energy efficiency. Shale is not what's driving down energy costs- a sane energy policy is. Hopefully Donald Trump's business instincts will drive him to not play "big government" favorites, and try to crush renewable energy sources, which are creating lots of jobs and cheaper energy here in the United States. Expansion or nuclear power, continuing our domestic production, and encouraging renewable investments is the way to go on energy. 
2. This is not a mass transit OR highways thing. The Philadelphia Region's SEPTA system spans from the University of Delaware all the way north to Doylestown. Tens of thousands of people in the region who live in suburbs use mass transit every day. Meanwhile, look at the highways going out of Philadelphia in the morning. Tens of thousands of Philadelphians are using the car to get to work. A smart transit grid, one that is not pushing an ideology of urbanism or suburbanism, includes robust mass transit systems and highway systems. Look at the Washington, DC region, where the metro connects Northern Virginia suburbanites with good paying jobs in downtown, as well as students at the University of Maryland out in the suburbs with opportunities in the nation's capitol. This isn't one or the other, it's about adequately funding both.
3. Sustainability is the key here. Environmental sustainability and market sustainability. Trying to move people out of mass transit, and put more cars on the road, is not sustainable. Cars are expensive. If I could get rid of one area of my bills, it would be my car. Cars are also polluters. Even beyond that, the idea that we're going to flood the housing market with a bunch of cheaper, newer housing options in the suburbs isn't feasible. Out here in suburban America, where I live, we are just getting beyond the stage where suburban houses on an acre of land were sitting vacant because the owners just left. The pricing of housing has re-adjusted finally. The inventory is finally getting back to normal levels. The idea that a flood of new housing developments just beyond the edge of suburbia would succeed right now is wishful thinking. It would greatly deflate the values of existing homes, and probably not end up being a winner in a rational housing market. I don't believe the consumers are there at this time.

None of this is to say that I don't think that Donald Trump should invest in our infrastructure, particularly our interstate highway system. I just don't see this as some sort of zero-sum game. I also don't think that a quick boom of suburban expansion is a realistic thing in 2017 or 2018, and might not be for five years or more. While I realize that political concerns are playing into right-wing hopes of a suburban expansion, I don't think it will happen. It is true that millennials are beginning to want home ownership like their parents and grandparents had, and suburban life will probably become more desirable to them, there aren't enough of them currently able to get into the market who want to get into the market. In short, I haven't seen much evidence that any of this idea is feasible.