Here's another approach, or set of costs, I read once in some urban planning lit, tho I don't recall the exact source. Municipal governments are largely run by big developers and builders and such. So, municipalities often have both zoning rules and tax incentives that encourage and reward sprawl, rather than the use of vacant, abandoned and unused land in city centers, which sometimes approaches 60% of the area. This is what developers want, as long as it is more profitable for them to sprawl, building low-density, high cost housing, malls and such. Tax incentives can make it yet more profitable. Even better for them if they are outside of requirements to install curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, sewer connections, etc. One of the many costs is that cities lose tax income from the construction that could have occurred within the city, business from revitalized downtown areas, not to mention/measure air pollution from more commuting, inefficiency of public transport for very low density areas, unaffordability of big houses on big lots for most people, etc. Of course the city councillors and such are all lining their campaign chests, and investing in real estate ... Lisa
