Surburban Flight: Commuting to Work Less Attractive as Gas Prices Soar

They've got a cozy home nestled in the Wyoming Valley, the bucolic Iowa County setting where architect Frank Lloyd Wright drew his inspiration.

Deer graze in the yard. Orioles flock to the bird feeder. When nights are clear, the Milky Way lights the sky.

It wasn't a big financial drain driving into Madison, even as gasoline passed $2 a gallon in 2004 or $3 last summer. But for Debbie Kelly, $4 fuel has been the tipping point.

Now, instead of driving all the way to her nursing job at the Dean Clinic on Fish Hatchery Road, Kelly will often park in Verona and ride her bicycle the rest of the way. One night a week, she camps in the back of her pickup truck at Lake Farm County Park, south of the Beltline on the shores of Lake Waubesa.

Kelly admits she's thought about moving closer to the city. The time spent driving and the rising costs are beginning to wear. But she said her husband isn't budging.

"Tom will probably go with the property," she said. "I don't think he'll ever leave the valley."

Whether high fuel prices are going to affect where people in Wisconsin live remains to be seen. It's not that simple to just pick up and move, especially for those who already own a home.

Still, it's a question crossing the minds of many who chose to buy a home miles from their place of employment or school.

"It really hit me when it cost nearly $100 to fill up the truck last week," said Rich Eggleston, who lives in Fitchburg and commutes to his job downtown at the Alliance of Cities.

And there are early indications that life in the suburbs is starting to look less attractive to home buyers.

Consider the median price of homes sold in McFarland is down nearly 19 percent from a year ago, falling from $258,000 to $210,000, according to the latest figures from DaneCountyMarket.com.

In Mount Horeb, prices are down 14 percent. In Fitchburg, they're off 8 percent. In the New Glarus/Belleville/Monticello market along the Dane-Green County border, prices are down nearly 10 percent.

While real estate insiders say it's dangerous to draw conclusion from just a few months of data -- Verona, Waunakee and Sauk City, for example, have all seen prices climb in 2008 -- there seems a growing realization that gasoline prices are not going down again.

That's left some observers wondering if the drivable suburb -- the model for virtually all post-World War II development in Wisconsin and the U.S. -- has run its course.

"I think we're looking at a tremendous societal shift," said Steve Hiniker, executive director of 1,000 Friends of Wisconsin, a statewide group that advocates for better land use. "Urban areas such as Madison and Milwaukee will continue to fill in and modern transit will soon be a part of the urban setting. Suburbs will continue to lose value as gas prices hit the stratosphere."

Indeed, the future of the suburbs in the face of rising energy costs has sparked a flurry of national reports in the past months. Many have come from groups that would like nothing better than to see an end to sprawl and a reinvestment in mass transit and the urban core.

One study from Chicago-based CEOs for Cities argues that soaring gasoline prices are what really popped the nation's housing market bubble.

"The popular narrative on the collapse of housing prices has only blamed exotic lending practices," said the group's economist Joseph Cortright. "But the much more important story is about how higher gas prices have re-drawn the map of urban real estate values."

In another report, Arthur Nelson of Virginia Tech predicts the nation is facing a surplus of 22 million large lot homes (houses built on 1/6 an acre of more) by 2025. That represents roughly 40 percent of the "McMansions" in existence today, places like Bergamont, Bishop's Bay and Hawk's Landing in Dane County.

And long-time sprawl critics like James Howard Kunstler have cheered the higher fuel prices as finally bringing an end to decades of suburban madness. He said trying to find solutions to keep the "Happy Motoring" utopia running is naive.

"The truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used french-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the Interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future," Kunstler said. "We have to make other arrangements."

Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said fuel prices haven't reached the point where Americans have been forced to make fundamental changes. Rather, he sees a more gradual shift to a balanced mix of transit, compact development, walkable communities -- and single-passenger vehicles.

"I just got back from Europe and people still love to drive but they have other options," he said. "Unfortunately we've created a physical environment in this country that makes us slaves to our cars."

Cieslewicz said those who oppose mass transit or improved rail service often argue that environmentalists want to take away the freedom to drive.

"People on the other side of this issue use scare tactics and say everyone will be forced to give up their cars," he said. "But there is actually more freedom in having the option to bike or walk somewhere without fear of getting killed."

Troy Thiel, who moved to Madison in 2003 from the Chicago area and narrowly lost a 2007 bid for a seat on the City Council, predicts the suburban housing market will weather the storm. He notes that many of the area's largest employment centers are no longer located downtown -- including Epic Systems in Verona, American Family on the far east side and Discovery Springs in Middleton.

A sales agent with First Weber West Towne, Thiel also questions whether fuel prices are having much impact at all on an already depressed real estate market. He notes that sales of homes and condos within five miles of the State Capitol were down 30 percent for the first six months of 2008 versus a 25 percent sales decline overall.

"People are choosing more efficient personal autos and will locate closer to their jobs, many of which are already in the 'burbs," said Thiel. "Rich folk are putting their SUVs in the garage. That way $4 gas looks like $3 gas and they're just fine with that."

But rising oil prices are costing everyone plenty. The average American household will spend over $3,200 to fuel their vehicles this year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than twice the cost of just five years ago.

In Dane County, drivers are now spending a combined $428 million more on gasoline than in 2004, according to professor Andy Lewis, community development specialist for University of Wisconsin Extension. That's money that could have gone to a lot of other uses, whether affordable housing or commuter rail.

Lewis noted that in 2006, when gasoline averaged $3 a gallon, households with incomes under $14,999 were already spending eight percent of their income on fuel versus three percent for households with incomes over $100,000.

"As expected, the lower income households are feeling the pinch more then wealthy households," said Lewis.

On the other hand, Alan Harvey, chairman of the town of Windsor, said Dane County enjoys the advantage of having a diverse economy -- a mix of both urban, rural and suburban development.

"Clearly, all of society is going to be looking at a period of adjustment," he said. "But I think we're pretty well-positioned since economic activity is spread throughout the county."

Harvey said the real impact is being felt in communities outside Dane County like Fall River or Pardeeville, where people have purchased homes because they got a lot more square footage for their dollar.

"Those advantages start to disappear when commuting costs get too high," said Harvey, who is skeptical about the ability of mass transit to solve the problem.

Madison Ald. Robbie Webber, who defeated Thiel in the District 5 council race, has championed higher density urban development and mass transit as the long-term solution. Despite the growth in the suburbs, she said Madison remains the engine that drives the area economy with its downtown and UW campus.

"Even lunch is easier to get to without a car in a dense area than in a suburban business park," she said.

Webber said the concern isn't so much with Middleton or Verona, two places where real estate values have been holding.

"What about Mount Horeb, Dodgeville, Lake Mills, Edgerton, Portage?" she said. "Those long commutes, with no hope of transit, are going to be pretty painful."

To that end, commercial real estate developer Terrence Wall says he realized several years ago that rising gasoline prices were going to dramatically impact Dane County. For that reason, he's pursuing mixed-use projects combining office, residential and retail at Tribeca Village in Middleton and the West End in Verona.

"I've been warning people for the last three years that demand for oil in China was going to send prices skyrocketing," said Wall, president of T. Wall Properties.

Dan Miller, a Realtor with Keller Williams who maintains the DaneCountyMarket.com Web site with colleague Shawn Kriewaldt, cautioned against drawing too many conclusions about the long-term impact of gasoline prices on the local housing market.

"For example, I just helped somebody sell a house in Madison and buy one in Mount Horeb because they work at Epic and wanted to be closer to their job," he said.

"I think we're on the early part of the curve right now," he said. "Most folks spend several months looking for a home before they make an offer, and once an offer is accepted, it can be another 1 to 3 months until the closing. Given the lag between the decision to buy and the actual purchase, my hunch is the data will become more telling later this fall and winter."

At this point, most commuters are just biting the bullet, trying to combine trips or share rides when possible.

Nicole Weisenberger, who drives 100 miles round-trip from Madison to her job as an occupational therapist in Beloit, has found a few ways to offset the high gas prices. One is purchasing a Pontiac Vibe, which gets over 30 mpg on the highway. The other is cutting back on doggy day care from three days to one day a week.

"To be honest with you, I think the dog has been suffering more than I have," she said.

“Unfortunately, I’ve seen and heard the “Just suck it up” compassion so well known within the Army culture all too much.” (Sigh)

There’s always the barracks, and if you want a family while you’re in the military, you’d BETTER have the RANK to support them. Why should that be any different than it should be in civilian life? I waited until my military career was over to start my family. We were all the better for it. (Three sons raised. Two in college, one is a business owner.)

It’s. A. Job. The military owes you nothing but three hots and a cot, a pair of boots and all the equipment and clothing you need. You get various allowances (housing, dependent allowances if you’re married, have kids) free medical and dental care, (for ALL of you) a nearly FREE education if you want one, a free wardrobe, all sorts of fun “toys” to play with and skills that will serve you well all throughout your life. And on top of that, they pay you! And on top of that, it doesn’t matter if you’re man, woman, white, black, etc. If you DO YOUR JOB and do it well, you get promoted. And you get MORE money and more allowances. What a concept. :)

And who joins the military thinking it’s going to be a lush life other than Air Force Cadets? LOL!

What kind of whiners is the Army putting out these days? *SIGH*

I hate it when I’ve had to “Man up” more than some of the military men we’ve got today. So, yes. I guess I will say, “Suck it up.”

And you know what? Vietnam Vets and those that came before me can say the very same thing of me. She got to live OFF POST? she didn’t spend ALL of her time in the rain in a foxhole in the jungle? She was on clean, dry, safe military bases throughout the world? Man, she had it made! :)

Good for you!

I’m glad I had the opportunity to raise my boys on a farm. I grew up on cement in Milwaukee, WI. I learned to love farm/country life from summers spent as an indentured servant on my Aunt’s farm, LOL! I milked a lot of goats. I hate goats.

I did a lot of Real Estate flipping in the years coming up to buying our 2-acre “farmette.” Two city homes and one suburban home were “home” prior to where we’ve been now for the past 13 years.

I have 50 laying hens (I sell the eggs) and am petitioning Husband for a milk cow, but I will settle for two sheep. :)

Husband is taking the afternoon off and we’re going to the County Fair to check out the animals.

I’m pretty sure I can get two small sheep into the back seat of the car for the ride home, LOL! (Just kidding!)

I didn’t read all the comments, but the Liberals may want to think twice about herding suburubanites back to the central cities. If you look at “red state blue state” analyses at the county, municipality, and precinct level, you will see that the “red states” are closer than they may think. Even the outer precincts of larger cities tend to be more Conservative, and often just outside a central city, you are in “red state” territory. Putting suburbanites back in cities would dilute the Liberal control of the cities, a stronghold for decades. As these meddling suburbanites moved back in, they would no doubt become involved in precinct level politics, perhaps even preventing vote fraud and late reporting so common there. And to Liberals, that loss of control would be worse than wasting oil and gasoline.

"...the Poconos in PA..."

Man, that's some commute, but my Uncle worked in Los Angeles and had a 4-hour commute each day to live AWAY from LA. He now lives in the middle of nowhere in New Mexico. Enough was eventually enough.

I spent a week one Spring in the Poconos Mountains. What a GORGEOUS spot. Loved it. :)

"The Pocono Mountains are located in the northeastern corner of Pennsylvania, USA. The Poconos are only 90 minutes from New York City and less than 2 hours from Philadelphia, and are easily reached via super Interstate highways, 80, 81, 84, and Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike."

It may bring prices down, but my prediction is it will simply slow the rate of increase

Nonsense. If we utilized all of our potential and known energy reserves, prices would get slashed by more than half.

Third world countries are now starting to consume oil like never before. There's nothing liberal about that observation.

So that means we shouldn't? Don't you think it's ridiculous that we lock our reserves but it's OK for other countries to expand their energy supplies? I mean, it's flat-out STUPID. Maybe we should let give our coal to China, we're not using it, right?

It is a commodity, and an increasingly expensive one at that.

Because you got intervention in the form of government policies that is making it expensive! How did oil prices come down from the 70s then? Using your logic, we should still be in the oil shocks that gripped the nation back then.

If prices stay high and/or continue to rise, and we don't reduce our consumption, then we're in for a world of hurt.

Look buddy, I already told you. There is no suitable alternative to oil right now. WE NEED FRICKING OIL - It is in thousands of products - it's not just used for fuel you know, it's in clothing, raw materials, goods, etc. I'm fine with bio-fuels or whatever, but as Wonder Warthog pointed out that should be the long-term answer. But for now, the only thing we can do is drill and expand production.

In cases where there is a viable alternative, the market will find it.

The market is currently being hamstrung by government. Government spends billions on ethanol BS and other "renewable" energies that simply don't work as well as oil. How can a viable alternative exist when it's being propped up by subsidies and legislation mandating its unproven use? Dude are you sure you're a libertarian?

However, I maintain that more drilling is merely a band-aid.

What's fabricated about it? Is global demand increasing or is it not?

Global demand is increasing, yes but have we ever ran out of oil? Have we ever had to sacrifice our lifestyles? The wonderful people in the energy business simply went out and got more oil. Higher demand = increase in supplies.

The bulk of welfare money goes to poor people. In some places, they're concentrated more in the city, but in other places they're more rural.

My point is that the gubmint gives millions of dollars to the "poor" (many of them who don't pay their energy bills through the winter knowing that there'll be handouts at the end) for subsidized energy assistance. Hello - HOW ABOUT JUST PRODUCING MORE ENERGY???

So whining and bitching is now great patriotism?

Hell yeah I'm going to whine and bitch when my livelihood is threatened. I don't want to live like my ancestors did in the 1800s, burning kerosene lamps and splitting logs and hunting for squirrels for dinner and taking baths by heating a big ass pot over a fire. No - energy is the backbone of our economy, and without it we might as well be living in North Korea.

Nonsense. If we utilized all of our potential and known energy reserves, prices would get slashed by more than half.

That's your prediction. I think differently. I suppose we may find out. Our oil reserves are only an estimate, as well as those of the rest of the global supply, and we don't know what future demand will look like. It's a very unstable commodity, which is why I think it would be a positive for our economy if we used less of it.

So that means we shouldn't? Don't you think it's ridiculous that we lock our reserves but it's OK for other countries to expand their energy supplies? I mean, it's flat-out STUPID. Maybe we should let give our coal to China, we're not using it, right?

I'm not really against drilling, I just don't think it's going to be the great savior that so many people have led themselves to believe it will be. Also, another country expanding their energy supplies benefits us. If China drills for more oil at home, that's less demand for oil from another oil exporting country, thus keeping prices in check for us.

Because you got intervention in the form of government policies that is making it expensive! How did oil prices come down from the 70s then? Using your logic, we should still be in the oil shocks that gripped the nation back then.

The 70's were different because of the geopolitical aspects. It was much more than an issue of supply and demand, like it is now.

Look buddy, I already told you. There is no suitable alternative to oil right now. WE NEED FRICKING OIL - It is in thousands of products - it's not just used for fuel you know, it's in clothing, raw materials, goods, etc. I'm fine with bio-fuels or whatever, but as Wonder Warthog pointed out that should be the long-term answer. But for now, the only thing we can do is drill and expand production.

I know we need oil. I know we use it for a lot. That's my point. I am of the belief that high oil prices are here to stay, whether we drill or not, so rather than complaining we'd better starting reducing our consumption and figuring out alternatives.

The market is currently being hamstrung by government. Government spends billions on ethanol BS and other "renewable" energies that simply don't work as well as oil. How can a viable alternative exist when it's being propped up by subsidies and legislation mandating its unproven use? Dude are you sure you're a libertarian?

Yes, "dude", I'm sure I'm a libertarian. The basis of my entire argument is that high prices are the product of supply and demand, so the market will respond to these new high prices. Government is interfering with supply, through both regulation and taxation. They also drive up demand by paying for roads, so some of that evens out, but overall they do contribute to the price being a bit higher. That being said, I don't think drilling is the solution. I think the government needs to get out of the way of alternatives like nuclear and stop propping up stupid ideas like ethanol. They should get out of the way and let the market decide what will and won't work. If more drilling turns out to be the answer, fine, but I'm telling you it won't be. It might in the short term, but it'll be worse the long term, which is why I think we should start being proactive about alternative energy now and not later when the situation is worse.

when I see the lazy rich mother driving her precious little Johnny two blocks to school each morning, IN HER HUMMER...I get a bit perturbed......I see tons of large pickups or suvs with ONE person inside.....

I don't think people have got the message yet...that or they are just too rich or too stupid to care.....

I want us to drill.....we need our own supply....not only for the oil, but the jobs that we'll have.....good paying jobs....

but I also think we need to reduce our energy use overall....if nothing more than to just save us some money......

I just don't like to see waste and we are wasting a lot....

Where are vehicles going to get fuel from? There are no alternatives to use to power our motor vehicles. I work in the trucking industry - dozens of mom-and-pop carriers are pushing up daisies right now because of sky-high fuel prices. Most of our oil reserves are locked away - what do you think is going to happen, other countries are going to start bidding on them.

Vehicles will get fuel the same way they do now - it's just more expensive. All these government-subsidized hare-brained schemes are stupid. The simple solution is to use less when possible. For the individual, it's easier; drive a more fuel efficient car and live closer to work and/or in a more urban area. Trucking, honestly, may not be a viable industry for much longer. Freight trains may make a comeback. I'm sure you know more than I do about logistics since you're in the industry and I'm not, but it does seems that things can replace trucks. Also, we may come up with a good fuel alternative, but who knows. Consumers will also inevitably eat up some of the costs, which is why it's good if we have as many energy sources as possible to reduce the pain.

Global demand is increasing, yes but have we ever ran out of oil? Have we ever had to sacrifice our lifestyles? The wonderful people in the energy business simply went out and got more oil. Higher demand = increase in supplies.

Well, of course we haven't run out of oil, all the gas stations would be closed right now. We can only run out of a fossil fuel once. We haven't had to sacrifice too much yet, but that time may be over. It's not as simple as being able to go and get more. If increase in demand continues to outpace increase in supply, prices will keep going up. Also, in addition to more drilling, we'll need to build more refineries, etc. This will all cost money. There's a lot of overhead costs to increasing oil production, especially if the union thugs are/become involved with refinery workers.

My point is that the gubmint gives millions of dollars to the "poor" (many of them who don't pay their energy bills through the winter knowing that there'll be handouts at the end) for subsidized energy assistance. Hello - HOW ABOUT JUST PRODUCING MORE ENERGY???

I'm not a proponent of welfare. I agree we can produce more energy, but it can't all be oil. I'm not saying "can't" like the government should ban it, I'm saying it in reality cannot happen.

Hell yeah I'm going to whine and bitch when my livelihood is threatened. I don't want to live like my ancestors did in the 1800s, burning kerosene lamps and splitting logs and hunting for squirrels for dinner and taking baths by heating a big ass pot over a fire. No - energy is the backbone of our economy, and without it we might as well be living in North Korea.

You can whine and bitch. I, on the other hand, live in the city and drive a hybrid, and thus am far more insulated against further increases in oil prices. I have to heat my home of course in the winter (this is Minnesota after all), but I dress warm and keep the thermostat low. Somehow I get the feeling my methods are more effective.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.