Final answer:
The statement is false; while the development of suburbs and the placement of offices and factories in suburban areas initially aimed to reduce commute times, suburban sprawl has led to increased commute times and distances overall.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that sprawl has reduced commute times because people are now working in suburban locations, closer to their homes, is false. Initially, with the development of suburbs and the improvement of transportation like electric railways, interstate highways and the affordable automobile, it became possible for people to live further away from city centers and commute to work. Employers also began placing offices and factories in suburbs, potentially reducing commute times for some. However, as suburbs developed farther and farther from city centers, commute times and distances increased.Furthermore, the growth of suburbs led to traffic congestion and an exponential increase in the use of natural resources. Suburbs often grew into commuter towns with little industry, causing people to travel greater distances to the city for work, thus contributing to longer commutes. As infrastructure became overburdened, the original utility of suburbs in reducing travel time to work was largely negated, particularly in sprawling metropolises like Los Angeles where long commutes and traffic congestion are significant issues.In conclusion, although the emergence of suburban workplaces may have initially intended to decrease commute times, the subsequent suburban sprawl has overall led to increased commute times and distances, contributing to a greater reliance on passive transportation and less on walking or public transit.