But the opposite is also true - cities have sprawled out to the degree that they have in part because driving is subsidized. You are quite right that addressing this too quickly can hurt a lot of people with limited means, but maintaining artificially low cost of driving isn't doing anyone any favors either.
This seems like such a weird commend given that the top of this thread is advocating making drivers subsidize public transportation to encourage people to use it.
When ~90% of adults in the US drive it's hard to argue that driving is being subsidized by anyone other than people who drive. And that's before we account for the forms of tax revenue used for these subsidies that are paid for exclusively by drivers -- like gas and registration.
There probably aren't a lot of people getting cheated, paying a lot in and getting nothing out, because so many people drive, yes. This is a valid point (although the distribution of infrastructure spending may not match the driving). However, the other trouble with automobile subsidies is they are invisible. An individual can't see the true marginal cost of their use, either direct (road wear) or indirect (sprawl, parking lot oceans).
Behavior would change dramatically if, e.g., you had a GPS tracker logging miles and you paid a monthly road use bill, and parking spots were all metered at their true cost.
> When ~90% of adults in the US drive it's hard to argue that driving is being subsidized by anyone other than people who drive. And that's before we account for the forms of tax revenue used for these subsidies that are paid for exclusively by drivers -- like gas and registration.
You need to look at the problem a little bit more. Designing a car-centered city and suburbs is expensive. You not only have to build highways to handle traffic, but your building options are limited because you need to build enough parking ; which results in sprawl, leading to less efficient use of the land. The higher costs due to this sprawl are undeniably borne by consumers. There are many other such hidden "subsidies" that have allowed such an overwhelming car-centric culture in the US.
Actually that's about "the market" externalizing costs in to the commons.
A better question is why haven't cities required sufficient housing near jobs to keep the cost of rent (let alone actual ownership of even a condo) competitive with the suburbs via supply control?
> A better question is why haven't cities required sufficient housing near jobs
Because to require a particular level of housing near jobs would require a prohibition on offering jobs without developing additional housing, in effect limiting jobs. Even if local governments are given the power to do that, politically, citizens demand that politicians do what they can to encourage job creation, not limit it by some other constraint.
You're taking this the wrong way; I'm not saying that jobs or housing should be directly limited. I'm saying that it's the job of the governance of a region to fulfill the needs of it's people.
Need for housing ~= {jobs} + {adult students} + {unemployed} + {retired} + {liquidity room} - {All housing in the market}
If the need for housing is positive than actions should be taken to accelerate and promote the development or re-development of new planned accommodations.
If the need is /dire/ (as it is for the large west coast cities) then that the government should take on the buy out and re-development of entire neighborhoods in to areas that are suitable for the continued health and prosperity of the whole (as private interests have clearly failed to do so or regulations have not allowed them to do so).
This planning and redevelopment should also include mass transit and other resources as well as more than meeting 'minimum code' for all construction. (My own views about the inadequacy of such codes are out of the scope of this topic.)
That would help prevent the decline of public transit.
