[andys627]

The US is massively subsidizing this lifestyle and making it more attractive than elsewhere in the world. This is the only excuse for US style suburban sprawl vs similarly developed countries.

We are massively subsidizing it by: -Not pricing in to user fees all costs of roads (especially over several life cycles of the road). This applies to highways but also local roads where infra in sprawly neighborhoods costs more than denser/centric neighborhoods but usually are paying same property tax rate -Not pricing in to user fees cost of resource security (oil) -Not pricing in to user fees all externalities of personal auto use on health care system - what is healthier our system or one where you have to walk a bit? -Mandating from the highest level an interstate highway system, the funding of which no common person understands (gas tax goes in and then distributed around country to pay for 90% of road project - why not local funding so people understand where the money comes from?) -We are not regulating green field development - we are letting developers build what they want because it makes the most money without asking how is the best way to build the city. Is the best way to build a city "leave it to the developers to build what makes them most money" ? -Our zoning is designed to separate stuff which makes cars the only option.

Why does this matter? Because the government is choosing how we build our cities and they are choosing cars. It is not the free market.

Check out Jeff Speck "Walkable City" for lots of facts, examples, and ways forward.

[dsfyu404ed]

The system that manages the money flow isn't perfect but we don't subsidize driving.

I think you're confusing subsidizing it with taxing it like cigarettes. We don't discourage driving because that would discourage utilization of land that isn't located near a population center. Land is a natural resource that we can't practically use up (short of massively contaminating it) and to discourage its use would be moronic.

[andys627]

I just gave a bunch of examples of how we're making driving cheaper than it would be if only supported by user fees... that's a subsidy.

I think we subsidize it because we thought it was a good idea back in the day - we chose cars and for example, Spain, chose trains. There are pros and cons to each. I suppose my point is that we CHOSE at every level of government.

This is the lens I see the world through and I think choosing cars (or how Spain chose trains) massively effects a society's quality of life. I want people driving to know that we as a society chose to support cars - to subsidize them to make them cheaper - and there are pros and cons (eg. more freedom but less walking). Anecdotally, no one I know thinks about it - they assume that's just the way it is and there are no alternatives. Maybe even that it's the result of free market.