[adrianN]

As I said, there is a subset of the population that would never live in a city, just as there is a subset that would never live outside a city. But I think that encouraging more people to choose the rural lifestyle by essentially subsidizing it is not the way to go.

[toomuchtodo]

If it’s not subsidized, there’s no issue. I agree it shouldn’t be subsidized, and that we’ll need technology to drive down the cost of low density living (rooftop solar [cheap renewable energy in general], electric vehicles [cars, light and heavy trucks, buses], improved longevity for roads and sidewalks, led streetlights, muni fiber and efficient wireless infra, etc). That’s what technology and innovation are for.

Just as with roads (where building more doesn’t help alleviate demand), you must destroy demand for everyone to live in the same spot if you want affordable housing. You do that with fungible remote work and (efficiently and sustainably) providing high quality of life not tied to a place in space time.

[jfengel]

I think it would also help to increase the visibility of those costs. The impression I get is that a lot of people take for granted that roads just appear, for example, while the taxes for commuter rail and public transit are an imposition.

[wutbrodo]

I don't think this is ever going to happen, at least not to any appreciable degree. People are powerfully stupid enough on their own, especially when it comes to status quo bias, and especially especially when it's in their own interests. There's a stable equilibrium in which road travel and sparsity aren't heavily subsidized, but I don't see any path there that involves trying to convince people first.

[toomuchtodo]

Agree entirely! I am an ardent supporter of accountability and transparency in government (spending including).