this may just be a part of your analogy, but it doesn't seem like being revenue neutral is a great goal for public infrastructure. that's not to say one should

this may just be a part of your analogy, but it doesn't seem like being revenue neutral is a great goal for public infrastructure. that's not to say one should not evaluate the potential of a dollar spent in a metro area of 25million vs. 2500. but it is to say that that metric of revenue neutrality isn't ideal. one could easily imagine a situation where $1 in infra leads to $4 in economic growth, or $1.05 in additional tax revenue, or whatever. but yeah i agree, those are the calculations that need to be done. and yeah it's a bit self reinforcing - rich get richer, economy wise - but this notion that everyone can not pay that much extra yet get their own big ass plot of land, roads and parking spaces - which is what suburbs are, as far as i can tell - isn't sustainable.