It's true. Car infrastructure gives people in far-flung low-density environments access to much more variety, competition, and productivity than they would othe

It's true. Car infrastructure gives people in far-flung low-density environments access to much more variety, competition, and productivity than they would otherwise have. The more attractive we make them, the more people live in them. The argument is that this is a backwards use of public funds. On the other hand I don't think it's funds that are the problem here, there's plenty of money chasing more urban lifestyles. The limits are on the zoning and permitting for urban housing types in the locations that need them. Once there is capacity for people to urbanize, then we can talk tactics to nudge the reluctant. If you just make the suburbs painful without upzoning the city, all you've done is decrease quality of life.