> Transportation is a public good This is a single point that got my attention. He says that we, society, should run transportation for a net loss, because it

> Transportation is a public good This is a single point that got my attention. He says that we, society, should run transportation for a net loss, because it benefits everybody, and especially benefits poor, who can't afford living close to their work. This is sounds about right, but at the same time it creates an incentive to live even farther, because farther is cheaper. Imagine me, a poor man, already settled for my current commute from point A to point B for two hours, and point A suddenly gets a better transportation, and I have one hour to myself because of that. I may spend it to my health or my family, but at the same time I may choose to cash this hour out by moving to point C, where I still have a two hour commute (because it is one hour from point A), but rent is cheaper. So this would be basically a subsidy, but there's another nuance. Rent at point A will go up because of better transportation. This is the most sure thing in the whole reasoning, because everybody old enough just saw things like that: subway station opens, and rent around it goes up. Moreover, there's a construction of higher class condo starts immediately, even before the opening. So in the end said subsidy goes to the pockets of landlords and development companies. What am I missing here?