Just imagine how many federal dollars have gone to build Interstate freeway infrastructure in the hearts of big cities. Interstates were supposed to be just that -- long-distance links between states -- so their application as local commuting links was a misuse of funds from the start. Further, we can see it's exacerbated rather than relieved local congestion. http://cyclingsolution.blogspot.com/

Anything to make sure we don't see any more states like Colorado. A car simply shouldn't be a requirement.

Country mouse, studies clearly show that suburban and semi-rural areas have much higher rates of obesity and heart disease than do cities. I am in favor of promoting small (walkable) towns and farmland preservation, and also in favor of promoting higher densities around mass transit in already urbanized areas. It is that auto-oriented lifestyle that is so harmful to our health and open spaces.

The ways that suburban and exurban sprawl is subsidized go on and on. The bottom line is that our ecological footprint grows as density decreases. Someone living in NYC does much less damage to the earth than a person living rurally [ this would vary depending on how much of a consumer you are ]. So in the big picture living close together is healthier for everyone.
Stan Geddes
Holyoke MA

Instead of just removing subsidies from anto transport, remove subsidies from all transportation systems. Make users pay for their own service. gasoline tax for roads, fares for subways/buses/train, and airline tickets fund airport development.

Suburban sprawl exists because it's 2x-4x cheaper and healthier than city life. Nothing will make city life healthier or affordable.

The biggest subsidy, by far, is free parking. Other subsidies: (1) Roads & road-widening that is not funded by user (congestion) fees. (2) The artificially (and under-taxed) cost of gasoline. (3) Sprawl development that is not charged impact fees to compensate for the higher cost of sprawl development.

The point is this: fewer houses will be built out in the middle of cornfields, which requires them to drive over an hour each day for a commute. We need to get over the suburban dream and focus on revitalizing the cities. All that money governments save not building and maintaining roads could solve all sorts of problems for larger numbers of people.

This issue statement is unclear and misguided. Having developers pay for infrastructure is the problem, not the solution because it bunches up road costs with housing costs. Infrastructure should be funded through local taxes. Once the people feel the heavy burden of road construction directly, rather than through higher housing prices, fewer roads will be built.

This will probably take care of itself as local governments are unable to issue the bonds necessary to fund the new infrastructure that supports sprawl development.

Not only developers, but the Metropolitan Planning Commissions of US cities have used public dollars to fund exorbitant highway projects that support distant suburbs. In addition to creating SPRAWL, increasing CONGESTION, and generating high quantities of AIR POLLUTION, many of the cost-effective bus systems of the nation's urban centers have been drained. Summer Brenner, Berkeley, CA