Implementing #1, makes the point to point limitation of #2 rail less of a problem.

Using politics to bypass the law of physics and nature will not succeed.

Wise folks will bail out of automobile-bound suburbia, within the next 5 years, as fuel costs make it less viable.
On the chopping block -
SUV today, Suburbia tomorrow.

It's clearly more expensive to build sewer lines for an exurb than for an inner-city neighborhood

It seems to me that building sewer lines for an exurb would be less expensive than building in the inner city. In the exurb, you can put in sewers faster and easier because you start with a blank slate. In the inner city, you have to work around existing streets, structures, people, and traffic. But if you mean that it would be easier to build a new sewer in an empty area that you intend to become an inner city neighborhood...well, sure. But there are no big empty areas in the inner city that don't already have sewer systems.

Had we decided NOT to excessively subsidize suburban sprawl and its prerequisites after WWII, this continent would look a lot like Europe.

You mean to say we had all the advantages of an urban European lifestyle and gave it up to move to the suburbs? THANK GOD!!!

Which subsidies, though? Roads, bridges, sewer lines, and the like are public goods. Are we going to privatize all of that?

Federal subsidies on all of those should go except in the cases of bridges that cross state lines. Will state and local governments make up the difference? I doubt it.

The housing subsidy should be capped.

In my view we should phase out the subsidies and let the underlying economies make the determinations. Speculating on what people might do or might want without them is futile.

Which subsidies, though? Roads, bridges, sewer lines, and the like are public goods. Are we going to privatize all of that?

While it’s undoubtedly the case that public policy decisions have made it easier for people to live in the suburbs, the assumption that everybody really wants to live in big cities and don’t because of zoning rules and whatnot is unfounded. There are actual reasons to prefer the suburbs. Some people actually like to have backyards. Or to be able to sleep without hearing their neighbor’s stereo, police sirens, or the sounds of nightlife.

Lots of people find 5,000 sq. ft. homes on 100 acre estates appealing, too. The reason they don't live on them is economics not raw preference.

In my view we should phase out the subsidies and let the underlying economies make the determinations. Speculating on what people might do or might want without them is futile.

If you have children, you work long and hard to leave the city to improve your quality of life for the kids, i.e., they have grass and trees in the backyard, better schools and fewer interactions with the criminal element. You move further and further out to avoid the inevitable city expansion to capture more tax base. A tax base most often driven from the cities by increasing taxes to pay for expanding social programs for the poor. Many times this tax base is purposely pushed out to enhance the power of constituency of the local politicians. (See the Curley Effect by Glasaer). Not to mention, freedom. The further out you go, the less interference you get in your ability to have a bbq grill, have a shop for your hobby, grow a garden, or let your kids put together a neighborhood football game.

I fail to see the argument against roads being under charged for. The roads are necessary without commuters and are subsidized by the tax on trucking. They bring supplies and goods into and out of the city. Without them, there is no commerce. If all commuters started taking the train, those roads would have to be paid for somehow. A train, bus or subway system only moves people and will always fall short in supporting physical commerce. Not to mention, subways and trains impose barriers to modern work since they force work to occur on their schedule and not the employers or employees. No working after 7 if you got get that last train out, no running out to deal with a sick child during the workday or school disruption, no working overnight or coming in for a midnight emergency, no coming in on weekends. Commuter trains being more restrictive then a inner suburb subway.

Most or all of the conditions you cite are *effects* of white flight.

I do not agree with that statement Anderson. They may very well exacerbate some of the problems, but they didn't cause them.

Most or all of the conditions you cite are *effects* of white flight.

Let's see if I understand. Whites move out and allow the remaining citizens to run society without white interference. Those remaining turn the cities into mini versions of Haiti. How the heck is that the white people's fault?

(People live in quasi-European settings in New York; even though it's located on the North American continent, after all).

Had we decided NOT to excessively subsidize suburban sprawl and its prerequisites after WWII, this continent would look a lot like Europe.

We subsidize mass transit a small amount in comparison. To get anything remotely like an even playing field would require gas taxes of a couple bucks a gallon, and a complete rework of property taxes (as well as city charges for things like water/sewer/electric).

Of course this doesn't mean the natural preference for suburban living vanishes in a fair environment. Some people live that way in Europe, after all. But comparatively few do, when costs are accurately accounted.

Likewise, if we subsidized bacon so it was a tenth as expensive as it is today, a lot more people would eat bacon a lot more often. It wouldn't mean I love bacon any more (or less); it would mean I want it at a given price more than the alternatives, but at a different price I might think differently.

Berlin also had the advantage of being more or less leveled in 1945.

That's OK. I'm sure once Obama's in the WH, he can arrange for some middle eastern residents to accept the contract for that job.

Cause, meet effect; effect, meet cause. Now don't you two crazy kids get mixed up.

Most or all of the conditions you cite are *effects* of white flight.