But all of these were policy choices over the past decades. We very much could have invested in public transit and built housing, but instead we decided most humans should have a car to go about daily life. Which, if we're optimizing for sending money to car, oil, and healthcare companies, I guess is a good strategy.

> not everyone can afford to live in cities ... not everyone can afford to live in areas well connected by public transportation

Looking at it from a theoretical standpoint, physically co-locating living space allows for a number of significant cost efficiencies compared to spreading the same number of people over a larger geographic area. For much of history it was the wealthy who could afford to live outside the cities while the poor had no such choice.

My guess is that if suburban and rural residents actually paid the full cost of their roads and other infrastructure (and if zoning didn't prevent organic density from forming) that living in the suburbs (as I do) would become comparatively more expensive.

The reason those are all so expensive is because the money is being burned on less efficient transport, i.e. cars. Transporting the same amount of people via car requires A LOT more money, due to the nature of motor vehicles.