The dense urban centers at the state and national level (if you consider SoCal, NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. to be nationally viable economic engines) end up paying, one way or another, for those who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere - through the maintenance of roads, utilities (including water and sewer in some places), postal routes, emergency services, schools, etc. There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs) shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.
Initially I agreed with this comment. But then I thought about it some and looked up some data on it. Maybe its not exactly what you were referring too, but I thought it was good info.
I don't think the problem is John Smith in Norman Oklahoma traveling 60 miles to work every day in an F150. He is often the target of peoples ire, but that is not really the issue. In a way yes he should not do that, but there are simply not enough of him to make a difference. He does not really wait in traffic or stress an over taxed infrastructure.
Really good stuff by the census bureau: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2013/demo/SEHSD-WP2013-03.pdf
Basically according to the link above it is the huge urban areas that we need to focus on. The "mega commuters" all live in the exurbs of the major cities, and they use the most resources to get to work. In terms of gas, but also in terms of space on the interstate or train. Now many of these folks do in fact take public transit. Which I guess is fine, but they still are "consuming" that spot for longer then the average commuter.
If people want to live in the middle of nowhere they can, furthermore its hella easier to build infrastructure in the middle of nowhere then it is to do so in a packed city.
I am not saying I am right or anything, but in terms of time spent consuming travel resources the mega commuters are the undisputed winner.
I agree, fully:
-When these arguments crop up there's always quite a bit of hand wringing over the fact that the US is vast and has much lower population density than many other countries. Proposals like the hyperloop and ultra high speed transcontinental rail are both unrealistic and missing the point. For the very reason you mention (population density surrounding urban centers), the focus of accessible rapid transit should be where the return from the investment is greatest: already established residential communities that surround major and minor urban centers. I personally would like to take public transit to work, but I can't. I would love to travel within my own region by train, but unless I'm headed to the biggest cities, I can't.
-The idea that small towns across the country are low-impact from a commuting or even fuel consumption perspective isn't the point. All those county roads, electric, gas, regional police, EMS, etc. have to exist to enable those places to be livable. Sure, there are plenty of folks who live out truly without support but that's not the case for the people who live in Manchester, IL (I just randomly zoomed into the US to the first small town I hit) - the lives of the people there have merit and I bet it's a nice place to be if you want to live there.
But is it appropriate to assume that its residents can just live there forever? Again, i don't advocate for the razing of these communities - far from it. Instead, would the needs of the likely large cohort in that town be met if they had the means to move away to a more accessible, densely populated area? I'd argue that. It sucks to think that a place you were born and raised might one day disappear off the map because the community just doesn't have the funding to sustain itself. But that exact thing happens all the time. And it would certainly happen more if residents of those towns had the resources to relocate.
Instead of letting these communities stumble along forever, incurring mounting costs for maintenance of infrastructure and the necessary support services associated, which certainly is enormously expensive when you consider the thousands of towns like that, why not let some of them gracefully disappear off the map instead of keeping residents trapped in those towns because there aren't enough high paying jobs to keep the population much above poverty levels.
From the Manchester, IL wikipedia entry:
The Village re-established the village fire department in the summer of 1997. The department grew exponentially until 2009 when Mayor Ron Drake took over as Fire Chief and bankrupted the department. The Village still has two of the fire trucks, but has no members who know how to operate them or is licensed to drive them, including Mayor Drake.
The point isn't and should never be to coerce people out of what they have right now, although I'm sure there are many who would like to take that approach. But the continued subsidization of people who live away from readily accessible urban areas is, frankly, unsustainable. Over the course of a few decades, the most ideal policy would see people who live rurally who also aren't involved in agriculture & its support able to maintain that lifestyle at a premium.
There is frankly no reason why the grand majority of the population of the country (again, ignoring agriculture and the support services agriculture needs) shouldn't eventually live within a train ride to a major urban center.
How are you defining rural, and what constitutes "supporting" agriculture? You'd need fueling stations, or a depot that sends trucks out. You'd need a place to provide parts and service for tractors and vehicles. Maybe a veterinarian's office for livestock? And the people that work in those businesses would have families that might need schools with teachers and staff. All of those buildings would probably justify a hardware or home improvement store of some type. Restaurants? Police/fire/EMS? Medical offices and/or a hospital? All of a sudden, we're talking about a lot of people "supporting" agriculture, and it's really no different than the small towns that dot the landscape already. I'm just curious where you draw the line, because it seems a lot like trying to determine who is and isn't an "essential worker".
That's a fair point, and I think it's largely a case-by-case basis. There are certainly people who want to live out in the middle of nowhere, but there's also a lot of people who want to be able to commute to work without having to drive a car or people who want access to safe and reliable infrastructure.
Unless farms start to shrink over the next few decades (and I'd bet they aren't) and we see a notable increase in people who are interested in committing themselves to the farming lifestyle, many of those small towns just aren't needed like they would have been 30 or 40 years ago.
It's delusional to think that as a country we can continue to have what we have right now without some inflection point where the cost to service the vast expanse of tiny little communities becomes so great that the only way they can continue along is with massive state and federal grants.
I'm glad you aren't advocating for the punitive measures that others (the 2 previous comments) seem to focus on.
How is it punitive to recognize that communities with declining populations and which don't have anything more than a Dollar General or a farmer's market for purchasing food locally don't necessarily need to continue to receive state and federal funding forever?