But presumably the new occupants compared their existing old travel method, and deemed the new one better. If the old method had some "social benefits", it must mean that the old method's social benefit came at a cost in benefit to the occupants. Otherwise, they would not have chosen the new method!

> the new occupants compared their existing old travel method, and deemed the new one better

You’re leaving out the taxpayers subsidising their commute.

Just because an individual makes a particular choice when given the opportunity, doesn't mean it must be a social benefit.

I love how I was voted down for that comment, one which ought to be obvious on its face. There are plenty of choices people make that don't benefit society as a whole. That isn't controversial.

Rather than vote me down, perhaps you could reply instead? Use your words.