Someone will inevitably reply that the suburbs are not sustainable and it’s the cities that are propping them up.

This is an objectively true statement. Suburbs do not pay for their own maintenance and cities have to carry their economic weight: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI?si=zYfcwVLx0DYoexnM

Depends greatly on the suburb, many are subsidized but it’s a long way from all.

I don't think the 1% that pay their share are very relevant. The only example I know of a suburb that pays its fair share is the beach front suburb near Charleston, SC and that's very wealthy area that we couldn't expect to replicate on a widescale.

I think the relationship is more complicated.

Otherwise, why are city mayors desperately opposing WFH, with the goal of putting suburban commuters back into their hellish commutes into the city to patronize urban businesses?

You could argue the suburbanites need their urban jobs - but WFH has proven at least many of these jobs do not necessarily require workers to have their butts planted in urban offices to be productive.

Because people like the propaganda of the suburbs more than they like looking at hard numbers. The entire American dream is based on the notion of suburban car-centric infrastructure: each family a single unit home with a lawn and a car. We've been peddled this lie for 70 years now. It's hard to break free from something like that, especially when the consequences of suburban maintenance are so delayed. This lie has socioeconomic value because it maintains the narrative that rich people contribute the most to the economy and they're carrying the weight of the "inner-city" poor

City mayors still think that the suburbs are profitable because they're just as vulnerable to this propaganda as you and I are. The Feds help maintain this lie too.

Many/most of the people in suburbs/exurbs around me go into (or don't go into) suburban/exurban offices and local businesses. They rarely go into the major city 40 miles away. When I do, it's mostly to go to the airport or a play every 2-3 months.

From a tech perspective, until the West Coast companies started opening satellite offices in the city, it basically didn't have any tech companies any longer and was losing population.

Nonsense. People don’t want people driving into their cities and making noise/ taking up a bunch of space with their cars. We have zero problems with people taking transit in. Suburban residents want to treat the city as both a low density car friendly space and a place filled with culture/concerts/plays/restaurants, not realizing that the two are opposites.

Except that taking transit in, especially for an evening event, is often not a reasonable option. I'll happily take commuter rail in if I have to go into our urban office for the day but it's utterly unworkable for an evening event given how few trains there are and how long they take.

And this is a city (Boston/Cambridge) with relatively good transit options. If driving in for the evening became any more difficult than it is today (which is not trivial) I simply wouldn't come in. So your comment boils down to not wanting people to come into the city for a night activity.

The lack of regional electrified rail even on the Providence line is a blight on the Boston area. It is perfectly feasible to run regional trains every 15 minutes which would solve your problem.

Of course we won't get that until the 2050s at best...

> taking transit in, especially for an evening event, is often not a reasonable option

If it’s that much of a hassle, for most entertainment one commutes into Manhattan for, you are fine paying the toll on an Uber. People driving themselves in and sensitive to the toll are, by definition, not adding much to the local economy.

I'm basically $200-300 round-trip to get a car to take me into the city. At that point, I'm probably going to make a weekend out of it whether I take commuter rail in or not--and I'm not going to do it very often. We're talking probably a thousand dollars at that point between hotel and transportation and whatever the actual activity is.

(And I'm not sure from a driving in perspective what's actually been gained relative to me taking my own car in and parking in a garage which is what I usually do.)

> basically $200-300 round-trip to get a car to take me into the city

The congestion charge will be between $9 and $23. For certain parts of Manhattan. During certain hours. It sounds like your problem is where you live, fundamentally, not the charge.

> a thousand dollars at that point between hotel and transportation

You do see how, from a resident's perspective, you spending more money less frequently is not a downside?

> what's actually been gained relative to me taking my own car in and parking in a garage

A reduction in space wasted to parking. Also, congestion: your car adds a car to the road. (You're also a non-professional driver in a dense urban environment.)

"Certain parts of Manhattan" is south of 66th St.

The things that people want to deal with the PITA of living in Manhattan over depend on volume of people. COVID and WTF killed commercial office traffic - now that it's getting dark early take a walk up 3rd Avenue in the late afternoon - the offices are empty.

So the residents don't want to deal with commuters, don't want to deal with drivers, etc. Cool. I don't want to hear about bailing people out of their $2M mortgages on 800 ft^2 apartments when the cultural, dining and entertainment that brought them to Manhattan migrates to Brooklyn and Jersey.

> I don't want to hear about bailing people out of their $2M mortgages on 800 ft^2 apartments

Real estate crashing would save NYC from itself.

I don't get this. Garage parking + bridge tolls + gas can't cost more than $100 to drive into NYC. Boston even less due to no bridge tolls and shorter distances.

The context was the claim I shouldn't drive into Boston. That's the cost for getting a taxi or other car service. Which, as I said in another comment, isn't clear to me how it makes a difference but it apparently does because I'm not a "professional driver."

The NY Metro North railroad is so much better than the MBTA Commuter Rail that it's not even in the same category. You absolutely can take it into the city for the evening.

There's a whole cultural aspect to it as well as the actual physical infrastructure. But it's probably unique in the US in that regard.

The MBTA commuter rail is commuter rail. And, outside the occasional other event, no one looks at it differently and it is empty (and probably loses a bunch of money) whenever it runs outside of rush hour.

The money saved from reduced vehicles in the city can and should go into expanded commuter service, I absolutely agree. There is a cultural element to this as well - many suburbanites feel that transit is beneath them.