these things will be evaluated based on the net benefit such a service would provide. more people having affordable commute to dallas would end up increasing the net benefit and value that dallas has.

cities grow in capabilities in direct proportion to the number of people who have access to it and their capabilities. it might be cheaper labour leading to better roads, plumbing etc

Perhaps I'm understanding things wrong, but isnt the idea of taxes for public good and some / all of it might never reach you?

I pay for taxes that help run schools, and it is an good setup even if I dont have any kids.

That doesn't sound like a public good. It sounds like a private good.

I want a Ferrari. It would be good for me. Should taxes pay for it?

Ive never liked this framing; "the public good" is too nebulous an idea to justify how tax should be spent.

I, and people like me create wealth. Some of that wealth is pooled at an administrative level that makes sense across a town, state, or nation. Its still wealth I created; and I expect it to be used to benefit me, ideally proportionally to the tax taken.

Unemployment can be justified as crime prevention; Disability and healthcare systems limit individual worst-case outcomes (especially if due to chance). Super-commuter subsidies do what?

Why are you assuming there’s some taxpayer that will pay for my transportation?

I fully intend to pay my transportation costs myself.

It’s not about getting a free ride, it’s about being able to get to work while sleeping, saving money on housing, and pocketing the difference.