People can live where they want, but I'm critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of unnecessarily travelling very large distances. For me it's even worse because I live in a region where the terrain requires a lot of bridges.

"but I'm critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of unnecessarily travelling very large distances"

Why choose this choice as the the line in the sand?

Are you also critical of having to subsidize the excessive amount of infrastructure necessary for the lifestyle choice of living in a strictly large than necessary place, for example?

Because you subsidize that to a large degree too.

Everyone who has a larger dining room because they have made the lifestyle choice of wanting to host dinner parties. Or large kitchens. Large bedrooms. Large yards. You name it.

It's all strictly unnecessary, and all lifestyle choice. Among other subsidies, all of it takes up valuable space that could be given to the public, or something else done with it. It requires more infrastructure - greater water supplies, greater sanitation requirements, power supplies, gas supplies, what have you.

Yet we subsidize this just the same as you are paying for roads, you are just paying for it in different places.

In truth, we subsidize a large number of lifestyle choices that impact infrastructure (having kids, riding bikes, heck, even buying groceries, you name it).

From what I can tell, it just seems some people are upset that they subsidies don't always match whatever their particular ideology of how cities should be built is.

Just remember there really is no "better" or "worse", when it comes to lifestyle choices, just different (you may impose moral judgements on lifestyle choices depending on ideology and viewpoint of purpose of society, but the truly vast majority of these moral judgements are not universally shared)

I certainly don't detest the "freedom to live where you want." It's a lack of freedom that I detest. In my city (and most others), it is highly impractical or impossible to go anywhere without a car. There is no freedom I'm choosing how to transport yourself; you drive or you don't go.

My car is kind of a form of taxation in that regard; you can't get around safely without it. There are few sidewalks or bike facilities, so citizens must own a car whether they want to (or can afford to) or not.

Isn't the freedom to choose how to get around as important to you as the freedom to choose where to live?

They also detest the democratization of wealth, which invariably results in some form of "sprawl." It's either the horizontal sprawl of endless little palaces of Versailles with their little lawns, or it's the vertical sprawl of monstrous energy-sucking megastructures full of luxury condominiums. But in either case the result of democratized wealth does not give fellatio to agrarian-utopian fantasies.

Same can be said in the opposite direction. All that parking space and all that road space wasted in cities means removing the freedom to live in the city for many, possibly more than the ones who are currently driving in.

They're free to live where they want. Just stop expecting the rest of us to pay for the ever-expanding roads and freeways that they feel entitled to reach them.

People living further away combined with the current car ownership means more cars on the streets. That's not explicitly stated at the article, but came-on, the author clearly sheers for the improved accessibility, but prefers the shared cars option.