Originally Posted by tandempower

'Redistributing' land for the sake of transportation parity is not the same thing as redistribution for the sake of decreasing income inequality. Decreasing income inequality has the effect of invigorating markets and trade by stimulating more spending and growth, which ultimately increases economic inequalities as the proceeds of the economy get distributed according to the gradient of income levels from the lowest to the highest paid jobs.

Making areas more pedestrian and bike friendly does very little to reduce or increase income-inequality or economic growth, except to the extent investors and consumers put money into areas based on their transportation preferences. Those who favor driving-dependency and sprawl sometimes cite isolation from criminality and low-income culture as a benefit. I.e. people are willing to pay more for property in areas where they feel more security that not just anyone can bike or walk into their neighborhood. There were plenty of areas that were isolated in this way but still crashed when the housing bubble burst circa 2007.

Driving dependency and sprawl are therefore not actually hedges against economic crash but causes of it. They cause it by accelerating the growth in growing areas, but then reaching limits where people no longer want to move into an area because it's been taken over by cars, parking, and congestion. People might move to such an area to make money but with the ultimate goal of affording a place to live outside the bustle.

To the extent that escape is a strong motivator of economic performance, driving-dependency and sprawl may generate more growth in the short-term, but making areas bikeable and walkable stabilizes the long-term desirability of an area, promotes health and well-being, provides greater economic independence from fuel and energy markets, and allows for more flexibility of population growth without the threat of motor-congestion and/or geographical saturation with roads and highways.