The same reason rural areas are a net drain in other ways. They have no efficiencies of scale and since everything is spread apart, providing services becomes more expensive and difficult.
> "This pattern holds for state government spending, too. Studies in Minnesota, Georgia, and Wisconsin reveal that metropolitan areas contribute more to state coffers than they receive in education, infrastructure, and other public services investments. In Georgia, for instance, metropolitan Atlanta provides 61 percent of state revenue but receives just 46 percent of state investment. State spending on roads, broadband networks, schools, and other public services in small town America is funded, in part, by the economic prosperity of cities."
There's no way the majority of rural communities in this country could cover their own infrastructure costs. Those are heavily subsidized by the state. In the state I live in, Iowa, there are nearly 100k miles of rural roads to support a population of roughly 1 million rural residents. Meanwhile there are about 16k miles of road to support the other 2 million urban and suburban residents. Roughly 1/3rd of those rural roads are considered to be "farm to market" roads which facilitate delivery of farming goods to markets. The other 70k miles of roads are just to support rural residents. And while there's an argument that rural gravel roads are cheaper to build, that ignores the total cost of ownership as those roads need annual maintenance. Even things like electricity are heavily subsidized because residents pay a similar rate regardless of where they live, and rural residents require substantially more infrastructure to get the power to them in the first place. Those additional costs are borne by all residents. At least part of that "cheap rural lifestyle" is paid for by folks living in cities.
I wonder how much of this is the urban / rural divide (and where that divide is can be debated) and how much this is rich vs poor (obviously those who are poor produce a net drain on the government, but that’s not necessarily bad).
https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-c...
> "This pattern holds for state government spending, too. Studies in Minnesota, Georgia, and Wisconsin reveal that metropolitan areas contribute more to state coffers than they receive in education, infrastructure, and other public services investments. In Georgia, for instance, metropolitan Atlanta provides 61 percent of state revenue but receives just 46 percent of state investment. State spending on roads, broadband networks, schools, and other public services in small town America is funded, in part, by the economic prosperity of cities."
There's no way the majority of rural communities in this country could cover their own infrastructure costs. Those are heavily subsidized by the state. In the state I live in, Iowa, there are nearly 100k miles of rural roads to support a population of roughly 1 million rural residents. Meanwhile there are about 16k miles of road to support the other 2 million urban and suburban residents. Roughly 1/3rd of those rural roads are considered to be "farm to market" roads which facilitate delivery of farming goods to markets. The other 70k miles of roads are just to support rural residents. And while there's an argument that rural gravel roads are cheaper to build, that ignores the total cost of ownership as those roads need annual maintenance. Even things like electricity are heavily subsidized because residents pay a similar rate regardless of where they live, and rural residents require substantially more infrastructure to get the power to them in the first place. Those additional costs are borne by all residents. At least part of that "cheap rural lifestyle" is paid for by folks living in cities.