So, cities "suck" because of all the suburbanites driving in their cars. I think you're missing the irony there. It's the cars that suck. Cities generate more revenue per acre than the sprawling suburbs. Suburbs are a poor use of land. Cities need to be designed around walking, biking, and mass transit. Suburbs are great if you're white and wealthy.
Yep, the reality is the cities subsidise the suburban sprawl, and allow it to exist. Suburbs aren't self-sustaining. There's isn't enough property tax or business tax to pay for their infrastructure (in most cases - unusually rich suburbs may be the exception), so the only option for the city is to continue growing the suburban area so that they can get developers and property tax to pay for the new road or new school that they need to support it.
And for those complaining about traffic in cities, please read up on induced demand. It's literally impossible to build enough car infrastructure in areas like this, because the desire to use a car outweighs all else. If you build more infrastructure, you will get more traffic, because you made it more convenient to use a car than the train.
Cities should be using public transport for the majority (>80%) of their citizens' transport needs. And there's nothing wrong with using public transport, but it can't really survive in parallel with massive car infrastructure, one thing or another has to give.
This doesn't mean you can't own a car or live in suburbia, but eventually, you're going to have to pay more tax to sustain that low-density lifestyle, as cities are slowly going broke trying to maintain it off the backs of the more productive city centre.