This is sort of a negative liberty vs positive liberty situation in some ways.

But anyway, in the left image: The state collected taxes to build subsidies for oil & automobile companies. Later, the state can’t afford to maintain and expand the subsidies to meet demand with taxation alone, so the quality of service degrades significantly - in part due to other outstanding liabilities like a neocolonial empire in support of other capital interests - but mostly because of the sprawl. It therefore has to assume large deficits to finance the maintenance alone, which is unsustainable in the global liberal market where money is real. Nothing is left over to pay for any long term initiatives to improve anything else.

In the right image, the state collected taxes and built (at least in this particular street) sustainable infrastructure that isn’t subjected to the stresses of automobile traffic.

There’s nothing free market about either one, it’s just a difference in priorities for how public money was utilized… To subsidize particular industries (whether the individuals involved in planning/building had any awareness of that or not) or to be sustainable.