🚀 go-pugleaf

" It is sometimes the case that proponents of alternative modes of
" transport assume that because they do not use a car of their own for
" commuting, or at all, that they should not then bear any of the cost
" burden of the highway system.  It seems to me, however, that if one
" lives here and takes advantage of the employment, recreational, and
" other opportunities, that one is deriving a great deal of benefit
" from the system.  The existence of most of these benefits depends on
" the existence of that same highway system.  What is your opinion on
" this?

I appreciate your reasonable question.

My opinion is that the benefits derived from freedom of travel are
enormous, and if implemented properly a much-less-car oriented
transportation norm would maintain these freedoms.  I am also very
aware it may be possible to achieve similar benefits from
telecommunicating, but don't know that for sure (one side effect of my
telecommunicating is that I make friends with people who live further
away from me ... do I actually follow up and visit them?  I should,
but don't ...)  I think having the option of car-like vehicles
(rent-a-car?) is essential for at >least< a decade more (assuming the
whole society gets 100% behind a transportation rehab plan -- which I
haven't seen happening), but that option will (through appropriation
of cost and pleasure) be so less desirable that indeed car use will go
down to an appropriate level (i.e. unusual circumstances).  I think
this can be researched, tested, etc.

What can't be researched or tested is something we already know:  we
will have to change our transportation norm, and we cannot come back to
cars which burn gas (on a mass scale), ever again, because our natural
environment can not handle it.  I'm not just talking spotted owls; I'm
talking rivers, lakes, people, babies, old folk and middle aged
professionals will croak in the direction we're going now
environmentally.  Here, unfortunately, there should be no argument.

Brad Allen