“"It is however an approach that would appear to be in-line with your wish to see peoples' freedom of choice removed by emptying their pockets of cash."

It's simply about making people pay more if they choose to make "damaging" decisions. It's no different to putting high rates of tax on cigarettes.

But, going back to your "freedom of choice" stance - surely that is exactly what Vauban represents - another choice! A choice that simply isn't available here. At present, when it comes to transport, there is, for many people, one choice only - the car. Like it or not!

I know many people who are laying out thousands of pounds a year on a metal box from which they gain no pleasure simply because "I've got no choice but to have a car" Is that free choice?”

“It's normally your pergative to take the opposite stance. Sometimes fewer words speak better. Having the car option is easiest as involves less upgrading, however this is not necessarily the best option for either the environment or the people going on into the future.
I mostly take my position on things from having a happy and open view on life, that it is the opposite to your view more often than not is of no concern to me.”

“Yes Kevin, I've just done a little research on Vauban and it looks simply wonderful - kind of like a sterile Legoland, but with less character. If this is your blueprint for progress then you're very welcome to it. Furthermore it's hardly a suitable case in point to demonstrate that what you advocate can work on a larger scale. 5000 inhabitants living in purpose-built, characterless houses, planned from scratch to be car free. Which would tend to suggest that the people who moved there did so because they bought into the kind of future that you want from the start, much like other experimental "eco-villages". Hardly representative of your average city. What I did find particularly interesting was the fact that "Each year, households are required to sign a declaration stating either that they do not own a car, or that they do, in which case they must buy a space in one of the multi-storey car parks on the periphery, at a cost of 17,500¿ (in 2006)". This fact alone might help to explain why so few people living there choose to own a car. It is however an approach that would appear to be in-line with your wish to see peoples' freedom of choice removed by emptying their pockets of cash.

It's not a case of refusing to countenance new ideas, it's about defending peoples' right to make their own choices rather than have them forced upon them, or have certain choices removed by making them prohibitively expensive.

I would love for your vision to be workable and viable, but truly don't believe that it is. Personal transportation is here to stay, only the method of powering it is likely to change. But keep banging the drum.

J. I would expect you to adopt the polar opposite stance to myself. But as you've offered no more than a one-line, sound bite I'll leave it at that.”

“Missouri Marten: "Your wonderful light rail, ultra light rail and bullet trains utopia sounds superb"

Indeed it does. Many cities around the world are moving in the right direction - Amsterdam, Vienna, Cologne, Hamburg, Freiburg, Groningen, Nuremberg - all have siginificant car-free areas and neighbourhoods served by clean, modern trams or guided buses. Vauban in Freiburg (A suburb of 6,000 people) has managed to reduce car ownership to just 20% by designing it's layout around people and public transport and placing restrictions on the car.

OK, nobody has quite reached my "utopia" yet, but human beings must surely strive for improvement, rather than just grumbling about traffic, parking etc but refusing to even countenance any new ideas?”

“Setting provisions for the car is easier Marten, not better.”