Although I’m aware some of these statements may strike many as controversial, I’m flattered that you have responded with such thoughtfulness and care.

In some ways I’m in the same boat that you’re in, in wanting to enhance and expand walkable and dense development while preserving the option for those who want to live a lifestyle made possible by cars. For many years I’ve been reliant on public transportation and only recently have I found that the option to drive to work provides me intangible advantages to how I manage my time. Having lived in less car-dependent places like Europe and Singapore and using almost exclusively the elevated trains of Chicago and the expansive bus system in Austin, I think that I well aware of the mass transit’s shortcomings on my daily life. And having been known as one who scours historic cities tirelessly for miles, I acknowledge that few people wish to walk any more than a 1/2 mile.

So when I see a journal column proposing to eradicate car-based urban infrastructure, I’m struck by the author’s implicit desire to limit individual self-movement in favor of a more pedestrian and communal approach. I know that to fulfill most of our cherished needs and to pursue opportunities throughout the city, relying almost exclusively on mass transit and walking would not be viable. Ever try grocery shopping at Whole Foods using the El holding dozens of bags for one hour in smelly train car with shady hoodlums surrounding you? With other comparable instances, I tend to think the call to densify and limit our choices for mobility is more political in dimension than anything else. Must be the rabid libertarian in me…