I can understand this argument if the argument is against _commuting_ rather than against _travel_. There is merit to the argument that inexpensive commuting promotes suburban and rural Sprawl. Even inexpensive mass-transit such as commuter light-rail will promote Sprawl. And why should people allow policy to develop which effectively limits inexpensive travel to urban/suburban commuter light rail? Don’t people have a right to vacations, to visit family, to attend conferences in other cities? Don’t people have a right to hop in an affordable private transport and combine all of the above, and stop in a few national parks and sightsee along the way?

High-efficiency personal transportation need not inevitably lead to Sprawl. Public policy limiting development can do that. Let’s not let people suppress independence and the right to travel when where and however one would do so. Let the debate directly revolve around policy on Subdivision and Development, rather than on limiting choices and options in Transportation as a workaround for being unwilling or unable to address the growth of Sprawl.