The following questions are still open to everyone:

1) If average trips in an area are 10-60 miles, do you think there is adequate freedom for most able-bodied people to choose cycling or transit instead of driving?

2) If cycling and transit aren't viable options for living in an area, do you believe that the population of that area can grow indefinitely without undue congestion and driving-hassle causing social and economic problems for many if not most people?

3) If such areas grow to the point of unsustainablity and outlying areas or other new areas begin expanding according to the same driving-dependency model, can infrastructure growth keep up with population growth and/or sustain economic growth?

4) Are driving-dependent areas more vulnerable to economic recession than areas with greater transportation parity/choice? If not, why not?

5) If somehow social-economic governance can be used to permanently stave off recession and ensure perpetual growth of automobilist sprawl-cities, will there be sufficient opportunities in those cities for people to exercise outdoors and experience natural land or will most people end up driving to gyms as their exclusive option for exercise away from motor-traffic? Will their experience of nature become limited to those few parks and trees that are left in between parking lots, roads, and buildings?

6) Will (most) children grow up with the opportunity to move somewhere they can walk and cycle for transportation or will such areas become so scarce that they are subject to rigorous immigration control, such as Europe and probably other areas of the world as well are? If children grow up without this opportunity, is this not practically the same thing as imprisoning them in a world of private venues separated by long-drives? Does anyone consider this a healthy way to experience life?