Originally Posted by
Brian Ratliff
Ah, so you are pointing out cause and effect... and not placing a value on it? If so, your use of "anti-motoring" as a label makes this less than clear. These are policies, yes, but their intent isn't to keep cars off the road. Their intent, in all cases, is to keep urban sprawl in check - a more descriptive term would be "anti-sprawl policies". The effect these policies have on motorists and car travel is secondary. By way of showing this, I was making the point that these "anti-motoring" policies were, in fact, enabled by the motoring public. Hence, at the very least, the "anti-motoring" label is a misnomer. I assumed, perhaps errantly, that you used this non-descriptive and retorically loaded (in terms of this discussion) term in order to make a retorical point.
It is interesting that you find yourself in the position, for purposes of this discussion, of arguing that anti-sprawl policies are completely separate from anti-motoring motivation. Your claim is completely novel to me; I have never heard it made before. On the other hand, I have frequently read statements by major actors in the field that tightly link opposition to urban sprawl with opposition to the motoring that enables it.
Unless you can advance good evidence for the separation that you claim exists, I won't even consider that claim reasonable.