people start avoiding driving since it means sitting in traffic.

but I think all three are "good things," even if I don't think cars are killing the earth.

Hmm... at the moment, it was just the first impression that came to mind, without a specific rationale for it--that's why it's parenthetical.

Anyway, I'm mainly concerned with how highways promote a car-centric society...and what that means for people who don't own cars -- whether because of a lifestyle choice, physical inability to drive, or lack of money. I'm not against highways per se, but I do believe that we have built a lot more of them than we rationally need, and I believe that this middle-class subsidy has consequently hurt a lot of poor people and wed us to an unsustainable economic system.

"highways promote a car-centric society and what that means for people who don't own cars"

I don't follow. Aren't highways paid for by gas taxes from people who drive cars? Isn't that another way of complaining that people drive, period?

It's like you are complaining that highways are being funded by transit fees!

Now if you were complaining about the politics of highway pollution, placement, or traffic flow, I'd be with you, hence my advocacy of toll roads.

The American Civil Liberties Union—Protecting the Bill of Rights…except for Amendments 2, 9, and 10!--nonluddite

The government is involved in so many aspects of our economy, that it is pretty hard to tell what the net effect of state policies are. For example, the gasoline tax is used to subsidize mass-transit, so does that mean that the government discourages car use?

I believe that, in total, the state does subsidize car use, thereby promoting a car-centric society. Before I get to the meat of my reasoning, i want to address mass-transit subsidies. By themselves, these do discourage car use in favor of mass-transit use. However, mass transit systems still operate according to what we might call the "automobile paradigm"--like cars, they are capital intensive systems designed to move large amounts of cargo over long distances at a high speed. This is in contrast to the "pedestrian paradigm", in which people go on small daily trips, carrying small loads, without requiring a large capital investment.

Our settlement patterns are determined by which paradigm we adhere to. Mass-transit and automobiles will produce similar settlement patterns, and that pattern will effectively prohibit transporation according to the pedestrian paradigm. So my point is that mass-transit subsidies don't really challenge the car culture; in fact, mass transit is typically meant to complement a car-based system, not replace it. 

With that said, let's return to the issue of highway funding. In a general sense, the gasoline tax as highway funding can be seen as a user fee, and doesn't imply that drivers are getting any type of subsidy. Furthermore, if you account for the wasteful (political) allocation of those funds, we could say that drivers are getting screwed by this system.

Darn, gotta go.

P.S. : A substantial portion of highway funding also comes from general taxation.

"in fact, mass transit is typically meant to complement a car-based system, not replace it"

Overall good stuff, but I think this statement has a chicken-and-the-egg problem--mass transit was in use WAY before the automobile was invented (if not when they were ubiquitous). In fact, they talked about "streetcar suburbs" in The End of Suburbia, which I though undermined their thesis that suburbs wouldn't exist in the future without oil.

The American Civil Liberties Union—Protecting the Bill of Rights…except for Amendments 2, 9, and 10!--nonluddite