This will be my only post to here today as Doug has told me to shut up (although, Doug, I see a lot of people who posted more yesterday than I did who are posting today like rabbits multiplying. Perhaps you are annoyed with my having poked at your views of what constitutes "cash"?).
Obviously the automobile/infrastructure/housing complex is a coevolving system that is now deeply entrenched in path dependence terms, at least in the US. I live in a 32,000 town where I am able to walk to work a lot, but with the closure of our neighborhood grocery really do need to use a car for other necessity items. We do need and can get much less polluting auto technologies.
I support Trond's suggestion for larger urban areas. This idea was originated by the late William Vickrey. The tech is now there for automatic reading that does not require tollbooths or stopping. So much for the Bay Bridge problem. The issue is not just pollution, but avoiding congestion and also encouraging use of mass transit. The funds could be used for that as well, although that depends on their being sufficient public support for mass transit, which, I repeat, I support, even in smaller urban areas.
Higher gasoline prices would go a long way to reducing the current rage for the obnoxious SUVs.
BTW, when I was in OZ I was in Newcastle and Sydney. There the patterns look more like the US. I was told that Melbourne is more like a European city.
With regard to the sexuality question, let us not forget that the spread of the automobile during the "roaring '20s" in the US was a major impetus to the sexual revolution. The ability to get away from parental chaperoning was a big deal, even if it seems quaint and ridiculous from the perspective of more modern issues. The freedom given by autos is not all a bad thing. Barkley Rosser
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu