My folks ride bike to their movie/dinner/entertainment venues.
I do understand what you are writing, but I am not fully
sympathetic.

It is like my dad's smoking, in someways I think he is a product
of his times, the corporations put the voodoo full press on
getting him to buy buy buy, and it is a shitty combo of an
emotional addiction as well as a physical addiction. But,
at other times I think 'Geez dad it is the twenty-first century
get off the cancer sticks already."

So I hear you, but I DO think your points of view are coming
from a somewhat artificially confined place.

--Chris

Hey Don,

Yeah I was replying to your post. Are you feeling defensive? In re-reading
my reply the only thing that really has to do with you *personally* is my last
sentence.

> So I hear you, but I DO think your points of view are
> coming from a somewhat artificially confined place.

Another way of saying this is:

'Yeah you are pretty much right. Though writing things like "...people are not choosing
between Oakland and SF, they are choosing between Oakland and Fremont,
San Leandro, and places east of the tunnel..." is a conclusion that doesn't necessarily
follow from what you have written.

"People" might be making other choices than the one you've offered up. That's all I'm saying.
Nothing personal.

My former city council member Nadel was quoted in the Oakland Tribune this morning
saying an unintended consequence of the increases are that more people might
ride bikes and try public transit. If she is right, that is good. We'll see.

--Chris

--Chris