[GundamFan0083]

Huh, my automobile doesn't cost me anywhere near that much Vexx.
I bought my 1998 Jeep outright for $6700.00 with only 65,000 miles on it.
Insurance costs me $325.00 every 6 months ($54.00/month), and gas is about $160.00/month for me at $3.47/gallon.
I store it in my driveway, I do all the maintenance, buy the parts from NAPA, don't pay parking fees or tolls (I plan ahead so I don't have to, there are exceptions, but those are very rare), taxes on it are very low ($31.00/year, plus emissions every 2 years adds another $20.00).

I agree with you that people MUST have choices and public transit needs to be one of them, but not the only choice.
As SaintlessHeart pointed out, there's no way we can convert to electric cars completely over the next 50 years.
Electric cars have been around since the 1800s, and never have quite caught on (granted technology is much better now).
And considering how far we've come with hydrogen thus far, I think electric-cars are a pipe dream.

As for the right to travel ...I don't care what the DMV manuals say.
I care what the courts have ruled on this issue.

SCOTUS ruled thus:

Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999):"For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of free ingress and regress to and from' neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created."

Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In effect travel is a right.

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."

Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."

The lower Federal courts have also ruled on the right to travel as follows:

“A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right.”—Murdock vx. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

I'd say it's pretty clear it's a right.