I fully understand and agree with the arguments being presented to the FAA regarding "incompatible" land use of TTF's as being unjustified. I'm not sure if the point has been made previously, but it seems to me that the future of air transportation actually dictates residential access to most, if not all airports. As the roadway system continues to choke with vehicles gridlocked in 2 dimensions, 3-D airspace is obviously a low cost solution, which could progress rapidly if fostered properly. Airways are pretty cheap compared to light rail lines or concrete freeways. As technology evolves, especially aircraft separation and synthetic vision technology, this 3-D mode of transportation is most certainly one solution to our Country's demanding future needs. Any logical mind would then PROMOTE co-location of the portals (airports) with those desirous of utilizing this mode of transportation. It should be made mandatory that some percentage of lands adjacent to most airports not only have access, but require developers to actually provide such infrastructure access via taxiways and security gates. The FAA seems to think GA is for fun and sport rather than a viable transportation solution. While that may be true for the most part today, rest assured that as technology develops, GA will become a significant mode of transportation in the future. How can they not see this?