Maybe, as the originator of this thread I should steer the discussion in a slightly different direction.
It is fascinating to hear that there are now so many instances of long cart rides between holes. What I am really wondering is if the advent of cart-only, or cart recommended courses is having a profound on the effect on how the golf architect assesses the site? How much is it now a case of the architect looking at a piece of terrain and thinking 'Hmmm, don't fancy that much, let's stick a cart track through there and go find somewhere better', or are they a godsend, because it means that the architect can skip past some topographical, or vegetative obstacle that would otherwise entail either a, huge construction costs, b, massive environmental damage, or c, render the site unworkable?
Three courses prompted me to start this. Stone Mountain (which I mentioned) and two Mike Strantz layouts, 1. Stonehouse (which Tom Doak spotted) and 2. Royal New Kent, which I loved as an utterly amazing piece of design, but can in no way be described as a flowing layout. I am sure that there are many good reasons why these courses are so spread out and it may well be the case that if buggies didn't exist that many of the magnificent modern courses that rely on them simply could not have been built in their locations.
From my own perspective I am currently planning a layout that has to have a 400m walk between two holes - and it kills me, because it totally interrupts the pace of the round. Do other architects who have planned courses with these enforced breaks feel the same, or do you get used to it and be thankful that such an effective 'cheat' is an option?