Absolutely! I've been saying on many occasions - let the real cost of driving be brought into the open - then the real alternatives would emerge. And we'll see who's subsidizing who and for how long. Compare this with the situation in higher education and healthcare - where you are pretty much expected to fork out the entire cost and then some (for the profit of the corporations and their shareholders).

That's funny. But horses are already (and have always been) solar powered :)

chuk-it-levi-strauss, while you have a point about not resurrecting a "bankrupt company", your examples of Fiat and Bombardier are not quite the "best in business". Japanese and Korean manufacturers have more energy efficient systems, and don't forget the Germans. Of course, I'm making a broad point without numbers - but there are ways to evaluate the best option for each region (yes, options need to be evaluated on a regional basis) - and the trolley bus can actually be the most cost effective and the least polluting (on a life-cycle basis - including the emissions related to construction of tracks) per passenger per mile, in some situations. And, lastly, if transportation infrastructure is so critical for a nation's future (which it always is), then it's best to develop local capability. It's not just about jobs - but simple economics - how would you pay for these imports? As such, there is very little that America produces which the rest of the world needs, and in the long run, ALL imports need to be balanced with exports.

Google Maps already has such a feature in my city.

Get on Google maps and zoom into anywhere in the Pittsburgh area. Click on any blue bus-stop symbol. You will get a window with the route numbers that serve that stop, destinations, and scheduled time for the next two to five buses at that stop.

I've checked their times against the official bus schedues - they are remarkably accurate and error free.

The GM/rails story is a typical case of the false efficiency of private industry.

When one considers the choice of driving a car, one does not consider taxes to procure the oil and caretake the vets who quickly or gradually grind into disability.

Consumers usually make deci$ion$ assuming only personal lo$$ or gain because consumers assume that public and corporate decisions cannot be changed and because they find the results of their purchases unclear.

To call this universal or "human nature" overlooks the effects of the current market, where people cannot often tell where goods come from, how they got there, or what collateral damage is associated with their purchase and use.

"The personal vehicle is here to stay"

I suppose -- if you count bicycles as personal vehicles. I got rid of my car in 1995. Haven't once regretted it.

"Right, what part of that 80% lived in rural america where it was the horse the car was replacing, not the streetcar or the train?"

Answer - only a few percent.

Of course the car was an improvement over horses in rural areas - but only a small minority of USAns have lived in rural areas since the early 20th century.

You are attacking a straw man. No one is calling for a complete abolition of cars and trucks - just a very deep reduction in our reliance on them - largely through dismantling of the sprawling, incredibly wasteful and environmentally destructive suburban model of developemt that requires them.

The suburbs and exurbs must be replaced with the older, and much nicer, model of compact communities, that besides being good for the environment, replace corporate chains and big-boxes with local mom-and-pop economics.

We are in times of great, and grave, change...nothing about our current daily existence should be seen as 'off the table' where change is concerned, as our current thinking and behavior is incredibly dysfunctional, and no ideas for future daily existence should be labeled 'non-starters'...being unable to envision life without the car doesn't mean life without cars is not a realistic possibility, or an admirable goal...

there's truth to this very statement. The very thing happened as the Vietnam War cycled down, the conversion of defense contractors into domestic contractors. Government, through the Urban Mass Transit Authority, attempted this sort of very thing.... "Buy America" under Nixon....

Plenty of people want public transport in circumstances that have good public transport: where cities have grown up around them.

In the 1950's, when GM bought up the trolley trains in Los Angeles, California and destroyed them, they did not do so because they could not sell train tickets. They did so because they made more money selling cars. To rephrase this, many among the population of Los Angeles found the tram lines useful and patronized them, but by destroying the trams, GM could charge them more for cars.

GM chose the cars because they were less efficient.

Of course, in contemporary Los Angeles, well-to-do people usually prefer cars The city sprawls. Public transport has to cover a wide area with resultant small percentage of users, so If you try to take a bus to most places in LA, you travel all day and pay more to do so. On the other hand, a lot of people find it foolish to drive a car in San Francisco, Manhattan, Mexico City, or Paris. The cities have good public transport. All but Mexico City are bunched together. If you want to own a car, you pay high fees to part. Anywhere you try to drive, traffic is a pain.

So no. Plenty of people want economy, convenience, and mobility, which in many places public transport supplies better than cars -- even now with the artificially reduced price of oil.

I stopped driving ten years ago. Public transport and taxis are a horrible way to get around in a western city. If I wasn't retired I probably couldn't manage, it just takes too long to do anything. However with the money I save not paying for the use of a private auto I can afford to visit India. Love those rickshaws, so handy. Too bad India is going the way of the west, way too many motor vehicles for the amount of roadway.

"People don't want trolleys, busses, trains, rickshas or ox-carts if they have a choice. People want privacy & mobility, which motor cars give them."

Uh ... who appointed you spokesman for the human race? Trolleys, buses trains (and a bicycle) are exactly what I want. Except for trolleys they're what I have too. I wouldn't drive a car if you gave me one.

I'll trade you my SUV for a light rail freight train anyway. And FYI, privacy is long dead. Your wee-wee is showing.

And, if you read the article, there was a time when a seamless system of walakble citys and towns, trolleys, interurban trolleys, and intercity trains gave people in all but rural areas all the same mobility as a car at a tiny fraction of the cost and traffic aggravation.

The electric interurbans provided service several times an hour from cities to surrounding towns at up to 70-80 mph. Steam trains - old fashioned steam trains - went to major cities hourly and went up to 90 mph. Connections went to the smallest rural towns.

The degree that this sleek transportation system that USAns once enjoyed has been erased from history is pretty remarkable.

So it wasn't suprising that in the 1920's after 20 years of car manufacturting effort, only the 20% of people - mostly those in rural areas - were buying cars.

The demand for cars is a fabircated one - an entire convienient and efficient transprotation system was dismantled and replaced with a stunningly inefficent one to make that demand. A triumvirate of Big Detroit, Big Real Estate, and Big Box keep it this way.

The world alway didn't, and most of it doesn't look like freeway and wal-mart-clogged bubbasouth-land. There are manifestly better ways to live.

A bus and/or bicycle will give you mobility, and a pair of dark sunglasses, an iPod, and a surly look will give you privacy.

Seriously...myspace, facebook, twitter...people gave up privacy.

I wish they would expand public transport, I love the subway systems in Boston and NYC, and think some small cities i've been to would still benefit greatly from such systems even though theres less people.

no Bubbasouth, they want the illusion of privacy and mobility. Privacy began disappearing in the 1960s with credit cards and now is essentially gone. With satellite-linked GPS in many cars, somebody can watch you, while you watch your monitor screen. As for mobility, we want it but we also need it. We have indulged our juvenile sense of entitlement and built vast swaths of car-dependent, suburban sprawl. There are many parts of the country where you cannot do anything without getting into the car. They don't even have sidewalks. Anyway, go ahead, get in the car. In those same parts of the country, you will crawl through traffic between 6 and 10 AM and 3 and 7 PM, and several hours on Saturday afternoon. I have lived in several semi-rural, ex-urban areas and it is just as bad if not worse there. There is almost no part of "civilization", not overrun by auto and truck traffic.

When you get where you are going, you will pay a lot to park, if you can find a space and walk much farther to your destination than the distance from the bus stop. And what will there be when you get there? A mall, a cineplex, a strip of stores, like every other strip in every other town on every other highway in every other state. Maybe you'll get to choose between IHOP and Appleby's. This is what we get in exchange for the illusion of privacy and mobility. But in a sense you are right. People will resist mightily any attempt to shatter their illusions. The illusion of privacy, mobility and freedom is easier than the practice thereof.

Anyway, f**k all that, I am going to go turn on my 57" plasma screen and watch, aging, never-were athletes argue about sports statistics on ESPN...

"GOD IS PUNISHING GM TO ETERNAL DAMNATION"

You've gota stop with that.