Matthew - expanding public transportation is only part of the problem. Radically re-inventing how we build neighborhoods is the real issue.

Let's take Phoenix or Las Vegas for example. These "cities" (note the quotes) are so spread out that you could spend billions building public transportation and it would still not get used because you would have to *drive* to get to the stations.

It's going to take 50 years of infill and demolition to get us to a system where public transit is possible again, and we should start by demolishing some of the shite (already in foreclosure) that surrounds Phoenix, Vegas, and California's central valley, and do massive in-fill projects in Detroit and on former military bases, and other brown-field lands.

Then we can build public transit.

You could say that public transportation is a local and state level thing so it's not their place to talk about it, but then there's that whole national leadership thing that their supposed to do..

matthew, dan, typhoon,

it strikes me that you are all part right; or all right from your particular perspectives; but the problem seems so huge, so embedded in our culture's habits that it frustrates me [a 31-yr veteran of gasoline manufacture] to see the enormity of the problem and the "head in the sand" or "just get the votes" attitude of so many of my fellow humans

i find that for me the only way to overcome the depressive aspects of our situation is to do what i can locally; i traded my 22mpg 1997 for a 34 mpg 1968 highway vehicle and a 200+ mpg economic equivalent completely electric city car [NEV modified to go 45 mph]

the whole idea of simultaneously tranporting throngs of humans to work centers is so anachronistic, a literal "hangover" from the pre-electronic days; i know there are so many better transportation methods than the one-person/one-car habit we've all fallen into but i sometimes wonder if the answer lies closer to stop transporting rather than transporting more efficiently

rant over; good luck to us all, do what you think you can to change yourself and those around you who might listen

the EV got me exposed to an email list that had this encouraging post:

received a surprise email at work today. They have created a reserved spot for my ZENN!!!
Charging station included! And it's right outside my office! Our company has always been
environmentally proactive and I figured they get back to me to let me know where I could
plug in as they have numerous exisitng exterior outlets. I didn't care if I had to walk across
the complex. BUT I never expected them to actually create a new parking spot and install an
outlet and "reserved" sign. I'm just an hourly paid worker (although I've been there 15 years)
low in the ladder and for them to do this for me was just outstanding. I'm just so elated I had
to share with you. I've posted the picture in the photos section.

Julie

so, do what you can now, and don't get down about the

Why isn't it on either party's platform?

People prefer to be independent.

By and large the people of the United States do not wish to live in a socialist Euro-topia of high-density housing and public transit.

Most people would rather find a more efficient and/or sustainable way to get from ther suburban home to their workplace.

If you want to live in a mecca of socialist urban planning, try close-in Seattle or close-in Portland (Oregon). I can speak to those two from personal experience. I've heard similar about Vancouver BC.

At the end of the day, you can't simply get politicians to support public transit. The reality is that the majority of Americans do *not* wish to live the urban socialist lifestyle. I think it's safe to say that none of the Republicans do, and only some Democrats do (most Blue Dog midwestern Dems want nothing to do with public transit or urban socialism).

Socialist Euro-topia? Perhaps your opinion would be taken seriously if you avoid the name calling and actually support your view with some data.

What we need to break is the perception that many people have that the only individuals who want public transportation are those who cannot afford cars. In other words, part of what we are fighting against is the car as a status symbol. I am from long island, and there is NO public transportation in suffolk county. I never use anything but the subway when I'm in NYC, or anything but the T (including buses) when I am at school in boston. The convenience factor is overwhelming. But when I go back home and talk to people who have never lived in cities or have been in the suburbs for decades, they seem to think that anyone would prefer to have a car and can't possibly comprehend that public transit could be at once cheaper, faster, more convenient, and more comfortable. Sad, but, in my experience, true.

If you take a look at maps of the train lines that USED to exist in the United States (take Pennsylvania, for example), it will blow your mind.

I was stranded in the middle of Nashville, TN, and trying to get back to Memphis. The Greyhound was running in 7 hours, so I called Amtrak to see how much a ticket was. Turned out they didn't have a station in Nashville (in a capital city of the U.S?!?!?), and the closest one was 180 miles away.

Took the bus.

After having lived in the East Coast (love SEPTA, actually, I'll admit it!), and Japan (best public transit in the WORLD, if not pricey like everything in Japan), I forget how the rest live.

This is a for-reals social issue in the United States. We HAVE to stop driving.

I can't help but agree.
I would rather us invest more money in public transportation because no matter how fuel efficient our cars are, we still add pounds of CO2 to the air when we burn gasoline.
I would rather us have a federal tax on gas to go towards a national public transportation system.

In most areas riding public transportation is a sign of poverty or a lower socieconomic status. Some people are also scared of "the crazy people that ride the bus" or whatnot. If we can change that perception, we'd really see more people riding public transit.

Uh, McCain called energy issues as the single biggest challenge we face as a nation. I don't know where you got the impression he has no energy policy.

Dan W said:

"Most people would rather find a more efficient and/or sustainable way to get from ther suburban home to their workplace."

Oh sure. And most people would rather the entire world worked on magic pixie dust too, so you can fly! You can fly! You can fly!

So while you're ranting on and on about how anything but living a hundred miles from work is an impossible socialist utopia, you simultaneously hit the nail on the head while completely missing the point.

Here's the point: It's the suburbs themselves that are completely unsustainable. Heating and cooling a big house, keeping that trophy lawn green, driving to and from work for two hours a day all takes energy. Lots and lots of energy. And there's just no way in hell to make that much energy sustainably. So it has to come from fossil fuels. The suburbs are only possible when gas is cheap, and it ain't no more.

$4.00 gas is your wake-up call. Will you read the writing on the wall before or *after* it's $6.00 a gallon?

Suburb hating is really common in the city but probably the ill effects are overstated. I live in suburbia. I work at multiple places from 1 to 15 miles away, my grocery store and most "errand" places are 1 mile away. My neighbors mostly work within 5 miles. I live on 3/4 acre but the shade trees really keep the a/c costs low (North Carolina). Also gives me room for the garden.

Yes the grass is green but we get rain and I am working on rainwater collection. We have a spring fed lake that didn't drop during last years severe drought and I might tap into that (have to go thru neighbors yard).

There are suburbs and there are suburbs. I have multiple office buildings and a hospital within a mile. The state farmer's market (huge, year round) is about 7 miles away. City center 10 miles. Give me a good EV, a little cheaper solar, and I'll do geothermal if it is reasonable - and voila - not a bad footprint. BTW the nuclear plant is about 15 miles away .... minimal transmission loses.

Thanks for everyone's comments.

@ Dan A: McCain certainly does have an energy policy. What I was referring to is that while Obama lists energy as one of his "issues" in his campaign literature, McCain does not--his policy is stated in his literature as a subset of economic and security policy, which is how it is usually viewed and partially what got us into this mess in the first place. I may not agree with all of Obama's energy policy but at least he recognizes that the issue deserves to be discussed (and written about) on its own.

@300TTto545: I've lived in rural, suburban, and urban environments on two continents so I feel like a pretty good grasp of the relative merits of each. I admit your situation isn't the suburbia I was talking about and is perhaps the exception rather than the rule.

@ KIm: I know, the amount of disused railbeds across the country is astounding. The rights of way in many areas here in the northeast have been preserved through the Rails to Trails Conservancy, if we ever wanted to convert them back to train tracks one of the hardest aspects of the problem has been already solved.

As much as I hate the suburbs, and much prefer to live near a downtown area, creating public policy to destroy the suburban lifestyle is not a realistic nor practical nor even economical alternative.

People should have the freedom to live in the way they see fit as long as that is not seriously impinging on others' rights. Like it or not, there is only one trajectory likely for energy consumption in the world, and that is to grow exponentially forever. It has been this way for the entire length of human history, and it's unrealistic to think that anything could stem that anytime within the next several hundred years.

The challenge that we have as humans is to figure out the most efficient way to produce that energy without harming our planet.

Let's leave the issue of who lives in the city, the suburbs, or the countryside up to the people themselves and to the city officials and developers that try to make their own version of life most attractive.

Obama actually does mention public transportation and sustainable land use. Albeit buried on page 10 of this document:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
linked from his energy policy page. I have mixed feelings. I don't know if it's a platform to get elected on so I'm ok with him not emphasizing it and for pete's sake not exciting a bunch of opposition but on the other hand if it's buried now it might still be buried come budget time. He told the council of mayors he would establish an urban policy cabinet post. Granted preaching to the choice but sounds promising.