> > Interesting to note that the very idea of public transport evidently didn't occur to eric. Is that a common reaction in America? In England it would occur and be instantly dismissed because of the poor state of the system.

> At any rate, as far as whether "the very idea of public transport" not occurring to eric is a broadly American trait or not, yes and no. We're a huge and internally diverse country. Eric lives in the San Diego area, which, I am told, has insufficient and essentially unusable public transportation. A lot of California cities sprung up very quickly during the gold rush and as such were not particularly planned for the huge growth that state has experienced since. Insufficient public transportation is but one of the symptoms. Other areas of the country, however, are better off.

Well, yes, California did experience growth during the gold rush, but we'd hardly consider San Diego a gold rush city. Think farther north for the gold rush (San Francisco, Sacramento).
San Diego is a mission city, founded in the 1770's or thereabouts by the Spanish padres, and really it and most of Southern California experienced greatest growth during the 1910's (tourism) 20's-30's (oil) 40's (war efforts which included aerospace industry as well as a huge Naval presence).*

Cities tend to grow around their transportation systems/structures. Think of medieval European cities with buildings crowding around narrow footpaths. Towns built during the great train era sprang up around rail terminals.

Notice that a lot of the growth here occured right when automobiles were becoming more and more affordable/available to the average family.
The wonderful freedom of an automobile is that you can go relatively anywhere. Trains and subways run in pre-determined directions at pre-determined times...and you'd need to live within walking distance to the subway/train depot too.
The automobile generally decentralized residential districts. Not quite the need to cluster houses around the trolly station anymore!

...which of course makes it harder and more expensive to add any kind of mass transit later. Things are more spread out. But enough history/urban geography.

One of the (relatively new) light rail lines here in Los Angeles ends virtually at the back door of my workplace, but I've never used it. Why? Because I'd have to drive 20 minutes to get to a station, then ride the train for another 45 minutes to get to work. Driving my own car directly takes me just 40 minutes with more privacy and comfort.

...and then there's the status thing. It's been said that "if you don't own a car in Southern California, you're a nobody". Well, I'm not a gearhead status seeker myself, but there is a definite car culture here.

> The bottom line, I guess, is that if you're wondering about what "Americans" think of this issue, you won't get a consensus.

koala"going to go wash my car now"mom

*now that I think of it, we've never really *stopped* experiencing great growth. My hometown more than doubled in the 50's and 60's with the baby boom, the 70's were a time of growth for all Sunbelt cities, and so forth.