Bend over, you're getting screwed at the pump again.

I'm with Ceili on this. You're talking about something entirely different, akaMech. Examining reasons why the Sears Tower is in Chicago and the Empire State in NYC is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Major enterprises are located in major cities because they are major cities. We can talk about the historical reasosns for this until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that a public transit system benefits everybody willing to use it. I drive a car to work mainly because there aren't any good connections between my apartment in the Back Bay section of Boston and my place of work in Dorchester. If you're ever in Washington, DC, you'll notice that everyone uses the Metro, not just people carrying lunch pails to dead-end jobs. It's not dirty or smelly, either. New York and Boston subways are dirty only because those are ancient systems, dating back to the very early 20th Century (late 19th Cent. in the case of Boston). When I'm in New York or Chicago or San Francisco, I make it a point of using the available local mass transit, rather than taking cabs. You see a lot more of the demographics of a city that way. There are thousands of people living in NYC who don't own cars, not because they can't afford them but because they don't need them. For weekends, it's cheaper to rent a car now again. For weekday commuting to work. it's much more convenient to take the subway. Noplace to park a car in the city anyway. When I moved to New York from New Hampshire some years ago, one of the first things I did was to sell my car fast. No need for it. It had become a liability, rather than a necessity as it had been in rural New Hampshire. In New York it wasn't even a luxury, just a liability. There are plenty of cities in the USA that would benefit greatly from a good public transport system.

But, of course, that ain't got nothin' to do with the price of gasoline, does it?

Merry,

We sure got a long way from the price of gasoline didn't we .

NYC is an unusual example. (I have a brother in law who works for the transit system there. In maintenance; a worker. I have ridden on it. Once.

I used to drive a taxicab near D.C. A Blue Bird cab, Prince George county Md. (1964-67) Things have changed somewhat. I left the area in 1975 after working in Bethesda-Rockville a while.

The testimonies of the drivers of the tens of thousands of automobiles who work in the cities and leave them at the earliest opportunity tends to bear me out.

The basic problem is that our cities are too concentrated.

Alas, cynically, the only reason for their concentration is, I am afraid, the unholy ability of businessmen to buy subsidies from our elected representatives. And I think you know where the subsidies come from

If mass transit was worthwhile it would not need to be (albeit minimally) subsidized. It is only worthwhile in order to provide warm bodies to fill an office space or factory which is dependent upon subsidized transportation to be economic. If either the workers or the business had to pay the real costs then the concentration of wealth and political power would soon be dispersed. The cities would be better places to live in, and the countryside would be wealthier. But politically a mayor gains prestige by having a World Trade Center or an Empire State Bldg. in his bailiwick. When you already have more money than you can spend "prestige" is the next way to keep score. Consider Kerry, Rockefeller, the Kennedy's etc. We, the working, productive masses must provide for it.

Frankly, I resent the word "stagnate" used earlier in this thread. I would prefer to "stabilize" the cities so that they are fit and reasonable places for the worlds people to live in should they choose to do so. The subsidies that are robbed from the farmers, auto workers, clerks, and the many other productive tradespersons should not go to improve the living standards and political powers of a select few.

So despite the fact that you, a user of mass transit, must use a subsidized system to live I think you should be aware that the system that you pay for in time, user fees, and taxes, is primarily intended to benefit the people who, due to inheritance or competence, or political accumen, needs it the least.

When you go back to basic reasons for almost anything the actual reasons that we, as a society, do something the reasons become very convoluted. Cynically perhaps, I suspect that this is intentional and beneficial to a certain class of people.

Merry, I forgot to respond to your comment that in Wash D.C. everybody uses the Metro.

It's funny, that when I took a midweek trip to the Smithsonian Institution with a twelve year old friend there was no place to park my car. The trip would have been spoiled if I had not brought his "handicapped" sticker. I really didn't want to use it as I was perfectly able to push his wheelchair a mile or so and show him the sights while we were at it. At 11 AM on a Thursday there were no public parking spaces within two miles of the "Mall". The Metro was running. On a similar trip on Saturday I could park nearly anyplace I wanted. Less than 10% of the slots were being used.

This would indicate to me, a naive realist, that not everybody uses the Metro.

We saw the "moon rocks"