While not referring to transit directly, I believe he did refer to it indirectly.

“My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. It reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited — a trillion-dollar budget deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession,” Mr. Obama said. “Given these realities, everyone in this chamber, Democrats and Republicans, will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.”

Credit crisis, recession, energy, global warming health care, education . . . I can’t fault Obama for not taking on transpo policy as a “top tier” priority along with these others, as much as I’d like him to. Maybe in his second term.

I did note that Obama suggested in his speech that the automobile had been invented in the United States, which is not correct.

Here is the problem — the Democrats are the party of feudalism, those with advantages get to keep them.

So we have a suburban, auto-oriented country. Certain people benefit from that, notably sellers of suburban homes and automobiles. And that is who has to be pandered to.

Since Democrats want the government to make decisions for people, all the Republicans have to do is accuse them of forcing people to ride bicycles and use mass transit, and they will respond by forcing people NOT to use mass transit and bicycles. That has worked ever since Jimmy Carter. Kind of like accusing the Democrats of caring about poor people.

I can only hope that, once the “stimulus” is over, highways will join transit on the list of things the federal government cannot afford. And that the Democrats won’t reneg on a univeral health care financing system that equalizes public financing/subsidies — no matter what the already take care of seniors and public employee unions say.

It is true that, even with a massively expanded public transit system, there will still be cars in 2030. They may be mostly alternative fuel cars, but they will still be cars. It is simply not cost-effective to build public transit to every single place a person wants to go.

I believe the best transportation policy in terms of improving energy efficiency is to heavily promote, expand and improve public transit in and between the nation’s most densely populated areas while simultaneously developing better technology and price incentives for energy efficient automobiles for the rest of the country. That should mean producing and buying many fewer cars, but certainly not zero cars.

I’m glad someone else pick up on the incorrect statement he made on the history of the auto. We didn’t invent it as the other person mentioned, all we did was mass produce it and make it cheaper to buy. I also believe that when he states walking away from it, his simply telling autoworkers that we have their backs.

I don’t know what to make of the speech. I’ve yet to hear a emphatic articulation from the president of the economic and environmental problems caused by our public over-investment in highways, sprawl, and cars.

How does one take apart or comprehend these speeches? For example, last night the president made a committment to curing cancer. The full quote: “Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time.”

Huh? I’d be all for curing cancer, but notice how this goal — an enormous and perhaps untenable effort of basic and clinical research (most famously prioritized by the federal government in the National Cancer Act of 1971) — is sort of an afterthought to electronic records reform in the quote above.

This is what grabbed my attention from the speech last night. I don’t know what to make of it. And I certainly cannot make heads or tails of more earthbound details of the speech, such as: the level of committment the president wants to give to liveable streets. It sounds to me like this falls somewhere between propping up the auto industry and curing cancer. Tea leaves, anyone?

I guess you can say that the federal government didn’t walk away from the railroads while promoting the highways to take their place — it took over the pensions of railroad workers to cushion the decline.

One could make the case that is a reasonable thing to do here as well.

I agree that Obama could not say we are going to abandon the the auto industry. On the other hand did he have to say anything? Much less come out with a ringing endorsement that made driving sound patriotic.

The first plank of his speech was about energy independence. The most direct, cost effective, and least painful way to move toward that goal is to reduce VMT. I was hoping Obama had the cajones and foresight to see that.

In fact, this is the second time Obama has repeated this blatant lie.

While I would like a more balanced transportation system in the US, the fact is that 1 job in 10 in the US is dependent in some form or other on the auto industry. It’s not just the auto manufacturers, it’s the companies that supply parts to the auto manufacturers, and the companies that supply parts to those parts suppliers, the companies that supply the raw materials to those companies, the companies that supply services to all of those companies (cleaning, maintenance, etc.) and the companies that sell supplies and equipment to all of those companies (computers, copiers, paper towels, etc.). It’s the stores and restaraunts where the workers at these companies spend their wages. It’s the property and payroll taxes these companies pay. These are the things the US can’t just “walk away from”.

the fact is that 1 job in 10 in the US is dependent in some form or other on the auto industry

So what? We didn’t prop up other kinds of manufacturing when it all moved to China. We’re trying to prop up agriculture, with mixed results. The government is not a jobs program, and the longer we prop up failing business models the longer it takes to move on to something more productive.

The auto workers are the buggy whip makers of our day. We should help them find other work, but to tell them that we have their backs is to tell a lie. We don’t.

As some already pointed out, the country that did indeed invent the automobile (Germany) has been able to find a way to balance the convenience of the car with, the needs of those to use rail, mass transit, walking and biking. Its all about balance and making sure that the most appropriate form of transportation is the most convenient to use for a specific application.

If one needs to get to a job only two miles away, it should be obvious to all that a bike is the best, most convenient and appropriate means of transportation. Within a mile it must be walking. Into a major dense metro area, train and mass transit. If you live on a farm in the rural Midwest and its 25 miles into town then yes; its best and most appropriate to do that trip in a car! In most of America unfortunately we are far from this balance and the automobile is all too often the only means for even the shortest trips.

I can tell you from countless trips to Germany that is not the case there. Germans love their automobiles and its industry as much as most of America. They would never abandon it. Talks of the German government helping to bail our Opel (GM’s German subsidiary) show this. However because the German government is looking to help out its auto industry doesn’t mean it’s abandoning sustainable transportation. Far from it.

As in Germany we in America need to find that balance. Heck! We’ll need trucks and other vehicles to build the sustainable transportation infrastructure of the future. I know I want those vehicles made here in America!

Automobiles maybe destined for other forms of energy (flying solar-powered?!) so I don’t think we should completely abandon it. However, I hope that Obama’s hint that we can’t “abandon” the auto industry was merely a political ploy with the GOP as well as with the auto companies and its workers.