Same could be said for NASCAR, etc for other people. We shouldn't delight in their loss. This is a sobering time and we do need to learn not to waste, but there is a difference between a moral value and a social need. I also believe that once it is clearly established as a social necessity, the moral value will adjust accordingly, like sprinkling lawns during a drought - what had been fine and routine becomes socially unacceptable not because it's inherently wrong, but because it is wrong and maladaptive under the new circumstances.

And if it results in people doing this more efficiently, sustainably and polluting less?

That would be better, but even that won't be the result.  Fossil fuels are too valuable and convienent.  They will be burned, even if some Californians run their cars on Sorgum and corn.  

People have needed and wanted personal transportation since the beginning of civilization: the horse.

And before that: the feet.  Nobody is questioning the need to get around.  Or, even if we should have artificial (man-made) conveyances.  It is a question of whether you want your life to depend on it though.

Great ideas, but those are more regulatory than technical problems and it's not clear that research money helps a large amount.

I agree, we know what to do, research not required.  It does take a long time to change out transportation infrastructure, relocalize schools etc. so the more time wasted, the harder it will be for those who continue on the wrong path.  

You've missed a significant externality.  The users of public transport don't clutter up the roads for other users.

Go to London, or New York, or Washington DC, on a transit strike day.  The cities grind to a halt.

Even in a city like Los Angeles, where the public transport system was removed by GM in the 40s, if you shut down the buses, a very significant proportion of the population can't get to work.  Yes we are talking clerks, janitors, maids (this is LA after all) but those people also make the city run.

Public transport never 'pays off' in terms of its own fares, because it can't capture this externality (plus lower pollution and other societal benefits).

In addition, most of the costs of owning a car are fixed (depreciation and insurance).  So the marginal cost of an additional drive, once you have a car, is very small.

By contrast, a bus fare has to recoup some of the fixed costs of the bus system.  So the user is taking on a fuller piece of the total cost (and a personal cost is also a societal cost).

A better comparison would be to compare a bus ride with the cost of renting a car for that purpose.

Public transport works well, especially in cities with populations above 10,000 people per square mile.  In the US, the centre of many older cities (especially on the east coast), in Canada and Europe, most cities.  Once cities get to a certain level of traffic congestion (Denver) they start to provide public transport.

Medium distance rail (100 miles to 500 miles) the case is more complex.  But if you include a fair charge for the carbon cost of flying, plus the noise you inflict on the people below you when you fly, then rail looks a lot more competitive.

In practice in Europe the train is an excellent substitute for planes on up to 5 hour journeys.  In the US, where there has been both bad management and bad investment, this is probably not the case.

The US probably has room for 4 or 5 economic train routes: Boston-NYC-Phil-Washington, San Francisco-San Diego, Houston-Dallas Ft Worth, LA to Las Vegas.  Anyone think of any others?