[BrandonMarc]

I always liked how Dave Ramsey explained it.

* If you're broke and the car breaks down, it's both a car crisis and an extra financial crisis (need money to fix the car).

* If you have enough money saved and the car breaks down, it's merely a car crisis ... and, given that you're capable of fixing the car, it's less of a crisis, at that.

The whole dynamic changes.

[magduf]

Even better is if you live in a place where you don't need a car, and can happily take public transit to get to work because the local government invested in subways. Then you don't have to worry about your car breaking down and ruining your day or worse.

[Raphmedia]

This makes more sense for small countries.

For example, I live in Canada and unless you life in the capital of the province everything is really far away.

A lot of people live in cheap apartment blocks of rural areas and it can be a walk of pretty much an hour to get to the groceries store. There is public transit but it's usually every few hours instead of a constant traffic, so you have to plan your entire day around it.

I do agree with your main point that public transit should be one of the main investment of a country.

[magduf]

Most people in the Americas live in cities, and that number is constantly increasing with urbanization. With proper urban planning and funding, public transit in the US/Canada could be far better than it is, and a useful way of getting around. But there seems to be no political will to do this. Cities in Europe are far better laid out and planned, with mixed-use development (shops on the ground floor, apartments on top), but North America seems to be allergic to this and wants subdivisions with McMansions instead.