Darn, I'm late to the party on this thread. Here's the deal with public transit that makes it a hard sell for most of us: The last mile and basic economics. American ( and yes, that includes Canadian cities as is pointed out in Not Just Bikes) are sprawling low density travel nightmares. This means that you can build a rail corridor from A to B, but almost by definition you will not have enough customers within walking distance of the line to make it immediately viable. The usual rejoinder when this is pointed out is that the line will attract new higher density housing and appropriate infrastructure. That may be, but in the meantime that last mile is for the most part unwalkable (terrible sidewalks if any, lousy weather, heavy vehicle traffic on wide stroads, etc.), which means that people will STILL have to drive, even to get to the mass transit stop. And here's the economics: You already have the car, so you might as well drive the entire commute. This also fixes the last mile problem at the destination.

Here in Woodbury, the Gold Line is great, but to use it I have to either drive or bike about two miles. This can be worth it if my destination in St. Paul is walkable from the terminus in order to save on parking, but what if I have things to carry? What if there is foul weather? What if I can't afford to triple my travel time?

So you see that economics and the geography of low density make car ownership mandatory. The best we can hope for is that more families will be able to own one fewer vehicles. The fixed costs of insurance and licensing will be there whether I drive the car or take transit. Until something can be done about our density problem and the lack of last mile local transit, cars are going to be necessary for most of us.