Readers suggested a topic on desirable places to live. "When all this settles out, taking energy costs, global warming, quality of life (crime, schools, health care, culture, etc), availability of jobs, costs (purchase, insurance, taxes etc) into account, where will the best places in the US be to buy a home in the coming 3-5 years?"

A reply, "Economcially viable, transit-oriented urban areas with large and diverse job markets, reasonably funded public employee pension plans and uncorrupt state and local governments. New York fails on the last two counts."

One responded, "I think you just excluded the entire USA!"

Another added, "What other cities have transit plans? Chicago? The pension plan is a total disaster? SF? One-fourth the size of Chicago, and the same budget size? Can we say “corrupt”? LA? No public transportation. Boston? No jobs. One-fifth of the population is now students. What’s left?"

One from out west, "Los Angeles does have mass transit. It doesn’t serve every part of the megalopolis, but for those homes lucky enough to be along the subway, light rail, and major bus lines, it’s provided a drastic relative increase in real estate values."

"Given that energy costs will likely remain high, housing in mild coastal climates will, after adjustment, be in high demand. Otherwise, I’m afraid the template is Meerkat Manor…"

And another, "You wouldn’t know that LA has a subway system unless you lived near one of the few stops. I have only ever seen one of them, and only then because I happened to go to the building in Hollywood where it is located. LA’s subways don’t go much of anywhere useful - for example, one of the above-ground sections runs almost to the airport but stops a few miles short."

"LA does have a ton of buses, but they suffer from the same problems that cars do - the ludicrous traffic. So while LA can claim to have mass transit, it’s not of much use to most people who live here."

To which was posted, "That seems to confirm what the opponents of rail were saying - that the place was just too spread out for it to be practical. That’s why I was so surprised to see it making inroads. London is spread out too but they have trains in every direction."

From the SF Bay Area. "When I lived in LA I took the train for a year from Newhall to Pasadena. A 45 minute trip took 2 hours ONE way! I saved money, but it took forever!! I had to take 2 trains to get there and go through downtown to get to Pasadena. VERY Ridiculous! I now ride BART straight to work from Walnut Creek. It takes me 45 minutes to get to work on only ONE train!! MUCH, MUCH better!! I love San Francisco! You can have LA with their horrible traffic and metro system. It’s AWFUL!! I really hate LA! Would NEVER go back!"

One exchange, "What do you imagine a 8.0 shocker would do to the city of angles underground? That’s one of the reasons that the LA Metro is one of the most expensive underground rail systems in the world - IIRC it costs several million per yard for the seismic safeguards, on top of construction costs."

"Another reason the LA Metro system sucks - two really - is NIMBYism and special interests."

"There’s no link to the Westside (wha?) because lots of people in places like Beverly Hills don’t want a station in their ‘hood.' Too many people from East L.A and other ‘undesirable’ places, not to mention the homeless might, just might, decide to alight in BH, thereby lowering the tone of the place.
Plus, all that filled ditch construction would make the place look messy…"

"Word is, plans are afoot to finally extend it to places west - where people would actually use it, but its a long battle to get permission from some of the cities on the way. Also - talk about shooting yourself in the foot - one of the lines goes from Downtown to Long Beach, and conveniently misses LAX."

"Why? Because, when they were planning the line - and the obvious link to the airport (for all those people who weren’t planning to drive to there) the Taxi drivers lobbied long and hard to stop it. They were worried about loss of income, because if people could actually get to LAX without using a taxi, then their business would go down."

"Which is probably true to some extent - but the needs of the few overcame the needs of the many in this case. So - you get the ba$tard child of compromise - the line takes you to a bus station, where you have to disembark, wait for a shuttle, re-embark, which then takes you into LAX. Which, obviously, puts a lot of people off trying to do it. Almost every other major city in the world has mass transit to the airport, except for L.A"

"Unfortunately, special interests have hamstrung what could have been a halfway decent system, into something that almost no one uses, because the trains don’t go to where people need them to."

One with an alternative, "L.A. is good if you live close enough to your work to bike it. The terrain is flat and weather is usually good. The traffic for cars suck, but bike riders are immune to traffic jams."

One looks ahead, "I’m curious what will happen to the US urban landscape over the next two decades. Will our cities devolve back into ’70s-style chaos, replete with diminished services, higher crime and decaying infrastructure? Will the escalating price of oil put a damper on flight away from urban cores, as the population readjusts to higher density living with less reliance on the automobile?"

"Could we actually see a resurgence of rural and (non-factory) farm life? Will rising commodity prices finally force us back into regional food consumption, instead of moving products willy-nilly all over the country?"

One added, "I think you need to add 'consistent future water supply' to the mix."

A post on North Carolina, "Eastern NC within Cape Carteret County might be good
lots of 50’s yankees w no kids to go to school."

One looks to the heartland, "Great Lakes states will be the best bets (leaving out Chicago, whose river already flows the wrong way). How come?"

"Low costs of housing now. Fresh water. Unlike the south, the southwest, California, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains. Crops. Crops grow from rain water, not from the aquifer or huge subsidized public works projects, such as Florida or California. Crops not dependent upon irrigation such as the Great Plains. (See water, above)."

"Cheap houses, food, and water, something the rest of the country will be begging for in four years. Energy? Local natural gas for heating. Coal for generating electricity. Schools? Head for the burbs, away from the big city. Culture? Second or third tier museums. But world class medical (Mayo, Cleveland Clinic)."

"And when wages drop and raw materials rise, and it becomes economical to manufacture in the US again: Dust off the old mills and plants. Ocean transport? Been happening for decades from the major great lakes ports."

"Weather? Ha ha, you’re eating, you’re working, you got water, you’re warm and sheltered. Deal with it."

"There’s a reason the Great Lakes states grew up like they did well into the 20th century. The real bubble is in the southwest, west coast, florida… only those are slow-moving bubbles lasting several decades. The tide will return to the great lakes."