As a
Londoner who's seen the
tube slowly falling apart due to
lack of investment over the past 15-20 years, I've been
pleasantly surprised by the comparatively high standard of
public transport in the States. Sure,
Los Angeles is still immersed in a complete
love affair with the car, but my experience has been that the
subway systems of
New York City,
Philadelphia and
Boston are clean, efficient and cheap by London standards.
In fact Philadelphia manages to achieve a unified transport system, something that's been missing in London since the end of the Greater London Council. I thought it was wonderful that I could get on a bus in Philly and buy a transfer ticket which could be automatically used on the subway or the trolleys; in London this would only be possible by buying a Travelcard rather than for individual journeys.
Admittedly neither America nor Britain seem to have managed to develop the kind of public transport systems that exist in much of continental Europe, but that's because both our countries have a tendency to think something's only worthwhile if there's a (financial) profit in it. Public transport may or may not be expensive in terms of running costs, but in other costs, such as that to the environment or quality of life it wins every time. I would much rather sit on the train for 25 minutes on the way to work, maybe reading a book or tapping away on my laptop, than sit in a car for 90 minutes with nothing to do bar listen to the drivel on the radio and get stressed out at all the other traffic. Go on try it, you just might find you like it!
Finally just a quick response to thopkins: yes, most rural areas of Britain do have at least a daily bus service to the nearest town, and until the 1960s even fairly small towns had railway stations, many of which are still existent and could be reopened if there was the political / monetary will to do so.