In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower launched the massive interstate highway plan so Americans could go coast to coast without a stoplight.

That's still the nation's basic transportation framework, notes Rob Puentes of The Brookings Institution.

Not that it hasn't been fun, driving everywhere and anywhere, but that setup badly needs an overhaul. Independent truckers may be the canaries in the coal mine here. They're demonstrating, stopping traffic and demanding governmental action because they can't make a living hauling freight when diesel fuel costs more than $4 a gallon.

The short-term way out of their dilemma is not at all clear. If federal and state fuel taxes are cut, not only will people drive more, further kicking up oil imports and damaging the dollar, but the revenue for all our disintegrating roads and bridges will disappear.

The long-term goal has to be reducing America's reliance on foreign oil.

"Energy independence is not a Democratic or a Republican issue,'' Mr. Puentes says. It's an American one.

He uses phrases like "modality neutrality'' in this "carbon-constrained world,'' but all that means is Americans need more choices in the way they get around. That means more public transit.

"It's not about forcing people to choose one mode over another, but to provide options,'' he says.

You're not going to win many votes if you tell people gasoline will never be cheap again. But Mr. Puentes says the three top presidential candidates, as U.S. senators, all understand the issue even if they realize it's not great campaign fodder.

Maybe they'd be surprised at the reception if they talked more about it.

In Philadelphia on Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told members of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO:

"My Rebuild America plan will create a $10 billion Emergency Fund to identify and repair critical infrastructure problems. We'll modernize our transportation systems ... We're going to invest in public transit and intercity rail.

"In World War II, we had War Bonds. Maybe it's time we ask Americans if they want to play a part in rebuilding America. I think millions and millions of Americans will make those contributions. Then we're going to turn around and put them into projects that will strengthen the economy and create room for that economy to grow. We can put at least 3 million Americans to work ...''

She might be on to something there.

The idea of a special kitty to take care of national infrastructure isn't new. A bipartisan bill was introduced in the Senate last year to create an independent national bank to identify, evaluate and help pay for projects of regional or national importance. That could include everything from mass transit to highway bridges to water systems. Sens. Clinton and Barack Obama are among Sen. Christopher Dodd's seven co-sponsors.

But the idea of getting individual Americans to invest in reshaping the country, even if that pay-in is largely symbolic, seemed a fresh and welcome campaign tactic.

Mind you, the initial ceiling for this infrastructure bank is $60 billion and so the Wall Street crowd would need to do its usual heavy lifting. Given all the recent tumult in financial markets, plenty undoubtedly would be drawn to the safety of old-fashioned, project-specific bonds to put people to work.

But I think Mrs. Clinton is right that millions of thrifty Americans would be ready to invest in projects that make sense to them, too.

The key is making sense. People feel very disconnected from their government these days. But if there were a comprehensive plan to begin to wean ourselves from addiction to foreign oil, citizens would understand that instantly. If that plan included something dramatic like, say, a bullet train from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, those bonds would sell. If it were a modest plan to extend light rail to more places, people would hop on board, too.

If the bonds were for something as mundane as repairing Pennsylvania's bridges, those bonds might sell better than any. Anyone with eyes can see all that's crumbling.

In Pittsburgh yesterday, Mrs. Clinton shifted her focus to high-tech research and mentioned the idea of bonds-for-infrastructure only in passing, never making the war bonds analogy. That's too bad.

We've watched Pennsylvania invest in stadiums and hockey arenas, and make a big bet on slot machines. We've had enough diversions. When America is ready to do something serious about the way we live now, it should call on Americans.