There's really no coherent argument that works with the choo choo train people.
Economics doesn't work. Past results don't mean a thing.
As far as they're concerned, the concept is right, holy even, and it's just a training problem. The masses are too stupid to want to use the damn thing.
When the masses are all living in "workforce housing" on government created "transit hubs" they won't have a choice. They have covenants against owning and using private automobiles doncha know, in addition to strict limits on energy and water consumption.
As with plenty of other enviro causes, elitists seem to be there in force.
What's needed is someone with the time to follow these people around in their Humvees, Suburbans and Land Rovers to document the hypocrisy. Then, find a mainstream newspaper that will publish the pictures.
Using their own words doesn't seem enough to get people's attention. We've known for years that one of the methods employed to "encourage" use of mass transit among the hoi polloi is to force an end to roadbuilding so traffic becomes unbearable to the point people would want to ride the bus or a trolley. That's the tack referred to on Page 12 of O'Toole's paper. The EPA actually sends money to the Environmental Defense Fund which they gladly use to file lawsuits against state highway departments.
A candidate for governor of Colorado went so far as to reveal this not-so-hidden agenda in a New York Times story last week (on the politics around planned widening of I-70 west of Denver):
"The worst thing we can do is widen the highway," he said. "We need to keep the congestion so people will be interested in the transit."
Unfortunately, too few Americans understand that what this guy is saying is absolutely the case. If traffic ran smoothly, there's be hardly any interest in spending billions on transit systems for a few people to use.
Bart works great in the Bay area. Granted the geography helps. The population lines are linear, hemmed in between the sea and the mountains, and growth controls.