Replies

And if transit isn't convenient to me--
--it won't be convenient, let alone appealing, for the vast majority of people.

False, narcissistic assumption.

Mass transit even benefits those who do not use it by alleviating traffic congestion and limited urban parking spaces.

High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns as we expand our 4-lane interstates to 6 or (gasp!!!) 8 lanes. And even costly airport expansions make little sense when (prior to 9/11) the air corridors themselves are over-congested.

High-speed rail and maglev offer the perfect alternative to augment & supplement our highway and air transportation infrastructure. For regional trips between 150 and 350 miles, it is faster than automobile and not that much slower than air. Yet offers the potential to alleviate both congested highways and air corridors!

In light of current economic conditions, construction of this vital transportation infrastructure should be accelerated.

I agree with you when it comes to transportation on the 150+ mile range (even though it would impact my job with Boeing!), but this article is about regional transportation issues in the Seattle area: commuter trips and trips less than 60 miles or so. It is for these trips (at least in the Seattle area) that mass transit has not worked and will not work. More roads are what we need here.

There are a number of good points here. However the correct answer is "none of the above"...and "all of the above". As a transportation engineer (trying to solve these problems is my job), I've looked at different situations and solutions (I've also been involved with a study of the Seattle area). First of all, more roads will not solve anything, at least not by themselves. Mass transit (LRT, high speed, etc), can help in certain instances and regions. Car and vanpools also have their place. But again, these won't work alone.

The underlying problem, and source of the solution, is land use and planning. But local officials have to be willing to suck it up, stand up to special interests, and decide to zone for each solution, to in essence dictate how a region will grow and expand (this is called smart growth). Urban and residential centers can be layed out and connected by rail solutions; roads can be used for local travel (to school, store, etc).

For entrenched urban areas the solution is more difficult. But more roads means more traffic, unless some effort is made to manage where people live and work. And the commuting public needs to recognize this fact, and be willing to give up a little convenience, maybe live closer to work, or quit bitching about traffic. Because unless commuters recognize they also have an active role and responsibility, traffic will only get worse. Also keep in mind that more roads (and any transportation system) means more maintenance and upkeep costs, which means more taxes...and nobody likes that.