Jim Redelfs wrote:
You'll recall my diatribe excepted those living in the relative high
density areas I called "the rust belt". Given the age of such
cities, there is no other, viable transportation than so-called
"mass" transit. Just look at the hoards and throngs of people
walking back to New Jersey from New York after the twin towers fell.

I'm referring mostly to urban areas like Minneapolis, for example.
The design of the bridge to replace the one that fell (apparently)
includes accommodation for light rail. It sounds good but too few
will use it. Those areas WEST of the Mississippi river that have
built light rail (for example) have discovered that the system is
woefully underused. But that doesn't shut 'em down: Those that
don't and/or never will use the system pay for it because light rail
is A Good Ideatm. This is as unfair to ME as is the gas
consumption of my Silverado to "them". Touché.

I did see a light rail system that worked.

A department store in Ft Worth built a monsterous parking lot, a couple of
miles from downtown, then built a trolley from the lot, along the banks of
the river, through an abandoned storm sewer, right to the bargain basement
of the store. You could park for free and ride the trolley for free. You
just had to pass all the sale items to get to Main Street.

Thousands and thousands every day. No cost to the city, no cost to the
taxpayers, no cost to the riders.

Worked swell.