Light rail key part of the answer

Regarding the Wednesday letter, “Focus should be on buses, not light rail”:

The reason that light rail died out in the 1950s was a combination of two factors.

The first factor was the extraordinarily cheap cost of gasoline in the wake of World War II. By the 1960s, a gallon of gasoline was ridiculously cheap. The other factor was the golden era of the U.S. domestic automobile industry. The concurrence of these two factors made it blazingly obvious to focus on automobile-based transit (buses).

For the same reasons, it now makes sense to seriously consider light rail as part of a transportation solution. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices are at record highs and are likely never going to drop back to the prices seen as recently as 1999.

Also, what do you suggest we do about the physical impossibility of getting more vehicles on our clogged roadways? The only way to grow road-transit use is to expand existing streets and highways. Between battling NIMBYs and high land values, the expense would be ludicrous. Light rail is not the cure-all panacea, but it is deserving of a place as part of a complete solution.

Consider Montreal in Canada as an example. While visiting there in 2003, I left my car parked at the hotel (near the airport, not in downtown) the whole weekend. Every morning, I walked 100 yards across a pedestrian bridge to a local route bus stop. That neighborhood bus line drove directly to a train transit station, and I used a cheap weekend transit pass to travel as much as I wanted. It was quick, painless and affordable. It offered the flexibility to which the writer refers and the advantages of regular, accessible, efficient light rail. With some forethought and effective oversight, we could make that happen here — and not spend a king’s ransom doing it.

Patrick Bertiaux

Everett