Cities are the last refuge of the Liberal Centrists who are gasping their last breathe.  Even as they head to the La Brea tar pits, the urbans are trying to trap the new and innocent exurbians into tax draining schemes like light rail to try and spin their power web.  Greg Nickles has one job: steal your paycheck.  

My plan calls for carving up the Olde Townes into smaller exurbs.   I say "Seattle" should be at least three distinct exurbs -- North, Central and South.  Each is its own "livable" suburb.  Each needs its own government.  

We need to free ourselves from the SuperCentrists like Bloomberg and Nickles, who impose their principles on us exurbians.

the urbans are trying to trap the new and innocent exurbians into tax draining schemes like light rail

Actually, with most rail systems, if you compare the cost of construction and upkeep to the cost it that would be needed to construct and maintain the additional roadway needed to handle the capacity if the population didn't ride the trains, the cost is less with the rail systems.

In other words, lower taxes.

Also, not to mention the personal expense saved on gas and car maintenance, and in some cases, not having to own a vehicle at all.

Not to mention the lower taxes as a result of less public medical expenses needed due to the reduction in air pollution, and the reduction in car-related accidents and fatalities, which greatly exceed those of rail systems, even on a per-person basis.  

Also, since rail systems encourage close, urban-type developments, as opposed to suburban developments, less taxpayer money is spent on increasingly lengthy roads, sewars, waterlines, electricty and other services.

It also means less coverage is required for police, fire, medical, schools and other services, thus saving money from the reduced need to build, employ, and maintain more fire stations, hospitals, police stations, schools, etc.

And businesses, residences, and retail complexes along rail lines often see increases in property values greater than their road/vehicle-only equivalents.

if you compare the cost of construction and upkeep to the cost it that would be needed to construct and maintain the additional roadway needed to handle the capacity if the population didn't ride the trains, the cost is less with the rail systems.

The difference being that roads work and trains don't in today's multipoint network.   Yes, I can optimize a single route, but only if people are forced to live along it.   The automobile provides far more downstream efficiencies and benefits by allowing for short trips, ring trips, intra-community trips that a "choo choo" doesn't allow.

It's like saying, that yes, if I were playing football, and the defense were all sitting on the sidelines, I could run 100 yards to the other end and make a touchdown.  It would be the simplest and most efficient play.   But is that ever the case?

I think you'll find that transportation modes encourage development, not "force" it.  100 years ago Seattle was developed along lines - as defined by the streetcar system.  Once these streetcars were destroyed and roads were expanded this turned into a sprawlly web.

If you add rail back into the equation you won't destroy this web (nobody is proposing we remove all roads), you'll just encourage density along the rail line.

Yes, I can optimize a single route, but only if people are forced to live along it.

It's not much different with roads and cars.

If no public transit exists, then you're forced to drive, even if you'd rather not.

Many people in America are essentially "forced" to drive, simply because there are no other options available to 'em in their area.

It works both ways.

The automobile provides far more downstream efficiencies and benefits by allowing for short trips, ring trips, intra-community trips that a "choo choo" doesn't allow.

Those sort of trips wouldn't be nearly as common or necessary if most of the transportation network was based on mass transit.

The reason why ring trips, intra-community trips, and short drives down to the doughnut shop are necessary are because the cities are built around a car culture.

If cars were no longer used, everything would be built closer together, within walk or bike distance of the nearest mass transit station.

Ya wouldn't need a car to go to the doughnut shop, if was just a quick drive down the street.