The Portland numbers are pretty much irrelevant without accompanying context. e.g. population growth, sprawl, rail expansion vs average commute distances, fund

The Portland numbers are pretty much irrelevant without accompanying context. e.g. population growth, sprawl, rail expansion vs average commute distances, funding, etc. As for the linked arugment: seriously? People are honestly arguing that Denver should allow the problems of rail in America[1] to be exacerbated rather than addressed [2]??? Should we have built highways that went from suburban stables to urban stables because people liked their horses, owned horses and horses can go more places than cars (absent further roads)? What kind of logical argument is that? [1] the old "you can take the train downtown, but then you still need a car to get anywhere". [2] say, by ensuring there are useful destinations at the other end of the rail line.