they run them on $100 bills...sorry, I had to say it.

1. Prone to breakdowns 2. Serves too few people 3. Covers too small an area 4. Does little to alleviate traffic problems 5. Too expensive for what you get Does that about cover it? My own draconian solution to Seattle traffic gridlock: 1. Build multilevel parking garages at existing Park-N-Ride lots 2. Add smaller (paratransit-sized) buses to the Metro fleet for higher-frequency surface street routes 3. Close down transit lanes to Metro buses ONLY between 6-9AM and 3-6PM Monday through Fridays How long will people be willing to sit in traffic watching Metro buses whiz past them en route to their destinations before they get out of their cars and start using public transit?

should be called into question. "Finally, one cannot ignore the Land Rover's reputation as a mechanical liability. . . . [I]n the past the Range Rover has been one of the lowest-ranked vehicles in terms of reliability -- any of the other choices are likely to cause fewer headaches." -- Edmunds

...would have shown that due to the lights being out the trains were having to stop at every intersection...just like the cars.

Dori bends over for Land Rover. Last in reliability, wildly over priced and terrible fuel mileage. Frankly, I think them tacky too (except for the model 90 that is, they are pretty cool but wildly overpriced times 3, buy an old CJ5). Not a reliable source of transportation advice, I think.

it's stationary, can't move as needed, and very expensive

It is that KIRO has yet to sign Kirby Wilber to replace Dave Ross, that is whats wrong with light rail.