I appreciate all the back pedaling!
I don't think there's really been that much back pedaling. The original argument that led us into the mass transit and train subject was that the "Dependence on cars is ending". To which some of us said "bs" and cited reasons why car dependence will never end anytime soon even in metropolitan areas. Trying to expand rail lines in a congested area like NJ would be insanely expensive, inefficient, and in many cases simply not possible without outright taking over existing property through eminent domain to make way for new lines. So yes, for those reasons I would be very much against certain route expansions. I'd be ok with expanding the ends of the lines further as populations shift outward from the cities more if it makes financial sense and if there's demand. I'd be ok with increasing capacity on existing lines where necessary and feasible. But I would be against trying to squeeze a new line/route into an area that is already built out simply to make rail routes accessible/practical for everyone. If you start adding too many routes and stops, you'll start decreasing efficiency and then it becomes practical for no one. Rail serves a certain target group and can be a great option if you're in that specific situation, but even many people that use rails still have and use cars. Maybe instead of driving 45 miles to work they drive 5 miles to a train station and then take the train the rest of the way. Bottom line though is that car dependence is not ending or even substantially decreasing.