My concern is not responsibility or judgment, it is about impacts on passengers and transit travel. For example, the question is not whether panhandlers and drug users are good or bad, it is whether they are disruptive and therefore discourage some travellers from choosing transit.

On the contrary, I think that many people want objective and credible information, in this case, to be reassured that transit travel and city living are rational. You can ridicule anti-urban rhetoric as biased propaganda that only fools believe. See "Smart Growth Savings" (www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf)

What sour points?

The question is the degree that transit agencies should enforce intrusive behaviors, such as smoking, drug/alcohol use, panhandling and noise, in transit vehicles and stations. Progressives (particularly those who don't depend on transit) tend to defend rights rather than responsibilities.

Yes, high quality public transit and living in a transit-oriented community provides many economic, social and environmental benefits. See my report, "Selling Smart Growth" (www.vtpi.org/ssg.pdf).

Karner, Rowangould and Barajas' article has good suggestions for replacing TRB. Unfortunately, ITE has shown little leadership and my efforts to discuss this have been opposed by pro-Trump members and fearful executives.