These two issues are obviously very important and urgent attention is needed.
Having said that, I have a comment on a small point in this article.
The author says "这样的交通网络安排是否规划严密、计算合理呢?据介绍,即使在高速公路发达的美国,高速公路的总里程也只是铁路的四分之一。而中国的情况又如何呢?尤其是去年推出的4万亿投资刺激计划,其中有相当一部分是“铁(路)、公(路)、机(场)”项目。这些项目的上马是否考虑了综合效益,以及与自然、社会、人文的关系?没有见到报道,但这却是一个不能忽视的问题。"
My point is about "据介绍,即使在高速公路发达的美国,高速公路的总里程也只是铁路的四分之一。而中国的情况又如何呢?"
The statement is misleading in that the total length of railways in the US could be very large (and much larger than that in China, presumably) and a quarter of that may also be large. In absolute length, the length of highways in China may not be necessarily longer than that in the US. Even it is longer, it is not by much.
The main problem in using that is that the US built a lot of railways much much earlier (in the 1800s) and many of those are probably not used any more.
In terms of costs of transport by different transport modes, the use of fixed numbers is also very misleading. The relative cost advantages of different modes depend on also on distance, for example. Highways also have much more flexibility than railways.
China has much larger population and differs from the US greatly in terms of needs of highways.