[jl2718]

Most parts of Los Angeles are not even dense enough to make rail effective for the investment.

Think about it this way. There are about 100 busses in Austin right now.

The $7B rail network could easily buy 10,000 new busses, fully-loaded cost of 10-year service life.

Or put another way, free bus service for 100% of Austin’s commutes, forever. Maybe block off a special lane for busses and you get pseudo-rail at 1% of the cost. Maybe think about rail when the demand is proven. The pneumatic tire is an amazing invention for flexible human transport.

Light rail is almost always a waste of money, and it will probably never even get built, and if it does, it will take forever, and create more traffic than it solves. But if you can credibly suggest otherwise with a single example of a low-density light rail system in any comparable city that got better ROI than busses and bike lanes, I will consider that I may be wrong.

https://youtu.be/ZDOI0cq6GZM

[renewiltord]

It's one of those things where you're optimizing over terrain you think is flat but isn't.

The political terrain means that BRT will fail. Any road will have to be shared. However, if road space is not threatened, certain political enemies won't be enemies.

So sometimes worse is better because you can assure some people that your solution is Pareto-optimal for them.

[spacemanmatt]

Ironically, it would have played into Abbott's plans to lure CA businesses to Texas if he had built working transit in our major cities. Instead he's got Rick Perry's failed energy grid and the economics of hard-right politics to inspire defections.