Of special interest, given the specific language of Prop B calling for "fixed guideway" (rail) improvements along the Geary corridor, is the decision by the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority to build light rail, rather than BRT. It seems that back when Houstonian, Republican House Majority Leader and die-hard rail foe Tom Delay has a finger on the purse strings, he cut any funding for light rail expansion. This led the city to consider BRT on some of the lines instead of rail.
In 2007, after Mr. Delay’s dramatic fall from power and the takeover of Congress by more transit-friendly Democrats, Metro reversed its decision, deciding finally that building light rail from the start would make the most sense. -The Transport PoliticI'll resist the urge so many transit advocates feel to point out that the SFCTA does not consider things like "sense" when planning projects. But the fact remains, a city in Texas is planning to seriously expand its transit infrastructure in a cost-effective and permanent way, while San Francisco wastes money and time on a half-step (at best). What's wrong with this picture?
2 comments:
Interesting post. Because of my own crappy experiences with buses, I'm skeptical about BRT, but there seem to be a lot of people who are strongly in favor of it. (See my post: http://www.oaklandstreets.com/2008/08/new-york-times-had-good-article-last.html)
You're more of an expert than me. What are the advantages of light rail over BRT?
I think San Francisco and every other city has been tricked into cost shock instead of looking long term.
Post a Comment