Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSlippery519
|
In the article, Brown is quoted as saying,
“The good news is that the BRT system can get started sooner, so we will see the benefits sooner, too.”
Brown is full of shit. Laying down permanent way for LRT vehicles doesn't take any longer to get started. Once the route has been decided, it's a matter of digging a shallow trench, laying down supports for the track, laying down the track and then adding in the overhead electrification system. It's not rocket science. Creating a BRT system isn't that much easier.
The TTC lay down new street car lines all the time, and they don't stop and say, "Gee, we need to do more study and environmental assessments before we launch into this. Let's get started on a BRT system first."
If BRT is really the best way, then people need to ask themselves a question before saying 'yes' to that proposition. That is, if BRT really is the best, then why haven't scores of European cities adopted it over LRT?
In fairness, part of the reason why is that their streets are narrower; very few European cities have grand promenades that look like Oxford or Wellington streets here in London.
You might point to the Brazilian city of Curitiba as an example of why BRT is better, but the Brazilians opted for BRT because they're poor and can't afford anything better.
My thinking is that Brown has been spooked by something and is now backing off from the LRT proposition for that reason. What could that 'something' be?