> ... to achieve a high-speed, high-quality customer service
> that was previously achieved only using rail technologies,
> generally at more than ten times the cost.
=v= Certainly there is more capital outlay for rail, but since
a bus uses tires on roads there is more friction, which means
more maintenance costs and more fuel consumption. Of course
that means more pollution, which causes additional costs that
are surely ignored in this "ten times the cost" comparison,
as is the higher cost of maintaining roads, since those are
on another ledger.
> In recent years, BRT has become the most important global
> phenomenon in urban transportation since the introduction of
> the street car at the end of the 19th Century.
=v= Well, what's really happening is that since the Shrub/Oil
Administration took over the U.S., funding for fuel-efficient
LRT has dried up, and we've been having "BRT" shoved down our
throats ever since. It's sad that the ITDP has hopped onto
this varying-speed low-quality bandwagon.