Dan,
Where can we view his comments?

I'd like to read more about Paul's comments as well. Where can we find them?
Thanks

It seems to be an article first published in 2000. The link is: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_000004.htm

Two serious failings inherent in the concept of 'bus rapid transit' in comparison to rail include the sheer amount of real estate consumed by these specialized limited-use bus-only roadways along with the attendant expense in construction and maintenance - and the concept that people, given a choice, prefer rail.

BRT can be constructed at a fraction of the cost of light rail and will use equal amounts of real estate. Additionally BRT can use existing rights of way. Yes, people prefer rail because buses have received a bad rap. But with proper positioning and design this can be overcome. If just a small part of the cost of a rail transit stop was spent on a similar bus stop, I believe that we would see a quick change in attitudes.

The pavement plus shoulders costs at least as much as track (probably about 2 million per lane mile for the pavement and shoulder). Grade crossings have to be approached mor slowly based on the Los Angeles Orange Line and Miami busways. Since buses can't be combined into trains they occupy level crossings longer for the same carrying capacity. Assuming that both the track and the busway pavement are maintained to decent standards, the LRV will ride better than the bus. I suggest that Johnathan Harris ride both types of transit (Pittsburgh, Boston and Los Angeles have both busways and LRT) to see whether he can tell the difference.

"BRT can be constructed at a fraction of the cost of light rail and will use equal amounts of real estate." This is a furphy. A major engineering firm gave us in Canberra (Australia) a few years ago figure for road and rail construction. They differed by about $20 000 in nearly $900 000 per lane-kilometre. The extra cost in rail is for the electrification, which if done well can be a small part of the price. So capital cost is higher for light rail - perhaps 25 - 30% - assuming no shoulders provided to accommodate defective buses!. Against this you set the savings in maintenance, operations, and add in the comfort benefits. Stations do not need to be expensive - if it is good enough for the buses it will be good enough for the LRVs. Buses are slower unless express services can be operated, but this requires off-main line stations at greatly increased expense. Because LRVs can be trained, frequency can be reduced, (benefits at level crossings) and express service can be provided with proper timetabling and 'banalization' on double track. But if demand is low, then proper timetabling and correct location of loops can make signle track far cheaper than a busway for the same traffic demand.

There are two main reasons people have seen higher light rail pricing. One is over design. The tendency to design light rail to be able to handle 130 car unit coal trains has added incredible costs. The second factor is scope creep where projects are rebuilding the entire street when only a ten foot wide land needs to be rebuilt with track in it. These are urban renewal and streetscape project under the budget of a transit project. When this project expansion happens we are not comparing similar projects.