Re: Brisbane Light Rail,Briztram - questions

["Michael Walker" <walker@hotkey.net.au>]

>Oh yeah?
>
>Read this and weep....
>
>"Capital projects: Experience has demonstrated that there is no more
>expensive way to improve transit than urban rail. Virtually all new
>rail systems have attracted so few drivers from automobiles that it
>would have been less expensive to lease each a new automobile every
>two years. In spending more than necessary to implement urban rail,
>opportunities for more effective improvement are forgone, to the
>detriment of the greater number of new riders who would be served. Too
>often urban rail is driven by a desire to become a "world class city,"
>a civic pride that manifests itself in construction of publicly
>financed convention centers, domed stadia and urban rail. To put it in
>Freudian terms, urban rail in America has more to do with
>"infrastructure envy" than transportation. "
>
>from:
>http://www.publicpurpose.com/21stcent.htm
>
>This is exactly what Brisbane has been sucked into.
>
Is that article put out by the same people whose press release made it into
The Age a few months ago about the introduction of rail services into
Silicon Valley because the freeways couldn't cope and it was a huge success
because it cut hours off the car commute to the point where the train
operators put on extra services? Or are your sources far more biased which
other posters seem to imply?

Still I suppose you can always find statistics to back up your argument.