Busses are a pretty good idea. Some routes have sparse ridership, but a shake-up at Cap Metro a few years ago brought some positive change. Not enough, but some. But Cap Metro has been bound and determined to put in a rail system. One defeat at the polls did not deter them. They went back to the well and got rail. Not the original light rail, but some kind of rail, and now it's off to the races.

As far as capital expenditures go, light rail costs average 50 times the cost of conventional busses running on conventional streets. If you build HOV lanes, the cost of rail is only 4 times what busses cost. And if you build dedicated busways, then rail is only 3 times as expensive as busses. As for operating costs, LA LA Land spent over 7 times as much for light rail as for busses. Other cities spent somewhat more, and San Diego managed to spend a bit more for busses than light rail, but the overall average indicates that you spend more to operate rail than busses.

For the most part, bus transit was faster than light rail. Perhaps you read the report differently than I, but my impression is that rail is cool, and busses are not. I guess that is plenty enough to justify the 50 times greater cost. Rail systems are inflexible. You have to get from your origin to a station, ride the system, and then get to your destination from the nearest stop. In some cities, this would work out OK. I have used commuter rail in the Washington D.C. area, and it makes perfect sense. There is no place to park downtown. People drive or take a bus to outlying stations, ride downtown, and all is well. How well would that work in Austin?

Well, who can digest over 160 pages of happy news in the Cap Metro budget? I sure can't.  I did read enough to make me very nervous. You should read and see how your nerves hold out.