Perhaps I was not clear; I meant to discriminate between the “we can’t do better” and “I believe this is the best option” arguments. I think it is likely that neither case will be factually proven and claims of certainty are unfounded.

“I would go along with you if you could pave me a road that details a plan that’s both more transit focused and has a chance of getting thru the legislature and by voters.”

I’ll throw things at the wall; you tell me what sticks.

I think elected officials in the big four should have argued the case for adopting guidelines that put 0.0% of the regional fund towards road capital.

Increments of transit lines would be separate projects. A second tier, spillover list would need to exist, with priorities set by competitive performance. The constrained list would under-promise (fully fund).

Big four voters would need to hear compelling possibilities for funding operations and lowering subsidy rates. New litigation would commence over para-transit obligations.

I think the biggest problem with BRT is the amorphous term. It’s not uncommon for insider jargon to seem ambiguous to outsiders, but I’m inclined to believe that BRT, as used in the United States, is intentionally misleading (to feed the industry’s professionals).