That interest in return on investment opens the chamber up to critics who drubbed the 2014 light rail proposal as a suboptimal choice of projects. Its huge price tag and relatively low ridership projections â€“ due in part to a route that bypassed some of the cityâ€™s densest neighborhoods â€“ could have drastically cut into the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Agencyâ€™s operating budget, which could in turn have hurt the agencyâ€™s bus service, those critics argued.
â€œI donâ€™t think I would characterize the 2014 bond proposal as a bad plan or a bad investment,â€ CantÃº said in the chamberâ€™s defense. â€œIt might not have been the perfect plan. And I think a lot of people and groups in Austin are looking for perfection, and perfection is the enemy of good enough.â€
He either doesn’t know the concept “worse than nothing” or knows it and doesn’t care. Ignorant or dishonest. You pick.
And, yes, this is important. The Chamber essentially picked that disastrous route for us, because the Mayor didn’t know anything about transportation and listened to their (bad) advice.
If the Chamber’s ‘new approach’ that identifies sprawl as bad does not include radical honesty about how bad the 2014 light rail plan was (instead extolling I-35 ‘improvements’ and more state highway ‘investment’), then they have learned nothing; we are all dumber for having listened to them. I award them noÂ points; and may god have mercy on their souls.