I don't grok the framing of this. Why does this piece feel like it's proposing LRT and buses as binary, exclusive choices, instead of components of one system that each have different strengths and weaknesses?

Namely, this point:

> This is money that could be far better spent, on a per-rider basis, on operating good bus routes; but instead is going to be spent on beautiful, brand new lines that only serve a relatively small catchment area unless they’re already integrated into a dense transit network (which is rarely the case).

Specifically:

> unless they’re already integrated into a dense transit network (which is rarely the case).

What is the case, and why is it rare?

In other words, this seems to make the case that because planners are incompetent, they should fund bus route saturation instead of train lines inherently less capable of saturation.

But instead, it just leaves me asking why integration of LRT and bus lines (and ability, last-mile, cargo, and scenic/tourism transit options) isn't better, since that seems like the best goal.