I believe that if a person transfers once on his way to wok, and one more time on the way home, this would be 4 unlinked trips (or 2 linked trips, which are usually not counted because it’s too difficult). And if this person takes the bus to work 200 times a year, this would be 800 PASSENGER TRIPS, not 800 riders!

What he should have said is that “AC Transit lost about 9 percent of its annual PASSENGER TRIPS from 2000-1 through 2005-6 — a staggering 6.1 million PASSENGER TRIPS”… “its fortunes worsened and it lost millions of PASSENGER TRIPS”

Having said that, I rode on a Van Hool bus 3 years ago when i first moved here and didn’t know anything abut this controversy. I thought the surface area of the seats were too small, didn’t have enough cushion and wobbled too much from side to side and up and down. I’m pro-BRT but anti-Van Hool.

I don’t think Fernandez wants to keep buying these buses because of the junkets; I just think he’s stubborn. He had this grand vision of creating a model for BRT right here in the East Bay, with the centerpiece being these hip European buses with 3 doors, and he just can’t bring himself to the realization that maybe these buses aren’t as great as thought they were back in 2001.

I also don’t think it was responsible to use the East Bay as the guinea pig for these buses. They had not been tested or used enough (as far as I’m aware — i could be wrong) prior to being purchased. I think this is an experiment that didn’t go well.

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation and biased sources in discussions about transit, which is unfortunate, which is why I appreciate your discussion above.

BRT, in its two main modes of deployment–the “Light Rail Lite” mode (typical of the U.S.) or the “Quickway” mode (found, for example, in Brisbane and Bogota)–can be a cost-effective means of meeting transit development goals if properly planned and developed, as can light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, and other modes. What is encouraging about the Quickway mode in particular is how it is able to take a significant capital investment (such as those made for BART) and use it to operate services at a much-reduced operating subsidy (unlike BART).

The “secret” to good planning is to move beyond the corridor-by-corridor fight to thinking more expansively about the overall network in terms of the three factors that most drive transit choice: network structure (i.e., connectedness), system performance (including travel time, waiting time, and reliability), and customer experience (which is much broader than vehicle type and includes psychosocial factors such as identification, perceived risks, feelings of control, etc.). Transit, at the end of the day, is not about the lines, it’s about where I can get from and to, how long it will take me, and whether the experience will make me feel good about my choice.

Best wishes,
Alan Hoffman
The Mission Group
San Diego, California

I lauded the Express’ return to local ownership, but I’ve been less than impressed with the content.They seem to be digging for big stories where they don’t exist while ignoring Oakland’s big issues. Newspapers have an obligation to get things (mostly) right, and the Express plays fast and loose with the facts.

Thanks for linking to me. I think I’m already on your mailing list (BRT Announcement?), but I don’t recall getting anything from that in a while. If there’s another list, please feel free to add me to it.

If you download the complete data set of the top 50 agencies, each agency has a page of financial information. A little more than halfway down the page, under modal characteristics, you can see operating expenses, fare revenues, and capital expenditures broken down by mode of transport. That’s as close to what you’re asking for regarding specific agencies that I’m aware of.

If what you’re looking for is a direct comparison of subsidies for different types of transit? This report (PDF!) analyzed the per rider public subsidy for the period between 1989 and 2003. This is the result:
AC Transit: $2.78 per trip
BART: $6.14 per trip
Caltrain: $13.79 per trip

As for BRT – it’s been phenomenally successful not just in some locations, but in every single place that’s tried it. Whether the improved reliability and speed is able to convince you personally to switch to bus riding isn’t necessarily the issue – the number of cars removed from the road by those who do make the change benefits drivers by easing congestions.

which report at the link to the national databases compares operating expenses includes a guestimate of economic depreciation/replacement expense to make a fair comparison between say light rail and buses. not easy and half voodo accounting to make those guestimates, but did they even try?

BRT probably makes sense, 10 to 15 years from now, or sooner if gas prices rise high enough to force people to use it.

other than the dubious claim that Oakland Berkeley BRT plus high density will save us from global warming and species extinction, I don’t see the rush to do this full bore now.

eg. why not try it on just Internatl Blvd without building the permanent kiosks. if that works, try it on Tele but initially w/o the kiosks. Unlike light rail, you don’t have to rush to buy up right of ways or start construction before costs go up.

Then there is the total disregard of the struggling Telegraph merchants whose customer street parking will get reduced/taken away. Again 15 years from now when with or without zoning changes there wb much higher densities, maybe the merchants won’t depend on people driving to them and parking.

Implementing BRT this way reminds me of the old borshst belt joke about the two old lefties sitting on a park bench. the first says to the other “come the revolution, we’ll all have a full pot of chicken soup on the stove”. The second guy responds “but i don’t like chicken soup”. To which the first guy says “come the revolution we’ll all have chicken soup and LIKE IT.”

Would you like to get on the Friends of BRT announcement list? We are active in Berkeley, but you would probably be interested in some of our announcements.