That being said, personally, I’m an advocate of the most aggressive BRT alternative, with a separated right of way so the “Subway on tires” doesn’t have to compete for space with egomaniacal private car drivers.

In regards to the country of origin of the bus equipment, believe it or not, I was hit with a note of sadness after Enrique Penalosa’s, moving, standing-ovation-bringing speech in City Hall last year learning from Rick Fernandez that the coming BRT system equipment would not be made by American workers.

No need to take my statement as gospel – I have provided links to all the necessary information. I encourage you to page through the National Transit Database’s information – the National Profile and the Top 50 Agencies profile. Fare revenue and operating costs are broken down there for every agency by mode of transport, so you can see how the numbers work. Rail has higher farebox recovery ratios because it is capital cost intensive rather than operating cost intensive – when you figure in capital costs, rail is a more expensive form of transit.

I’m not sure why you came to the conclusion that public transit is barely surviving, however. I would argue that the subsidies spent on public transit are small compared to the taxpayer subsidies for automobiles, and note additionally that a very important benefit of public transit is that it is taking those cars off the road, easing congestion for drivers. Not to mention the larger long-term environmental costs of driving. That’s an argument that deserves a post of its own, though. For now, I would encourage you to read through this Capricious Commuter post and the accompanying comments.

I’m not quite sure I understand what you think the benefit of not using large buses during off-peak hours is. If you can clarify, perhaps I’ll be able to respond to that better.

so without a guestimate for depreciation, have to take your statement as gospel that the true operating expenses of buses including capital depreciation is not inherently higher than say bart.

looking at the efficiency ratios for other northern californ transit agencies in that link you gave, suggests that AC is better than some and worse than others. But those fare and ridership numbers suggest that overall public transit is barely surviving in the bay area and needs vast infusions of public money to subsidize relatively few riders, but would need some comparisons to total cost of automobiles w all associated costs to know.

if operating cost per passenger is higher for buses than rail, and equipment fixed capital costs relatively lower, why doesn’t AC mothball the big vehicles except for peak times, and run Emery Go Around size buses more frequently during the off peak hours? Maybe not in East O and Richmond, but in much of North Oakand off peak hours the AC busses appear to be 10% occupied.

I have long-standing serious problems with Gammon’s deceptive and often bordering on libelous reporting, so while my words may seem particularly harsh, rest assured that it wasn’t only issues with a single story that brought on this level of invective.

And on a less mature note – he started it. Seriously. In response to my comment listing ridership data from the National Transportation Profile, his response was “You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Having said that, you’re probably right that I could have been less personal in my critique, and I will bear that in mind for future posts.