Oh! Bother!

As per Usual. . . .

Le'seee; SMART is now a funded project, it having squeaked by the required two thirds vote. But some dimrod on here seems to think that 66.6 percent plus some, is somehow equal to zero support. I wonder who his math teacher was; assuming he ever had one!

True enough that buses "piggyback" on somebody else's work - thus avoiding a whole lot of capital costs; while at the same time mooching off of somebody else's r.o.w. maintenance efforts, avoiding those costs as well.

But - and its a huge big Buutttt! The cost of bus operations gets prohibitive in a big hurry, past a few dozen passengers. Consider the average street manageable bus carries about 45 safely seated passengers (only safe way to ride at highway speeds). That's one driver per 45 customers. 46 requires two drivers, doubles the cost with just a small handful of customers.

Moreover, fat chance that any driver on a 30 mile bus route can go back for a second load during a typical rush. But many BART trains manage that routinely - every day.

The average BART driver can get 700 seated passengers to work per trip. And standing on a train is relatively safe, allowing another 300 standees per trip (at least to the closer in stations).

Just in case His Nibbs is still too math challenged: That's between .5 and 1.0 driver salaries per 1000 passengers for the semi-automated train; verses 23 driver salaries per 1000 passengers for the bus. (Sure is a great advantage for the bus - all right)

The last BART cars built cost about 25 million for the 10 car train required in this example. The 23 required buses would cost about 10.3 million. So the up front cost is higher for BART (apples to apples), but the daily cost of the train is 20 to 40 times smaller, just in labor alone. It's a hands down no brainer - You pay now; or pay later - in spades - thru the nose!

And we still haven't even mentioned the ginormous energy efficiencies for the train, vs the bus.

This is why city after city in America, is opting for more trains and fewer buses. It's cheaper in the long run, by far. Besides, trains generally, almost immediately, attract more than triple the riders than the buses they replace actually did - in the very same markets. People ride them. With buses, people go buy cars instead. Now that the trains are coming back, we ain't buying so many cars - just ask GM. It's happened over and over, across America since the seventies.

Just in case someone wants to argue the point that trains having to pay their own capital costs for r.o.w., somehow tips the balance - think again. That private right of way IS very expensive. But consider that the 24,000 BART riders each rush hour, already coming out of Central Contra Costa would require 535 buses and 535 drivers.

That's a bus every 13.5 seconds! That would essentially fill up a whole lane to near capacity. Just imagine trying to navigate on a freeway with so many buses on it. Those buses couldn't even manage this without also having their own expensive private right of way anyhow.

Moreover, BART's "C-Line" is still loafing. With almost no modification, it could carry almost 50,000 passenger in just one rush hour! They just need more cars. No bus system could ever touch that kind of capacity.

Yep! Those buses sure do have a great advantage - Yessiree!

OPB