http://bikescape.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-were-up-against.html

“On November 1956, citizens voted to establish the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District. Funding for the District was initially provided in 1959 through a voter-approved bond of $16.5 million that allowed AC Transit to acquire the bankrupt Key System from the California Public Utilities Commission in 1960. Further funding mechanisms were approved by the voters, providing AC Transit with necessary operating assistance. The move to publicly operate a privately owned company was proof that voters viewed public transit as an integral component of their quality of life in the East Bay.”

The implication is clear. AC Transit could not operate (or expand) the service even absent the burden of Key System property taxes without further assistance, i.e. your property taxes. So AC Transit began its existence as a public funded agency. Your assertion that AC Transit was ever profitable (absent its property tax income) is not credible.

Of course, that is not the complete story. The Key System had to maintain tracks and electrical equipment, as well as pay taxes, and AC Transit did not. On the other hand, the Key System did better before it had to compete with a bridge that did not have to pay taxes or be profitable.

The whole subject is really not completely clear. The same prejudices that cause people to ignore auto-related crime and focus on transit- and more particularly, bus-related crime, also skew the accounting. My statement came from an article in an Alameda County based magazine, whose name I forget, which was opposing BART in the early 1960′s. The magazine was in the Periodical Room of the Oakland Library, and I am sure that someone there could help you find it.

By the way, there is very little crime on transit, especially on buses, where there is always a symbol of authority, the driver, around. Most crime is related to automobiles, even if you discount those that have been demoted to “traffic violations” which account for 90% of all court appearances. About 90% of all (of the remaining) crime in my neighborhood is auto theft and auto burglaries, which is probably typical of most neighborhoods. A city transit bus is probably the safest way to travel. Even most of the crime on BART takes place in the parking lots.

Oops! This bit of revisionist history is not correct. The last time the Key System paid a dividend was in 1947 and it was sold to the transit district in 1960 to prevent the dissolution of the remaining assets (old buses). In 1958 the bridge trains were removed to make space for more cars and avoid the cost of replacing creaky, slow trains that were getting seriously long of tooth.

A few years back, I had a meeting in Long Beach and flew into LAX and took a cab. On the way in, I noticed that trains were running on the airport line and thought, what a great way back! So at the conclusion of the meeting, I took the Blue Line to Watts, where I would transfer to the Airport line. I was greeted by a big sign that announced the service would start in two weeks.

So here is a white guy, stuck in the middle of Watts with no way to go to the airport. So I wandered down to street level, found a bus stop on the Century City Line, with abandoned couches in front of it and more guys hanging around. I was the only idiot in a suit, with an attache case. Nobody would come near me.

The Century City Bus arrived and we crossed the social tectonic plates of Los Angeles to arrive at the airport. First, all Blacks (and no one would sit next to me), then the Hispanic community (and again, people would stand rather than sit next to guy in the suit and Fedora) and finally, nearer the airport, a more mixed group, who would sit next to me.

Okay. LA Watts to the airport. Quick, convenient and useful. Anyone else tried this?

The world works in mysterious ways and when we can shine a little light on the dark corners, it really helps.

Case and point – the memo circulated at the Bay Area agency responsible for Air Quality – disallowing their employees (people charged with trying to find ways to improve air quality) from using their bikes to get to business meetings because it exposed the company to too much risk. In reality cycling carries nominally the same amount of danger to the person travelling as driving. And from a corporate risk management standpoint cycling is much preferred. A person cycling might die in an accident. A person driving might kill multiple people in an accident. The net risk for the company is far worse with them behind the wheel.

The author of the memo admitted his statement was only based on his personal intuition, not research.

If you have not been threatened with being run over by some motorist, or forced off the sidewalk into traffic by someone who thinks that their parking is more than anyone else’s safety, you probably never leave your home. This behavior by drivers is so prevalent that it has been codified into the law: They are infractions, rather than felonies they would be otherwise. The whole point is that these prejudices are not because we consciously believe that some people are worse because of race or whatever. They are because we believe, consciously or not, that we are so much better when we drive.