bzip2's BWT approach benefits from having no heuristics to encode, no lookup tables for offsets, no Huffman table metadata beyond the one coding table. The article's estimate of ~1.5KB for a single-table bzip2 decoder is plausible; I've seen similar results with stripped-down Huffman coders.
The point about zopfli is underappreciated too. People compare gzip vs bzip2 speed without noticing that 'fast gzip' and 'optimal gzip' are very different things. At comparable ratio targets, bzip2 is actually competitive.
My impression is that this article has a lot of technical insight into how bzip compares to gzip, but it fails actually account for the real cause of the diminished popularity of bzip in favor of the non-gzip alternatives that it admits are the more popular choices in recent years.