Zeno Swijtink
10-14-2008, 10:13 AM
"... MCL agrees that climate change is a real issue. That is why we are promoting Marin Clean Energy, which, according to county estimates, can reduce greenhouse gases by 350,000 tons per year by 2019, at the cost of a small utility bill premium. The county also estimates that expanding local and regional bus service could reduce greenhouse gases by 11,800 tons per year, and supporting van and car pooling and telecommuting, by another 10,000 tons per year - in both cases by 2010. By comparison, SMART projects reductions of 15,000 tons per year after operation begins in 2014, at a total cost to the taxpayer of $1.4 billion.
"Proponents say, "do all of the above." MCL replies: "There are many alternatives - even subsidizing the purchase of hybrid vehicles - that compete with SMART's environmental claims at a fraction of the public cost and with the flexibility that the SMART rail system cannot provide."
Our mission: To keep Sonoma County's environmental community a well-informed and well-networked force to be reckoned with!
********************
https://www.marinij.com/marinvoice/ci_10715563
SMART's benefits overstated
By Nona Dennis
Marin Independent Journal,
October 14, 2008
THE OCT. 5 IJ featured an informative story on the front page: "Smart's Second Chance." Reporter Mark Prado's well-balanced article demonstrates that, once the debate is stripped of exaggerations from both sides, reasonable people with similar environmental goals can disagree on the most effective and cost-efficient means of achieving them.
Environmentalists (and that's most of us these days) are pursuing similar goals. Some are purely environmental, like combating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), or protecting wetlands and endangered species habitats from further losses. Some goals also combine environment and quality of human life, such as relieving traffic gridlock on Highway 101 by reducing dependence on the single-driver automobile, and preventing growth from exceeding the capacities of local resources and service infrastructure.
In the case of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit district train and trail plan, we differ on how to achieve these goals.
The IJ article correctly states that Marin Conservation League (one of " ... Marin's most venerable environmental organizations") opposes the SMART rail program. MCL has become venerable in its 74 years because, after thoroughly studying an issue, it is willing to say, "The Emperor has no clothes!" - especially during this campaign which has employed every metaphor possible (e.g. "climb aboard;" "trail and rail" and "a green alternative") to appeal to the public's imagination.
Metaphors certainly capture voters' attention; such is the nature of campaigns.
Some of the facts on which MCL bases its opposition are contained in the IJ article. Some come from other sources, including the SMART environmental impact report itself. Three main points:
- Congestion on 101: 230 people will travel south on SMART from Sonoma into Marin during the peak southbound commute . Even allowing for increased use due to the rising cost of gas - say, from a one percent reduction in traffic to a two percent reduction - SMART's promise of congestion relief on 101 during peak hours is an example of Disney's First Law: "Wishing will make it so!"
SMART will not change the level of service on Highway 101.
- An alternative: "It will be an alternative to the gridlock ..." (a common "pro" argument quoted in the IJ article). Yes, a few commuters might enjoy a ride on a train, yet the stream of traffic entering Marin every morning reveals trucks and vans loaded with ladders, wiring, pipes, shovels and other tools of livelihoods that cannot board a train. SMART is an alternative for only a few, as is shown in their ridership projections.
And, SMART can only go where the tracks lead, which is not necessarily where people want or need to go.
- Climate change: "We are talking about environmental choices and climate change, which is a real issue," says another argument quoted in the IJ article. MCL agrees that climate change is a real issue. That is why we are promoting Marin Clean Energy, which, according to county estimates, can reduce greenhouse gases by 350,000 tons per year by 2019, at the cost of a small utility bill premium. The county also estimates that expanding local and regional bus service could reduce greenhouse gases by 11,800 tons per year, and supporting van and car pooling and telecommuting, by another 10,000 tons per year - in both cases by 2010. By comparison, SMART projects reductions of 15,000 tons per year after operation begins in 2014, at a total cost to the taxpayer of $1.4 billion.
Proponents say, "do all of the above." MCL replies: "There are many alternatives - even subsidizing the purchase of hybrid vehicles - that compete with SMART's environmental claims at a fraction of the public cost and with the flexibility that the SMART rail system cannot provide."
Please vote "no" on Measure Q.
Nona Dennis was an environmental consultant for 25 years and is president of the Marin Conservation League.
--
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
"Proponents say, "do all of the above." MCL replies: "There are many alternatives - even subsidizing the purchase of hybrid vehicles - that compete with SMART's environmental claims at a fraction of the public cost and with the flexibility that the SMART rail system cannot provide."
Our mission: To keep Sonoma County's environmental community a well-informed and well-networked force to be reckoned with!
********************
https://www.marinij.com/marinvoice/ci_10715563
SMART's benefits overstated
By Nona Dennis
Marin Independent Journal,
October 14, 2008
THE OCT. 5 IJ featured an informative story on the front page: "Smart's Second Chance." Reporter Mark Prado's well-balanced article demonstrates that, once the debate is stripped of exaggerations from both sides, reasonable people with similar environmental goals can disagree on the most effective and cost-efficient means of achieving them.
Environmentalists (and that's most of us these days) are pursuing similar goals. Some are purely environmental, like combating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), or protecting wetlands and endangered species habitats from further losses. Some goals also combine environment and quality of human life, such as relieving traffic gridlock on Highway 101 by reducing dependence on the single-driver automobile, and preventing growth from exceeding the capacities of local resources and service infrastructure.
In the case of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit district train and trail plan, we differ on how to achieve these goals.
The IJ article correctly states that Marin Conservation League (one of " ... Marin's most venerable environmental organizations") opposes the SMART rail program. MCL has become venerable in its 74 years because, after thoroughly studying an issue, it is willing to say, "The Emperor has no clothes!" - especially during this campaign which has employed every metaphor possible (e.g. "climb aboard;" "trail and rail" and "a green alternative") to appeal to the public's imagination.
Metaphors certainly capture voters' attention; such is the nature of campaigns.
Some of the facts on which MCL bases its opposition are contained in the IJ article. Some come from other sources, including the SMART environmental impact report itself. Three main points:
- Congestion on 101: 230 people will travel south on SMART from Sonoma into Marin during the peak southbound commute . Even allowing for increased use due to the rising cost of gas - say, from a one percent reduction in traffic to a two percent reduction - SMART's promise of congestion relief on 101 during peak hours is an example of Disney's First Law: "Wishing will make it so!"
SMART will not change the level of service on Highway 101.
- An alternative: "It will be an alternative to the gridlock ..." (a common "pro" argument quoted in the IJ article). Yes, a few commuters might enjoy a ride on a train, yet the stream of traffic entering Marin every morning reveals trucks and vans loaded with ladders, wiring, pipes, shovels and other tools of livelihoods that cannot board a train. SMART is an alternative for only a few, as is shown in their ridership projections.
And, SMART can only go where the tracks lead, which is not necessarily where people want or need to go.
- Climate change: "We are talking about environmental choices and climate change, which is a real issue," says another argument quoted in the IJ article. MCL agrees that climate change is a real issue. That is why we are promoting Marin Clean Energy, which, according to county estimates, can reduce greenhouse gases by 350,000 tons per year by 2019, at the cost of a small utility bill premium. The county also estimates that expanding local and regional bus service could reduce greenhouse gases by 11,800 tons per year, and supporting van and car pooling and telecommuting, by another 10,000 tons per year - in both cases by 2010. By comparison, SMART projects reductions of 15,000 tons per year after operation begins in 2014, at a total cost to the taxpayer of $1.4 billion.
Proponents say, "do all of the above." MCL replies: "There are many alternatives - even subsidizing the purchase of hybrid vehicles - that compete with SMART's environmental claims at a fraction of the public cost and with the flexibility that the SMART rail system cannot provide."
Please vote "no" on Measure Q.
Nona Dennis was an environmental consultant for 25 years and is president of the Marin Conservation League.
--
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. For more information go to: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml