Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    burro
     

    SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    The campaign against 'SMART' Measure Q (on the Sonoma and Marin ballots, November 4, 2008) is still welcoming volunteers to hand out flyers in neighborhoods and other populated areas.

    Meet great people and help spread the truth about 'SMART' -- a great-sounding idea that would have truly awful service and consequences!

    For more information, see
    https://notsmart.org


    To volunteer, please phone:
    Ann Thomas (415-924-9559)
    or
    Joy Dahlgren (415-479-7930).
    To make a donation, please send your contribution to:
    North Bay Citizens for Effective Transportation
    P.O. Box 532
    Corte Madera, CA 94976
    For contributions of $100 or more, election law requires occupation and employer information. FPPC #(1290412).
    Last edited by burro; 09-29-2008 at 10:22 PM. Reason: Clarify
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    calart
    Guest

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Hi instead of wasting your time in trying to stop a good thing,( we need the train i think it's a good idea especially for the seniors and commuters) you should volunteer to help the cancer foundation, or other worthy foundation
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #3
    The A Team's Avatar
    The A Team
    Supporting Member

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Yes,
    Would you rather have an 29 lane freeway going through San Rafael for your giant SUV? The bus and train might bring those " undesirable" people who clean your house and serve you food & coffee.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post
    The campaign against 'SMART' Measure Q (on the Sonoma and Marin ballots, November 4, 2008) is still welcoming volunteers to hand out flyers in neighborhoods and other populated areas.

    Meet great people and help spread the truth about 'SMART' -- a great-sounding idea that would have truly awful service and consequences!

    For more information, see
    https://notsmart.org


    To volunteer, please phone:
    Ann Thomas (415-924-9559)
    or
    Joy Dahlgren (415-479-7930).
    To make a donation, please send your contribution to:
    North Bay Citizens for Effective Transportation
    P.O. Box 532
    Corte Madera, CA 94976
    For contributions of $100 or more, election law requires occupation and employer information. FPPC #(1290412).
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #4
    burro
     

    10 Good REasons to Oppose 'SMART'

    Many thanks to those of you who have called in to volunteer!

    On the surface, 'SMART' sounds great. But, as soon as one looks at the details, reasons it won't work out add up quickly.

    Without exception, folks who support 'SMART' have, at some point in their decision-making, chosen to take a leap of faith. "I see that it looks relly bad, but I am counting on it working out." But the number of miracles needed for 'SMART' to work out will never happen.

    The fact is, 'SMART' is about the worst thing that could happen to the North Bay -- it will create traffic congestion and pollution, and suck dollars away from other transit systems. Meanwhile, it will encourage explosive growth, just as rail did in the East and South Bay areas.

    Here are 10 good reasons to help work against 'SMART' --

    1. SMART will NOT REDUCE traffic congestion
    Even SMART does not claim to reduce traffic. In fact, SMART funding mandates growth that would massively increase congestion.

    2. SMART is NOT cost-effective

    According to detailed estimates, SMART costs 4-5 times as much -- OR MORE -- as comparable or superior bus service that could run twice as often and closer to starting points and destinations..

    3. SMART is absurdly EXPENSIVE

    SMART ridership is just 3,000 round-trips per day; the IJ published cost of SMART is $1.6B; that’s $533,000 per round-trip slot. It is also $2,133 for each man, woman, and child in Marin and Sonoma Counties, even though 3,000 represents only 0.4% of the Sonoma-Marin population.

    4. SMART does not connect

    To BART, to the ferry -- SMART does not directly connect, and won’t.

    5. SMART is NOT SAFE

    The recent MetroLink disaster -- and other recent train accidents -- show that freight sharing a single track with commute rail is NOT SAFE!

    6. SMART would HURT bay area air quality
    Taking all factors into account, such as cramming extra growth near freeways, SMART would result in massive increases in greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.

    7. SMART would HARM property values
    Property values near rail systems typically suffer, e.g. due to vibrations, loud horns at all hours, intersection hazards, and more.

    8. SMART creates crossing HAZARDS
    Over 100 at-grade crossings, creating hazards for pedestrians and autos.

    9. SMART ridership CANNOT GROW appreciably
    No matter how much more development there is in the North Bay, SMART’s ridership cannot grow much -- it is on a single track, shared with freight and 100+ intersections.

    10. SMART SUCKS funding

    SMART is already competing for public funding for thing such as fire protection, open space, and more!

    ‘SMART’ is NOT Smart!
    'SMART' is a BOONDOGGLE!!!
    Last edited by burro; 10-01-2008 at 02:53 PM. Reason: Minor correction
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #5
    PeriodThree
    Guest

    Re: 10 Good REasons to Oppose 'SMART'

    The safety statistics do not support your statement - I consider this to be a deeply dishonest argument, and making this argument marks you, in my mind, to be dishonest.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post

    5. SMART is NOT SAFE

    The recent MetroLink disaster -- and other recent train accidents -- show that freight sharing a single track with commute rail is NOT SAFE!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. TopTop #6
    dhbetty
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Don't be suckered in by the anti-SMART folks. They have been proven to be liars and had to be sued to remove their lies from the ballot arguments.
    Marin County Judge Rules in SMART's Favor [09/02/2008]
    A Marin County judge today threw out sections of a ballot argument against Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit ruling that the opposition's...
    Read More
    Sonoma County Judge Rules in SMART's Favor [09/02/2008]
    A Sonoma County judge today ordered changes to a ballot argument opposing passenger train service for Sonoma and Marin counties...
    Read More


    I hope that if you are on the fence or anti-SMART that you will read the facts and not the hype that is being spewed. Here are where you can get the answers https://www.smarttrain2008.org/ and from the SMART website https://www.sonomamarintrain.org/ :
    Frequently Asked Questions

    Here are some of the most frequently asked questions about SMART’s 70-mile rail and trail project, followed by a short answer and a link to a more comprehensive discussion of the subject in one of SMART’s White Papers:
    If SMART doesn’t go to San Francisco, isn’t it a “train to nowhere?”

    SMART will connect to Larkspur, across the street from the Larkspur Ferry Terminal, providing access to San Francisco. It’s important to recognize, however, that most of the traffic on Highway 101 in the North Bay is not bound for San Francisco.
    Commuting patterns in the 21st Century are much different from those of 50 years ago. The vast majority of North Bay commuters on Highway 101 are going to jobs in Marin and Sonoma Counties, and the number of commuters to San Francisco is shrinking. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission projects 130,000 new jobs along the Highway 101 corridor in Marin and Sonoma between 2000 and 2025 – none of which will require a North Bay commuter to cross the Golden Gate Bridge. Far from being a “train to nowhere,” SMART is a train to where the jobs are, and where the people are.
    For more information, see SMART White Paper No. 1 – “SMART Travel in the 21st Century.”

    How will SMART benefit the environment?

    According to the project’s Environmental Impact Report, SMART will prevent at least 30 million pounds of greenhouse gases from entering our atmosphere each year by removing 5,300 car trips daily from North Bay roads.
    But that hardly begins to describe the potential environmental benefits of SMART. The greenhouse gas savings figure doesn’t include an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 trips each day on SMART’s parallel 70-mile bicycle-pedestrian trail. Nor does it calculate the environmental benefits of helping to change the transportation paradigm of the North Bay by creating the north-south backbone of an interconnected transit system that can transform the way people move around Marin and Sonoma Counties in the future.
    For a discussion of these benefits, see SMART White Paper No. 2 – “Climate Change and SMART.”

    Is SMART the best use of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad corridor?

    SMART’s proposal to operate self-propelled passenger rail cars on the existing NWP right of way is the best use of the publicly owned corridor for a variety of economic, environmental and technical reasons.
    A BART-style project (or a magnetic-levitation train or monorail, for that matter) would be vastly more expensive than SMART – probably more than $100 million a mile. Light rail wouldn’t be as efficient, and also would cost more. So would using buses or “dualmode” vehicles that could run on or off the railroad tracks. SMART, at a cost of about $7.7 million per mile, is by far the least expensive of many options suggested for the NWP corridor, using proven and tested technology that can be up and running in about five years.
    For a closer look at the alternatives, see White Paper No. 3 – “Alternatives for the NWP Corridor.”

    Why not pave the tracks and run buses instead of trains?

    A busway along the NWP corridor wouldn’t be cheaper than SMART and it certainly couldn’t offer the same environmental benefits of the proposed passenger rail project. Busways generally are built in short, urban corridors with closely spaced stations. Recent projects in Pittsburgh, PA, and Los Angeles have cost well over $20 million per mile, compared to SMART’s estimated cost of around $6 million per mile.
    Because buses don’t offer the same on-board amenities as trains and because busways can’t offer the same travel speeds as trains, fewer riders will use them. Dedicated bus corridors are also not as safe as rail corridors. And finally, paving the tracks for buses isn’t currently legal in the SMART corridor, where state legislation requires SMART to provide safe and efficient passenger rail service in conjunction with the North Coast Railroad Authority’s proposed freight rail service north of the Highway 37 turnoff.
    For a detailed examination of this issue, see White Paper No. 4 – “Why not Pave the Tracks?”

    What will a SMART train look like?

    SMART’s clean, efficient and modern rail cars will be a quick, quiet way to travel in the North Bay. Riders can bring bicycles on board, use wireless internet, relax with a snack or a cup of coffee. Short two-car train sets will fit within a downtown city block, keeping cross streets unobstructed. At left is one type of rail vehicle under consideration.
    For a more complete description of SMART’s rail cars, see White Paper No. 5 – “SMART’s Rail Vehicles.”

    What about diesel fuel?

    Diesel isn’t what it used to be, and modern pollution-control equipment will make SMART trains – on a per-seat basis – easily the cleanest vehicle traveling along the Highway 101 corridor. New regulations requiring the use of ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel allow high-tech pollution-control systems to be used on SMART trains.
    Particulate emissions – the familiar “black smoke” produced by old-style diesel – are virtually eliminated with this technology, and other emissions are greatly minimized. As engine technology continues to improve, SMART will work toward using the cleanest energy possible to run its trains.
    For more on this, see White Paper No. 6 – “SMART’s Clean Diesel Trains.”
    How will SMART impact the air quality of the North Bay?

    Besides reducing greenhouse gases, SMART also will help reduce other air pollutants along the Highway 101 corridor. Nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases, major contributors to the gray pall that we usually refer to as “smog,” will be reduced as SMART reduces vehicle trips in the region. Particulate matter, another significant air pollutant, also will be reduced.
    SMART’s Final EIR concludes: “Implementation of the proposed project overall would benefit air quality as levels of most criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases are reduced.”
    For more on SMART’s benefits to our air quality, see White Paper No. 7 – “Air Quality.”
    Where will SMART’s bicycle-pedestrian trail go?

    SMART’s companion bicycle-pedestrian trail will follow essentially the same route as SMART’s passenger trains, linking all 14 stations and the 70-mile corridor from Larkspur to Cloverdale.
    By fulfilling a long-term dream of a north-south greenway, it not only will provide key access to rail stations, but it will become a recreational jewel for Marin and Sonoma counties. SMART’s environmental studies project it will be used by 7,000 to 10,000 walkers, joggers, bicyclists and others every day.
    For more on SMART’s Rail and Trail project, see White Paper No. 8 – “SMART is Both Rail and Trail.”

    How do I get from the station to my work place?

    SMART stations are within easy walking or biking distance to and from tens of thousands of job destinations in the North Bay. To make access even easier, though, the SMART project includes free shuttles at many stations that will take train riders to office parks, hospitals, schools and shopping areas.
    In Petaluma, for example, shuttles will serve Petaluma Valley Hospital, Santa Rosa Junior College’s Petaluma campus and several business parks. In Larkspur, a shuttle will take train passengers to the Golden Gate Ferry, College of Marin or San Quentin State Prison, a major employer.
    For more information on SMART shuttles, see White Paper No. 9 – “SMART Shuttles.”

    How will SMART mesh with existing transit services?

    By combining a SMART ride with a bus trip, public transit riders will be able to go car-free just about anywhere in the North Bay, and beyond. SMART is working with North Bay transit providers – including Golden Gate Transit, Marin County Transit, Sonoma County Transit and local providers like Santa Rosa CityBus – toward a goal of ensuring that train service and bus service work in a complementary manner when SMART trains start rolling.
    SMART already is planning its train schedule based on the timing of Golden Gate bus service in downtown San Rafael – the North Bay’s busiest bus transit center. Conversely, local transit agencies may adjust their bus schedules and routes to better mesh with rail service when SMART starts running.
    For more on how SMART will help riders make the transit connection, see White Paper No. 10 – “Making the Transit Connection.”

    What if I want to drive my car to the train station?

    Most SMART rail stations will have parking available for passengers who drive to the train, and in fact several stations will have large park-and-ride lots. But several stations, including the downtown depots in San Rafael and Santa Rosa, are not slated to have dedicated parking for the train. These are areas that are well-served by other transit or have a higher population density of residents who can walk to or otherwise access the train without using a car.
    For a complete list of parking plans for SMART stations, see White Paper No. 11 – “Park and Ride.”

    Where, exactly, will SMART stations be?

    SMART will revive rail service to historic depots in such cities as Healdsburg, Santa Rosa and Petaluma. It will enhance intermodal transit hubs in conjunction with bus terminals in Windsor and San Rafael. And it will create new stations at strategically chosen locations along the rail corridor in cities such as Novato, Cotati and Larkspur.
    Depending upon station size and ridership, amenities at SMART stations will include electronic ticket machines, bike lockers, street furniture and information kiosks.
    To find out what’s planned at your stop, see White Paper No. 12 – “SMART Station Planning.”

    How will SMART go north in the morning, or south in the evening?

    Because many people see just a single set of railroad tracks in most of the SMART corridor, they may mistakenly believe that trains can only run in one direction. On the contrary, SMART will run trains north and south every 30 minutes during both the morning and evening commute hours. This is possible because about 17 percent of the corridor includes “passing sidings” – sections where two sets of track allow one train to pull to the side while another train passes.
    Rail systems throughout the country successfully operate in this manner; the “Sprinter” train between Oceanside and Escondido in San Diego County began such a service in March.
    For more information on SMART’s simultaneous north-south operations, see White Paper No. 13 – “Two-Way Track Operation.”

    Will SMART operate freight trains?

    Freight train service and passenger train service have been intertwined on the Northwestern Pacific rail corridor since the 19th Century, but today they are governed by two separate entities. The North Coast Railroad Authority has an easement that gives it the right to operate freight trains on SMART’s tracks north of Highway 37 in Novato. Unlike SMART, NCRA does not need a vote of the people to begin service.
    For a closer look at the differences, see White Paper No. 14 – “Freight Trains and Passenger Trains.”

    Aren’t trains awfully loud?

    Actually, SMART trains will be amazingly quiet. However, railroad rules require trains to sound their horns where the tracks intersect with road crossings, and those horns will be the most significant noise impact of the project. To alleviate that impact, SMART will build the safety infrastructure to allow local jurisdictions to create “quiet zones” at many crossings. Quiet zones are crossings where – because of added lights, gates, medians or other safety measures – trains are not required to sound their horns.
    For details, see White Paper No. 15 – “Quiet Zones.”


    What other safety measures does SMART plan?

    Safety will be a high priority for the SMART project. While trains are a remarkably safe way to travel, they represent a hazard to any persons or vehicles who venture into their path. To prevent accidents, SMART will install the latest safety measures including fencing, signs, gates and warning signals at rail crossings. There also will be a safety structure separating SMART’s bicycle-pedestrian trail from the tracks.
    A computerized signaling and dispatching system will keep track of the location of trains at all times. SMART also will implement Operation Lifesaver, a nationwide non-profit program designed to educate the public – and particularly school-age children – about the hazards that may occur on railroad property, especially at railroad crossings.
    For more about SMART’s safety measures, see White Paper No. 16 – “Traveling Safely in the North Bay.”

    Will SMART trains cause traffic jams?

    By getting thousands of people out of their cars every day, SMART will reduce the number of cars using North Bay roads. Still, some wonder if SMART will cause traffic backups as its trains cross streets and roads and pull into downtown stations. In fact, SMART trains will cross streets in just a few seconds, and crossing gates will be closed only 35-40 seconds – shorter than most red lights.
    Because they are only two cars long, SMART trains will not block any streets when they are stopped in downtown stations. Synchronized signal technology in downtowns such as San Rafael’s will improve the flow of traffic – even when trains aren’t present.
    For more on SMART and traffic, see White Paper No. 17 – “Downtown Traffic and SMART.”
    How much will SMART cost?

    SMART’s funding plan estimates the capital costs of the train and pathway project at $541 million, which will make it one of the least-expensive new transportation projects in California on a per-mile basis. Annual operating costs are estimated at $19 million. Existing funding, fares and a dedicated 1/4-cent sales tax will pay for the project.
    SMART’s Funding Plan is posted at https://www.sonomamarintrain.org, described in White Paper No. 18 – “SMART’s Financial Plan.”
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. TopTop #7
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    For the record, several things:

    #1:

    The SMART "White Papers" are not official documents. They are under no burden to tell the truth, and they don't!!

    They are essentially Public Relations documents created by the highly-paid professional PR consultants working for SMART.


    #2:

    The suit against the "No on Q" ballot statement was a cynical move by the well-funded rail machinery behind SMART.

    The SMART campaign has 10-20x the funding of the "No on Q" campaign. They have money to burn and took a chance that a judge would not understand the bases for the "No on Q" claims. The "No on Q" claims were correct, but SMART got lucky.

    If the "No on Q" campaign had the money to sue over the Pro-SMART ballot argument, the Pro-SMART argument would have gone down in flames -- it is repeatedly demonstrably false.

    In addition, most of the ruling against the "No on Q" statement were extremely minor -- move a comma here, change a phrase there -- for the most part, the writers view the ruling as an exoneration of their statements.

    Finally, the writers who wrote the "No on Q" statements are just a few people our of the thousands who know SMART would be bad news. I am not one of those writers, nor are most of the people in the "No on Q" campaign.


    #3 SMART is NOT Safe

    That statement is a fact.

    SMART would be the only full-system on a single-track in the USA.

    The MetroLink disaster happened on just such a system.

    Safety records for rail have mostly to do with double-track systems, and even elevated systems (e.g. BART does not have a single at-grade crossing -- SMART has more than 100!!!)..

    SMART would NOT be safe -- the SMART EIR acknowledges increased hazards at intersections, AND increased congestion around stations -- and they are not even accounting for induced growth!


    As I said, thanks to those who have already called in to volunteer.

    This is possibly the most important issue affecting North Bay community character in the last 40 years.

    More volunteers are welcome -- please keep the calls coming!

    Cheers!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. TopTop #8
    burro
     

    SMARTquestions.org

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. TopTop #9
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Also see, for background on SMART:

    https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42984
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. TopTop #10
    Dixon's Avatar
    Dixon
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by dhbetty: View Post
    ...SMART, at a cost of about $7.7 million per mile... SMART’s estimated cost of around $6 million per mile...
    I don't know what the right choice is about SMART, though your arguments, if true, seem pretty good. But I must say: Contradicting yourself tends to undercut your credibility.

    I understand that the Yes on SMART folks have a LOT of funding behind them. This leads me to ask: Can we have "full disclosure" here about your interest in SMART? Do you receive money or other benefit for your support of SMART? Again, I'm not on either side of this debate, just curious.

    Thanks;
    Dixon
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  11. TopTop #11
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    I don't know what the right choice is about SMART, though your arguments, if true, seem pretty good. But I must say: Contradicting yourself tends to undercut your credibility.

    I understand that the Yes on SMART folks have a LOT of funding behind them. This leads me to ask: Can we have "full disclosure" here about your interest in SMART? Do you receive money or other benefit for your support of SMART? Again, I'm not on either side of this debate, just curious.

    Thanks;
    Dixon
    Hi Dixon,

    Your instincts are right.

    There has not been full disclosure from SMART.

    Far from it.

    "Public process" was a farce throughout. There were "hearings" that were merely PR presentations. In some cases the audience was not allowed to speak. In some cases the audience could ask questions but only with the understanding that presenters would not answer. I asked repeatedly for the transcripts being taken by the professional stenographers (sometimes more than one were at a single "hearing") to be posted online or shared in some format, but that did not happen -- when limited versions were released, they were released without names (for "privacy" reasons, even though these were public hearings by a public agency -- the real reason, no doubt, was to prevent like-minded people from organizing together to oppose SMART).

    Also, the responses to questions on the EIR amount to "blowing off" most of the questions -- even those from major environmental groups and other public agencies.

    The fact that a ballot measure was presented in 2006 before the final EIR was done gives one an idea how much SMART cares about having the voters fully informed about what they are voting on.

    The same can be said about coming to the voters in 2008 without a complete EIR for freight operations or a signed agreement about joint freight and commuter operations.

    Then, of course, oh-ho, the SMART "white papers" -- "White-wash papers," really: for the most part, these are an advertising scam -- they did not go through any public process, whatsoever. The "white-wash papers" are filled with claims that could not have made it through the public process, even with the 'stacked deck' created by the SMART legislation.

    One should know and understand that the state legislation that created SMART (carried by big-business shill Joe Nation) gave the SMART board a mandate to effectuate SMART. To put that another way, the SMART Board is not charged to evaluate SMART or decide whether it *should* happen -- the SMART Board is empaneled with the commandment to MAKE SMART happen!

    That explains a lot about how public process has gone, about the hundreds of thousands that SMART has spent developing PR materials, etc., and about the huge funding the SMART campaign is getting from greedy big-business tycoons.

    You are also right to ask about money -- SMART has, directly and indirectly, been funding "grassroots" organizations to do what I would call "viral" campaigning. For example, the Marin County Bicycle Coalition reportedly received $20k specifically for campaigning for SMART (oops -- is that possibly an IRS violation?), in addition to the nearly-no-deliverables $40k grants they receive from Marin County -- mainly via Steve Kinsey and Charles McGlashan (both of whom have tied their political careers to SMART).

    To be sure -- there are plenty of people who have supported SMART based on SMART's claims or assumptions about rail necessarily being a good idea, without looking at the details.

    The basic truth is that commute rail works out in some places and not in others.

    It would not work out in the North Bay area.

    Here are three measures of what I mean:
    1) The best indicator of commute rail success is whether there is a densely urban major economic center somewhere on the line -- there isn't one on the SMART line -- in fact, SMART may have the worst circumstances of any rail system in the Country in that regard;
    2) By the time of it's implementation, SMART may be the only fully-single-track system in the County -- there was another in Florida, but it was preparing to double-track two years ago -- SMART is unlikely to double-track because its ridership will always be anemic and the costs, property condemnations, and environmental havoc would be extreme;
    3) SMART costs AT LEAST 4-5 times what bus would cost to provide comparable or superior services -- and the HOV lanes currently being built and about to be built will almost certainly make door-to-door trips by bus FASTER than door-to-door trips involving SMART -- SMART does their comparisons based on station-to-station trips -- that's misleading -- who has stations as their origin and destination -- 0.000001% of the population?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #12
    The A Team's Avatar
    The A Team
    Supporting Member

    Re: SMARTquestions.org

    That is for the group against commuter trains.

    For accurate info on Smart go to:
    https://www.sonomamarintrain.org/
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. TopTop #13
    burro
     

    Re: SMARTquestions.org

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by TheATeam: View Post
    That is for the group against commuter trains.

    For accurate info on Smart go to:
    https://www.sonomamarintrain.org/
    Some call pro-SMART P.R. "accurate." some know better.

    The "No on Q" campaign (against SMART) is to be found here:

    https://www.notsmart.com
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #14
    dhbetty
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Dixon: View Post
    I don't know what the right choice is about SMART, though your arguments, if true, seem pretty good. But I must say: Contradicting yourself tends to undercut your credibility.

    I understand that the Yes on SMART folks have a LOT of funding behind them. This leads me to ask: Can we have "full disclosure" here about your interest in SMART? Do you receive money or other benefit for your support of SMART? Again, I'm not on either side of this debate, just curious.

    Thanks;
    Dixon
    Hi Dixon,

    Thanks for the question! I just spoke to Chris Coursey with SMART to find out why they have two different prices. (rather than believe the bloated conspiracy talk from Burro) Chris told me that the $7.7 million cost per mile is the cost of the passenger train project and bike path combined. The $6 million per mile cost for the train project alone- without the pathway. (they are going make that clear on the website, so thanks for catching it.

    I don't know where you get the idea that the SMART campaign has LOTS of money, from Burro? S/He has already proven that they are not to be trusted. I'm trying to raise $ for the campaign and I'm volunteering to make phone calls to talk to voters about the project.

    My interest in SMART is mostly selfish. I want to ride my bike on the path, I want to take the train to meetings in San Rafael...

    I receive no money or any benefit beyond getting to live in a community that will reap the benefits of the train and path.

    Chris
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. TopTop #15
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    *I* am not to be trusted? Based on what, I wonder?

    My post showing there may not be a bike path? (See below.)

    Now Chris Coursey -- there is a piece of work -- makes money writing VERY, VERY pro-SMART articles for the paper right before taking a job with SMART as a P.R. guy.

    Niiiice...

    For those who care -- I am a private individual with no vested interest one way or the other.

    SMART is just a lousy project.

    As for who is supporting SMART, see here:
    https://notsmart.org/2008_Q_supporters.htm

    In 2006, the pro-SMART campaign had TEN TIMES the funding of the "No on R" campaign. Feel free to check the FPPC filings. Chances are, it'll be more this time.

    That is because there is a lot of money in the rapid development SMART will induce, and very rarely any money in fighting a bad idea.

    BTW: Cost per mile of track is just silly. What a person should ask is the cost of operations, and the total cost of the project, and whether there are better alternatives.
    • Ask about total project cost per passenger trip (over $50).
    • Ask about the cost per round-trip slot created (about a half-million dollars!).
    • Ask about average trip distance (about 13 miles).
    • Ask about number of peak-hour commuters traveling from Sonoma to Marin each day (about 230 per day).
    Those numbers are ALL readily obtainable from SMART documents.
    • Ask about the % of Sonoma and Marin residents represented by 2500-3000 round trips per day (about 0.04%).
    • Ask about the percentage of CO2 reduction versus autos (0.2%, and only that much if you ignore auto and bus trips to and from stations -- if you count increases in zoning mandated by SMART funding, you end up with as much as TEN TIMES the CO2 -- because, if built out, the increases in zoning would create about 7000 extra units right on 101; based on typical averages, that's 70,000 auto trips per day... versus the 5000-6000 SMART claims to remove. (And that is yet another fact SMART refuses to come clean about.)
    It would not matter if SMART cost only $1 per mile to build. Because its ridership CANNOT increase appreciably no matter how much North Bay population grows, and because it is so much more expensive than superior alternatives.

    The answer is there are MUCH better alternatives, at a small fraction of the cost.

    In the North Bay, bus is the answer.

    (Everywhere else, the answer is 42.)

    Best to all,
    burro

    Quote Powerful interests appear to be lining up to prevent the bicycle/ped. path that has made many bicyclists avid supporters of SMART. This may mean no path at all or breaks in the path; but places were a path is most needed -- like the “Novato Narrows” -- look least likely to be built. In spite of their promises, SMART backers may have little say about how things work out.

    John Williams, Northwest Pacific (NWP) letter to SMART - April 24, 2008*:
    “Among the two major western railroads, Union Pacific will not allow new trails on its active right-of-way and BNSF Railway requires a 100 ft. trail set-back… The use of a 100-foot trail set-back… would not be possible within the existing SMART Corridor…” [and] “It is NWP Co’s opinion…, that the construction and placement of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway… without an adequate set-back from NWP’s main track… could very well be unsafe for pathway users and for the public. ”

    Letter to Williams/NWP from George Elsmore, Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Rail Operations & Safety -August12, 2008*:
    “The Commission will scrutinize carefully all impacts of a trail project on rail-highway grade crossings, the setback clearance between a trail and the centerline of the nearest railroad track, and the type and dimensions of the fences and barriers proposed to separate a trail and its users from railroad operations on the right-of-way. “ [and] “...staff questions whether the 60’ dimensional limitation of the right-of-way itself will support the minimum setback clearance you propose (100ft in NWP Trail Guidelines). … Consequently, Rail Operations Safety Branch staff shares your concerns with respect to the proximity of the pedestrian and bike trails as proposed by SMART.”

    If you want a solution that will really cut greenhouse gasses and open up bicycle-pedestrian routes, contact state Assemblymembers Jared Huffman (916-319-2006) and Mark Leno (916-319-2013), and ask for new legislation to:
    • Decommission the SMART District;
    • Revoke NWP’s right of way in Sonoma and Marin;
    • Allow a rail-to-trails conversion of the Sonoma-Marin rail line; and
    • Restore and enhance Sonoma and Marin bus service.

    *Reference: https://www.wpn.org/wpn/NCRAinfo.html
    So, who is not to be trusted? It looks like dhbetty might be a person with funny numbers, suspicious sources of information, and talking points that are not to be counted on. N'est ce pas?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. TopTop #16
    burro
     

    Re: SMARTquestions.org

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by TheATeam: View Post
    Quote SMARTquestions.org
    That is for the group against commuter trains.

    For accurate info on Smart go to:
    https://www.sonomamarintrain.org/

    Correction -- just caught this -- (geez, even more misinformation from the pro-SMART side) --

    https://www.SMARTquestions.org is a neutral site where anyone can post.

    https://www.NotSMART.org is the "No on Q" campaign site.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #17
    Sonomamark
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers blah blah

    As someone who worked on transportation issues in the North Bay for ten years, let me say this:

    First of all, note the area code of the contact people for this "opposition effort". They're in Marin, not from here.

    More specifically, they include Joy Dahlgren, of the Marin Conservation League, who has been a driving force against rail for years. She was one of the people who pushed for the Sierra Club Marin Group to become the only Sierra Club chapter in the nation to select the AUTOMOBILE as the "preferred transportation mode" for the North Bay--an action which got them censured by the national Sierra Club, which overturned their choice.

    MCL and the Sierra Club Marin Group are classic NIMBYs--they're rich, they live well, and they don't want "the wrong kind of people" to be able to get into Marin very easily. They cloak this in "environmentalist" language, but the bottom line is strictly selfish. The same people opposed Golden Gate Transit's plan to extend a bus route between the East Bay and Marin--heaven forbid that BLACK PEOPLE should be able to get to the Sacred Land of Hot Tubs!

    Opposing SMART rail is the same thing as voting for the oil industry. It's saying that even as peak oil is upon us, even as gas prices skyrocket, even as global climate change is recognized as real and human-driven by 99% of the credible experts addressing the issue, you choose not only to remain personally dependent on a car to get around, but to prevent anyone else from having an alternative.

    Personally, I love the idea of being able to jump on the train from Santa Rosa, hop to the ferry terminal in Larkspur and cross to San Francisco. I love the idea of the tourism revenue that will come in the other direction. I love the idea of having some other way of getting up and down the 101 corridor when gasoline is $9 per gallon, which it will be, damned soon.

    Opposing SMART is not only anti-environmental. It flies in the face of the facts. It's not perfect--nothing is--but it's something. We will never be able to afford BART extension (and if you think Dahlgren & co hate SMART, you should hear their vitriol when it comes to the idea of a Golden Gate tube tunnel for BART), so this is the option we have. The right of way is owned by the public. It makes absolutely no sense not to do this.

    The SMART opposition is funded primarily by members of the North Bay Council (led by Mike Arnold). What they want is freeways now, freeways tomorrow, freeways forever. They have no vision, and most of them are so right-wing they probably don't even believe the oil can ever run out.

    So: you want to be a hand-puppet of a bunch of Chamber of Commerce yahoos from Marin? Is that what you want, you good liberal West County progressives?

    It's up to you: be a tool, or be a visionary. If you're the former, vote against SMART. If the latter, vote for it, volunteer for it, donate to it.

    We're the only place in the industrialized world that doesn't have mass transportation. Think about it: what do Exxon and General Motors want you to do? Are you with them, and Dahlgren and Arnold? Or do you stand for something different?

    Mark

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post
    The campaign against 'SMART' Measure Q (on the Sonoma and Marin ballots, November 4, 2008) is still welcoming volunteers to hand out flyers in neighborhoods and other populated areas.

    Meet great people and help spread the truth about 'SMART' -- a great-sounding idea that would have truly awful service and consequences!

    For more information, see
    https://notsmart.org


    To volunteer, please phone:
    Ann Thomas (415-924-9559)
    or
    Joy Dahlgren (415-479-7930).
    To make a donation, please send your contribution to:
    North Bay Citizens for Effective Transportation
    P.O. Box 532
    Corte Madera, CA 94976
    For contributions of $100 or more, election law requires occupation and employer information. FPPC #(1290412).
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #18
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Dear SonomaMark,

    You say I am "wrong on every single element of this topic" but you don't challenge any of the information I've posted. You say you have "worked on transportation issues in the North Bay for ten years" but I have to wonder what your position was (PR?, ad sales?, phone reception?, driving?). I wonder because you do not seem to be able to talk concretely about the issue.

    Your arguments seem to depend on invoking two things:

    (1) Hatred --
    For me, for Joy Dahlgren, for Marin, and on and on

    and

    (2) Knee-jerk assumptions --
    About Marin, about rail, about what other people stand for.

    You say you are a "real" environmentalist, implying I am not -- without knowing anything about me -- and I am willing to stand my track records as an environmentalist and as a social activist against anyone's.

    You say the anti-SMART folks are Marin NIMBYs and Chamber of Commerce types, trying to keep other people from having alternatives -- you are wrong on all three counts.

    The fact is there are three separate lead organizers for the "No on Q" campaign who are based in Sonoma and who are Sonoma residents.

    The fact is that I have lived in both Sonoma and Marin, and there are good people and snooty jerks in BOTH places.

    The fact is that *I* am NOT married to my car -- I drive twice a week. For years I commuted by bicycle -- daily from Cotati to Novato and San Rafael, and 2-3 times a week from San Rafael and San Anselmo to downtown San Francisco -- rain or shine, in sickness or in health. What have YOU done?

    The fact is that Chambers of Commerce LOVE SMART -- because of the rapid development it will bring, and because of their fantasies about the benefits of NCRA freight.

    The fact is that "real" environmentalists oppose SMART because SMART, itself, would kill superior alternatives.

    The fact is that Joy Dahlgren was a transit planner -- an intelligent person who KNOWS that SMART is a train-wreck.

    The fact is the "tourism revenue" you cite is absurd -- SMART is designed to deliver Sonoma workers to Marin County, not the other direction -- and yet only 230 Sonoma peak-period commuters would travel to Marin each day -- and only 30-40 people from ALL destinations throughout the ENTIRE day would get off the train at Larkspur, walk the four blocks, and transfer to the ferry.

    The fact is only a fool would desire rapid growth in Sonoma, where the water supply is already severely impaired and where to put waste is anyone's guess. The fact is YOU sound like a Chamber of Commerce type.

    The fact is it doesn't matter HOW much gas costs -- when it is $50 a gallon, SMART will still only carry 3,000 people, because its ridership capacity is so limited.

    The fact is that bus is able to adopt clean technologies like electric engines far more readily than SMART (SMART would have to be COMPLETELY replaced to switch to electric). Bus can change routes to meet demand. Bus can increase capacity in a qay that is virtually unlimited. Bus can take passengers incredibly close to their origins and destinations. Bus can go directly to San Francisco and the East Bay. Bus can easily connect with other modalities.

    SMART can do NONE of those things.

    And SMART costs 4-5 times as much as bus for similar service.

    AND -- once the HOV lanes are complete, bus trip times will be as fast or faster than trips involving SMART for the vast majority of real-world trips.



    There are places where rail makes sense.

    Freight makes sense where there are lots of goods to be delivered and where the route does not require frequent stops.

    But there are so few goods to be delivered on the NCRA line that the NCRA business plan depends on raping the Eel River area (apparently, SonomaMark doesn't mind if NCRA pillages a "Wild & Scenic" designated area). And, in Sonoma and Marin, freight shares a single track with passenger rail, which would mean frequent stops AND safety issues.

    Commuter rail makes sense where there is a densely urban major economic center somewhere on the line -- that is the primary indicator of whether a commuter rail system will be cost-effective. SMART has ZERO -- in fact, SMART would possibly be the weakest commute rail system in the USA in that regard.



    Folks -- this is our problem -- the knee-jerk assumptions about SMART being beneficial are incorrect. Commuter rail DOES NOT WORK for our setting.

    Please VOTE "NO" on MEASURE Q.

    What we need, in fact, is to restore and enhance bus service.


    Bus is the main superior alternative for us. The main impediments are
    bureaucratic -- possibly the best solution is a compact new bus-specific
    agency to funnel conditional funding to GGT, TAM, and SCT.

    A sales tax like the one for SMART would not only fund amazing upgrades
    for North Bay bus service, but could py for early adoption of clean energy
    technologies, reduce fare box costs, even increase appeal by expanding leg
    room. And but could do all this on a pure sales tax, without accepting the
    growth-inducing conditional funding that SMART relies upon. Nice!

    Best to all,

    'burro'
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #19
    MsTerry
     

    Re: SMART Train Volunteers Welcomed!

    Now, let me see, only 3000 riders???
    that means 3000 families are being represented
    that means 3000 cars of the roads
    that means at least 10.000 gallons less gas used
    that means 3000 less chances for an accident
    that means 3000 less possible fatalities
    that is a lot of savings, humanly and financially
    that sounds pretty SMART to me
    that also means there would be an alternative IN PLACE, when the oil dries up
    now that is SMART!!!!!!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post

    So, who is not to be trusted? It looks like dhbetty might be a person with funny numbers, suspicious sources of information, and talking points that are not to be counted on. N'est ce pas?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. TopTop #20
    Sonomamark
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Burro, on one (small) point, you're right. I did not go over your long post, point by point, because I've spent a significant part of my life (from 1991 through 2000) as a player in the county's transportation politics, and I frankly am not going to bother going over all the ways you are wrong.

    I was the founding executive director of Sonoma County Conservation Action, from 1990 through 2000. I built that group into the largest environmental group between the Bay and the Oregon border, with more than twice the local membership of the Sierra Club. We were the folks who brought you the county's Urban Growth Boundaries, stopped the doubling of the capacity of the Sonoma County Airport, stopped the City of Santa Rosa's wastewater plans TWICE (first, the West County Dam, then the pipeline to the River), and got a vineyard development ordinance passed--the first local regulation of agricultural land use in Sonoma County history. It is a simple fact that those things would not have happened if not for the work of me, my board, staff and membership during that time. This county would be a very, very different place.

    One of the things we did through our grassroots canvass organizing was to raise public understanding of the uselessness of widening the freeway, and advocate for transit-oriented smart growth and alternative transportation. Our campaign was the primary reason that the business community failed to get a transportation tax passed for widening the freeway for more than ten years. It gave them fits, and by the time they finally got one through, it was only on the condition that a rail/bicycle/transit measure be next. By then, the UGBs were already in place, so the dreams of sprawl that many of the developers and speculators (and farmland owners near the cities who wanted to cash in) were cherishing were dashed. That is all a direct result of the work of SCCA and our allies. My work.

    So fine: you want to compare credentials? Knock yourself out, pal. I was the county's Environmentalist of the Year in 1997 for working on exactly these issues. I was working on transportation issues in Marin in 1998 through 2000 with the North Bay Environmental Institute, through funding from the Energy Foundation, and we found--as subsequent elections have shown--that most Marinites want the rail, but they're being obstructed by NIMBYs like Dahlgren and Arnold. And don't give me "hatred" of Joy Dahlgren: I don't hate her. She's just wrong, and selfish, and unworthy of respect or consideration. Her position is indefensible. She was an anti-rail person BEFORE she became a transit planner, and she just uses her credential to justify the conclusion she's already drawn. She's not an objective analyst.

    I spent a decade in the trenches on this issue, immersed in it with leaders like Bill Kortum and Dick Day (RIP) and Don Sanders and Joel Woodhull (RIP). I don't know what you've been doing, but it wasn't that. I knew every significant player on transportation during that time, and you weren't one of them.

    I stand by pointing out that your contact numbers are in Marin. Sure, there are a few opposition leaders here, but I don't want to call them out, because one of them, at least, is a friend of mine, an ally on other issues back in the day. She's wrong, but still a friend. Drives a Mustang, too, so it shows you how much energy efficiency is her priority.

    Your scare tactic about "rapid growth in Sonoma" is just that, and your water supply straw man likewise (BTW, when you call Sonoma County "Sonoma", you tip your hand as a non-local. Sonoma is a city. Sonoma COUNTY is where we live, and that's how people who live here talk about it. Only Marinites and people from the City call Sonoma County "Sonoma").

    SMART will not bring increased development, and this is biggest stupid leap of logic that is made by its opponents. The only thing that brings development is market demand, which is in the tank right now. When it's up, there will be development no matter how bad the traffic is, no matter how poor the infrastructure. We have Urban Growth Boundaries here--we have solved the sprawl issue, if we remain diligent. The goal of that isn't to "stop growth"--which is both illegal and impossible--it's to drive it into the city centers instead of out to pave ag land and wildlife habitat. SMART encourages that city-centered growth by creating an opportunity for new residents to live a lifestyle that isn't car-dependent.

    You're just parroting talking points, Burro. Like: "we could get more buses for less money." Except that people won't ride buses in the numbers they will ride trains--and every transit study shows that. People like trains better. They don't feel that much better about sitting in traffic on a bus than they do about sitting in a single-occupancy vehicle.

    So as to your "two assumptions": both are crap. There's one person in this conversation with the experience, knowledge, and analysis to make a good call on Measure Q.

    And it isn't you.


    SM


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post
    Dear SonomaMark,

    You say I am "wrong on every single element of this topic" but you don't challenge any of the information I've posted. You say you have "worked on transportation issues in the North Bay for ten years" but I have to wonder what your position was (PR?, ad sales?, phone reception?, driving?). I wonder because you do not seem to be able to talk concretely about the issue.

    Your arguments seem to depend on invoking two things:

    (1) Hatred --
    For me, for Joy Dahlgren, for Marin, and on and on

    and

    (2) Knee-jerk assumptions --
    About Marin, about rail, about what other people stand for.

    You say you are a "real" environmentalist, implying I am not -- without knowing anything about me -- and I am willing to stand my track records as an environmentalist and as a social activist against anyone's.

    You say the anti-SMART folks are Marin NIMBYs and Chamber of Commerce types, trying to keep other people from having alternatives -- you are wrong on all three counts.

    The fact is there are three separate lead organizers for the "No on Q" campaign who are based in Sonoma and who are Sonoma residents.

    The fact is that I have lived in both Sonoma and Marin, and there are good people and snooty jerks in BOTH places.

    The fact is that *I* am NOT married to my car -- I drive twice a week. For years I commuted by bicycle -- daily from Cotati to Novato and San Rafael, and 2-3 times a week from San Rafael and San Anselmo to downtown San Francisco -- rain or shine, in sickness or in health. What have YOU done?

    The fact is that Chambers of Commerce LOVE SMART -- because of the rapid development it will bring, and because of their fantasies about the benefits of NCRA freight.

    The fact is that "real" environmentalists oppose SMART because SMART, itself, would kill superior alternatives.

    The fact is that Joy Dahlgren was a transit planner -- an intelligent person who KNOWS that SMART is a train-wreck.

    The fact is the "tourism revenue" you cite is absurd -- SMART is designed to deliver Sonoma workers to Marin County, not the other direction -- and yet only 230 Sonoma peak-period commuters would travel to Marin each day -- and only 30-40 people from ALL destinations throughout the ENTIRE day would get off the train at Larkspur, walk the four blocks, and transfer to the ferry.

    The fact is only a fool would desire rapid growth in Sonoma, where the water supply is already severely impaired and where to put waste is anyone's guess. The fact is YOU sound like a Chamber of Commerce type.

    The fact is it doesn't matter HOW much gas costs -- when it is $50 a gallon, SMART will still only carry 3,000 people, because its ridership capacity is so limited.

    The fact is that bus is able to adopt clean technologies like electric engines far more readily than SMART (SMART would have to be COMPLETELY replaced to switch to electric). Bus can change routes to meet demand. Bus can increase capacity in a qay that is virtually unlimited. Bus can take passengers incredibly close to their origins and destinations. Bus can go directly to San Francisco and the East Bay. Bus can easily connect with other modalities.

    SMART can do NONE of those things.

    And SMART costs 4-5 times as much as bus for similar service.

    AND -- once the HOV lanes are complete, bus trip times will be as fast or faster than trips involving SMART for the vast majority of real-world trips.



    There are places where rail makes sense.

    Freight makes sense where there are lots of goods to be delivered and where the route does not require frequent stops.

    But there are so few goods to be delivered on the NCRA line that the NCRA business plan depends on raping the Eel River area (apparently, SonomaMark doesn't mind if NCRA pillages a "Wild & Scenic" designated area). And, in Sonoma and Marin, freight shares a single track with passenger rail, which would mean frequent stops AND safety issues.

    Commuter rail makes sense where there is a densely urban major economic center somewhere on the line -- that is the primary indicator of whether a commuter rail system will be cost-effective. SMART has ZERO -- in fact, SMART would possibly be the weakest commute rail system in the USA in that regard.



    Folks -- this is our problem -- the knee-jerk assumptions about SMART being beneficial are incorrect. Commuter rail DOES NOT WORK for our setting.

    Please VOTE "NO" on MEASURE Q.

    What we need, in fact, is to restore and enhance bus service.


    Bus is the main superior alternative for us. The main impediments are
    bureaucratic -- possibly the best solution is a compact new bus-specific
    agency to funnel conditional funding to GGT, TAM, and SCT.

    A sales tax like the one for SMART would not only fund amazing upgrades
    for North Bay bus service, but could py for early adoption of clean energy
    technologies, reduce fare box costs, even increase appeal by expanding leg
    room. And but could do all this on a pure sales tax, without accepting the
    growth-inducing conditional funding that SMART relies upon. Nice!

    Best to all,

    'burro'
    Last edited by Sonomamark; 10-04-2008 at 10:14 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. TopTop #21
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Volunteers Welcomed!

    Dear Ms. Terry,

    Your facts and logic are in error.

    3000 round trip slots represents 0.04% of the Sonoma- Marin populations. That's not much. Before the massive budget cuts starting around year 2000, GGT was carrying over 32,000 trips per day.

    It does NOT mean 3000 cars off the roads. Because the cars are still there and taking an average additional number of trips of 10 per household -- so at least 8 more trips, on average.

    PLUS many of those households would have to take a bus or auto trip to get to/from the stations.

    PLUS SMART trips are not all replacing auto trips. Some will be replacing carpools, and some will be replacing bus trips. GGT will be canceling two routes.

    For all those reasons, that is not that much less gas used.

    The odds on accidents are far more complex than this, so I won't get into them. Rail stats, line airplane stats, can be spun a lot of ways. If you compare fatalities to passenger-hours, one is better off in a car.

    SMART is not an alternative when oil dries up BECAUSE the ridership is capped. No matter how much oil costs, no matter how many people live in the North Bay, SMART cannot carry many more people. The only hope there is to rip it out and start over.

    So -- "SMART" isn't so smart, after all.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Now, let me see, only 3000 riders???
    that means 3000 families are being represented
    that means 3000 cars of the roads
    that means at least 10.000 gallons less gas used
    that means 3000 less chances for an accident
    that means 3000 less possible fatalities
    that is a lot of savings, humanly and financially
    that sounds pretty SMART to me
    that also means there would be an alternative IN PLACE, when the oil dries up
    now that is SMART!!!!!!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. TopTop #22
    Sonomamark
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Oh, and one more thing:

    Much of your argument is based on ridership projections.

    How many of the studies projecting likely ridership levels you are claiming are insufficiently high were done since gas shot up to $4 per gallon, Burro?

    Yeah, thought so.

    All the SMART studies were completed more than two years ago. You can bet the demand is a LOT more robust now, and it'll continue to rise.

    SM
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. TopTop #23
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Well "SM" -- I'll grant you've done some work.

    But I'll still say I've probably done as much. I was helping build playgrounds and mending trails starting around 1970, and have been steadily active since that time. I've worked on environmental and social justice causes my whole life. I've written successful statewide legislation that are now laws. I've written news articles on local environmental issues. I've fought for preservation causes. I've designed consumer information websites that won awards. I've worked on campaigns for UGBs. When the California Coastal Commission was in trouble I suggested legislative language to key legislators that was pretty darn close to what was adopted. I've assisted and run political campaigns for environmentalist candidates. For Sonoma, I helped create a map of pollution sources into the Russian River, a map that still gets used occasionally by FOER, I believe. I've started an environmentalist advocacy and education non-profit that does some good work. I've served on several local boards. I've looked closely at the SMART issue for about 10 years. And done darn near all of that without pay.

    AND -- unlike you -- I don't ask ANYONE to take my word for ANYTHING -- I will give everyone the respect of arguing the FACT and MERITS of any issue with them.

    Also -- unlike you -- I don't base my arguements on personal attacks on others. I won't sit still for nasty attacks like yours, but when it comes to figuring out an issue, I prefer the analytical approach.

    So forgive me if I don't just "bow down."

    SCCA is a pretty dynamic group.

    That says you were good at building that organization. That does NOT necessarily say you are the most progressive or correct thinker. It also doesn't mean you are a nice person -- your HATE and NASTINESS tell a different story. All too often, zealots are quite successful movement builders without always being right.

    The main point is that you have not argued the issue.

    It's a shame SCCA is so VERY wrong on SMART.

    I am very sorry to say that I've yet to meet a single person related to SCCA, including Bill K and Joel W (with whom, both, I've discussed the matter), who can talk to the details of the issue.

    It is quite obvious -- from the amount of public information available at the time -- that SCCA hopped on board SMART without looking at the details -- and never looked back. Adequate details weren't available when SCCA jumped on.

    Maybe you were a "player" in making THAT happen?

    Your "reasoning" makes it look like that would be your style.

    To suggest you can rest on your laurels, spit hatred, drive divides between Sonoma County and Marin County, and get others to just assume you are right... well, that's pretty absurd.

    In fact, I would say it is "sick."

    Try arguing the issues.

    Like this one -- you say people won't ride bus in the numbers that they will ride train -- so how come GGT ridership was over 30,000 in year 2000, and SMART will never be appreciably more than 3000? What, no answer?

    There is no "leap of logic" in the conclusion that SMART will drive increased development -- it is a contractual fact of some of SMART's funding. Didn't you know that?

    No WONDER you don't like to argue the facts.

    You don't even know the basics.

    Maybe you are just a hate-spewing, knee-jerk jerk.

    (Unless you have a much different side you are doing a supremely good job of hiding.)

    BTW: If it is "peak oil" you are worried about, then you'll want to get AWAY from city-centered development. Small cities with local essential natural resources are the more sustainable model. There's a set of ideas that have become known as "relocalization" that, I believe, will eventually knock the grow-grow-grow "smart growth"/TOD model on its butt.

    Just one more thing -- Sonoma vs. Sonoma County -- guess what, mister, there's a Marin City, too.

    Here's to yer, mate.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. TopTop #24
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sonomamark: View Post
    Oh, and one more thing:

    Much of your argument is based on ridership projections.

    How many of the studies projecting likely ridership levels you are claiming are insufficiently high were done since gas shot up to $4 per gallon, Burro?

    Yeah, thought so.

    All the SMART studies were completed more than two years ago. You can bet the demand is a LOT more robust now, and it'll continue to rise.

    SM

    It is true that SMART ridership projections are low, in part, because of demand -- because of SMART being so unappealing to riders because of its lack of connectivity and convenience.

    BUT -- the starting numbers of 2500 go up only to 3000 even in the best-case scenario of maximum ToD build-out.

    The structural limits on SMART ridership are nearly as low as the demand.

    SMART is a commute train that shares a single track with freight and crosses over 100 at-grade intersections.

    For that reason, SMART ridership numbers will NEVER be appreciably larger than 3,000 round-trips per day.

    Certainly nothing close to what GGT already does, even after years of budget cuts.

    Gas could be $100 a gallon. It wouldn't make any difference.

    If that was your big "gotcha" point, Mark, I am afraid you've got more work to do.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. TopTop #25
    Sonomamark
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    Oh, for god's sake.

    Look, whoever you are, nice try with the switcheroo to ad hominem attacks on me personally. But that's just fallacious argumentation--it doesn't mean anything.

    What I presented was the background that gives my opinion on this matter standing: the experience card, if you will. All due credit to your accomplishments notwithstanding, none of them are relevant in the least to this question, or to the general topics of urban and transportation planning.

    I have argued the issue. Extensively. You've elected not to engage, and now you're slinging mud about "hate and nastiness". You've responded not in the least to the points I've made about a) alternatives b) growth inducement c) ridership projections d) peak oil, or e) the political forces backing the opposition to Measure Q.

    Which leads me to believe that you--rather like John McCain at the moment, now that I think about it--have run out of cards to play, and now it's time for the smearing. The irony of your saying that you "don't base my arguements (sic) on personal attacks on others" when it is you who have introduced accusations of "hate" and "nastiness", as well as characterizing me as "a hate-spewing, knee-jerk jerk" is...well, actually kind of hilarious.

    Try a mirror, Burro. Works wonders.

    Readers, get informed and follow the money. Look at where the opposition to Measure Q is coming from. If you care about the environment, you'll vote YES on Measure Q.

    Burro, I think we're finished. I don't see any point in continuing with you.



    SM

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post
    Well "SM" -- I'll grant you've done some work.

    (Snipping empty polemic and bombast)
    Last edited by Sonomamark; 10-04-2008 at 11:28 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. TopTop #26
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers Welcomed!

    It seems to me that in the world of activism there are people who get things done through reason-based consensus building, and people who get things done through forcefulness and brow-beating.

    At the worst end of that spectrum are people who will take a position based on knee-jerk assumptions, and then make life miserable for anyone who disagrees.

    Bill K is an example of a gem – a reasoning person who is capable of graceful conversations with people on the opposite side of an issue. Joel W was also willing to talk to the specifics of a topic. Marin activists of grace and erudition include people like Roger Roberts, Nona Dennis, Priscilla Bull, and many others.

    Over the past few years I have heard several reports from Sonoma County activists who said they shrank from their desire to take a public stand against SMART because the SCCA would make their lives miserable. That is what they've said.

    It is clear the SCCA formed its position before there was an FEIR or a complete financial plan – the SCCA's position was based on assumptions.

    SonomaMark now accuses me of ad hominem attacks on him, when I responded to his ad hominem attacks on EVERYONE who is not on his side of the issue. Mark is the pot calling the cutlery black.

    How SHOULD I have engaged?

    It was Mark who is not willing to discuss the details of the issue.

    We agree about one thing – follow the money.

    SMART is supported by a who's who of greedy freight and development tycoons and vested interests. See here:
    https://notsmart.org/2008_Q_supporters.htm

    NOW Mark acts as if he was talking about issues of relevance instead of attacking everyone and everything.

    As I've said, I'll talk issues with anyone.

    Although I've previously answered ALL of these topics in recent posts, I'll summarize:

    a) alternatives
    SMART costs *at least* 4-5 times what bus would cost for comparable services.

    In addition, bus has these advantages:
    Bus is able to adopt clean technologies like electric engines far more readily than SMART (SMART would have to be COMPLETELY replaced to switch to electric). Bus can change routes to meet demand. Bus can increase capacity in a way that is virtually unlimited. Bus can take passengers incredibly close to their origins and destinations. Bus can go directly to San Francisco and the East Bay. Bus can easily connect with other modalities.

    SMART can do NONE of those things.

    There are places where rail works. The North Bay is just not one of them.

    b) growth inducement
    SMART has contractual obligations tied to some of its funding that require increases in zoning. (Mark did not raise this point, I did. He is asking because he does not have a clue what I am talking about.)

    c) ridership projections
    Mark wants to throw out the ridership predictions because they are two years old. Yet, the same methodologies have been extremely accurate for other systems.

    Mark wants to claim higher gas prices will increase SMART ridership appreciably. That shows ignorance on Mark's part about the structural limitations on SMART ridership – SMART is a single-track system shared with freight and over 100 at-grade intersections – it does not matter how high gas prices go or how much North Bay population increases, because SMART ridership cannot grown appreciably. The only way to appreciably increase ridership would be to tear SMART out and create a new system – new tunnels, new track, etc. And it is unlikely the North Bay will ever have the population to justify those costs, especially when bus is a superior alternative.

    Yes, SMART ridership will be low because the system is so unappealing to most potential riders. But the structural limit is very nearly just as low.

    Comparing to bus, GGT ridership was over 30,000 in year 2000, and SMART will never be appreciably more than 3000.

    Bus ridership growth potential is unlimited.

    d) peak oil,
    Yes – I've addressed this, too. City-centered growth is a huge liability in a peak oil scenario. So is a built environment that depends on long-distance commutes. SMART plays badly into both of those.

    or e) the political forces backing the opposition to Measure Q.
    As I've just pointed out (yet again), SMART is supported by a who's who of greedy freight and development tycoons and vested interests. See here:
    https://notsmart.org/2008_Q_supporters.htm

    SMART is a developer's DREAM -- SMART is *already* preparing to sell off public land to facilitate additional development.


    Anytime Mark is willing to ask relevant questions or raise relevant issues, I am willing to discuss the specifics.

    However, I am not willing to give Mark free reign to attack everyone who disagrees with him, or to grant him his wish to be assumed right based on his so-called experience.

    And I do understand if Mark wants to stay away from a conversation in which he does not have enough basic knowledge to participate.

    b
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #27
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Opposition Volunteers blah blah

    I guess I'd better address this one, too:

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sonomamark: View Post
    More specifically, they include Joy Dahlgren, of the Marin Conservation League, who has been a driving force against rail for years. She was one of the people who pushed for the Sierra Club Marin Group to become the only Sierra Club chapter in the nation to select the AUTOMOBILE as the "preferred transportation mode" for the North Bay--an action which got them censured by the national Sierra Club, which overturned their choice.
    MCL and the Sierra Club Marin Group are classic NIMBYs--they're rich, they live well, and they don't want "the wrong kind of people" to be able to get into Marin very easily. They cloak this in "environmentalist" language, but the bottom line is strictly selfish. The same people opposed Golden Gate Transit's plan to extend a bus route between the East Bay and Marin--heaven forbid that BLACK PEOPLE should be able to get to the Sacred Land of Hot Tubs!
    ... ... ...
    Mark
    Corrections:

    1. The Sierra Club Marin Group NEVER "chose automobile as the preferred transportation mode for the North Bay."
    (FYI -- If most SCMG members had their way, there would be a moratorium on freeway widening everywhere north of the Golden Gate Bridge, all the way to the Oregon border.)

    2. National Sierra Club NEVER overturned an SCMG on SMART or any SMART measure -- neither did California Sierra Club or the Bay Chapter -- there has never been an overturning of an SCMG position on SMART.

    3. The SIERRA CLUB DOES NOT ENDORSE MEASURE Q !!
    (In 2006, SCMG, and the greater Sierra Club, endorsed Measure R, with several concerns and conditions expressed. In 2008, the SIERRA CLUB has gone NEUTRAL on SMART. What does that tell you?)

    4. Joy Dahlgren did not push the Marin Sierra Club group.

    5. MCL and SCMG are not NIMBYs -- the folks driving the positions on this issue have looked at the whole issue and know that it is simply a bad project -- for Marin, for Sonoma, for the environment, for commuters. They are, most of them -- looking at the big picture first and foremost.

    6. MCL and SCMG folks cannot be cast as "rich" -- no more so than Sonoma Sierra Club folks -- quite a few Marin SCMG and MCL people could be fairly said to be living below median standards.


    While we're here, here's another of Mark's lies that should be addressed:
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sonomamark: View Post
    The SMART opposition is funded primarily by members of the North Bay Council (led by Mike Arnold). What they want is freeways now, freeways tomorrow, freeways forever. They have no vision, and most of them are so right-wing they probably don't even believe the oil can ever run out.
    The fact is that the opposition to SMART is peopled by well-intentioned volunteers.

    The website is hosted and created by a volunteer environmentalist.

    The steering committee of the "No on Q" campaign is made up of long-time environmentalists with records that are virtually irreproachable.

    Up until a couple of weeks ago, anyone printing flyers was doing it out of their own pockets, as individual activists who genuinely believe SMART will be about the worst thing ever to hit the North Bay.

    The only large "No on Q" donors I am aware of are not affiliated with ANY business group -- they are private philanthropists who also believe SMART will be about the worst thing ever to hit the North Bay.

    In 2006, the losing SMART campaign outspent the "No on R" campaign by TEN TIMES.

    Goes to show -- there is rarely money in fighting a bad idea, and big business is behind SMART.

    MAYBE MARK IS MIXED UP?

    Because, meanwhile, it is the SMART campaign funders who are obvious vested big business interests. See here:
    https://notsmart.org/2008_Q_supporters.htm


    -------------------------------------------

    SonomaMark's lies, stereotyping, hate language, and prejudices drive wedges between people.

    Here we are talking about SMART, and he makes accusations about RACISM?! Whoa, man!

    Sonoma and Marin environmentalists need to come together -- we are connected in many ways.

    As I've said, I've lived in both places and worked with activists in both places.

    They are VERY, VERY similar.

    North Bay activists need to shut down the divisive hate-making and lying, such as Mark has been spreading.

    We need to open up communications across the bi-County border to make peace and progress.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. TopTop #28
    MsTerry
     

    Re: SMART Train Volunteers Welcomed!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post
    Dear Ms. Terry,

    Your facts and logic are in error.

    3000 round trip slots represents 0.04% of the Sonoma- Marin populations. That's not much. Before the massive budget cuts starting around year 2000, GGT was carrying over 32,000 trips per day.
    Dear Burro,

    I can see why you want to intentionally confuse people in order to be able to distort some numbers.
    0.04% of the population???????????????
    What are you trying to prove that every man, child, able or disabled is required to take the train?
    Why don't you do a more relative comparison, and use the numbers of commuters instead.

    Should we stop making bike paths because only 0,001% of the population uses them?

    Quote It does NOT mean 3000 cars off the roads. Because the cars are still there and taking an average additional number of trips of 10 per household -- so at least 8 more trips, on average.
    Additional trips????????????????
    No shorter trips to the train station not ADDITIONAL.
    It takes 3000 trips of the freeway, in my book that is a lot!

    Quote For all those reasons, that is not that much less gas used.
    You must be kidding because you are not pulling a number out of your hat

    Quote The odds on accidents are far more complex than this, so I won't get into them. Rail stats, line airplane stats, can be spun a lot of ways. If you compare fatalities to passenger-hours, one is better off in a car.
    You must be kidding again because you are not pulling a number out of your hat.
    You are trying to compare the odds of ONE car against several train wagons full of people, instead of comparing it to 3000 car trips.
    Just not very relative.
    Quote SMART is not an alternative when oil dries up BECAUSE the ridership is capped
    Capped by what? politicians who are going to be replaced?
    Quote . No matter how much oil costs, no matter how many people live in the North Bay, SMART cannot carry many more people. The only hope there is to rip it out and start over.
    Are you saying only ONE train can run?
    Are you saying that cars can never do better than what they can do now, on fuel efficiency, so let's get rid of them and start all over????

    The fact that we ALLOWED to let them rip up the tracks in Sonoma and Marin, THAT is an atrocity and not very SMART!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. TopTop #29
    burro
     

    Re: SMART Train Volunteers Welcomed!

    Dear MsTerry,

    I am not trying to confuse people -- quite the opposite.

    SMART proponents have been putting misleading ideas out there for years, well funded by development and freight interests.

    I'll try to help.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    0.04% of the population???????????????
    What are you trying to prove that every man, child, able or disabled is required to take the train?
    Why don't you do a more relative comparison, and use the numbers of commuters instead.
    3000 round-trip slots. 750,000 North Bay residents.

    Essentially every North Bay resident and business would be affected by the sales tax, but 3000 round trip slots only accommodates 0.04% of the population. Is that fair? It is fair when bus could provide comparable or superior services for a small fraction of the cost?

    Looking at all commuters, SMART's ridership would be less than 1%. And -- to achieve that -- SMART would get some of its ridership from bus and some from carpools.

    Also, most of the trips would be very short -- an average of 13 miles per trips, according to SMART's own figures. And according to SMART's own figures, only 230 peak-period commuters would go from Sonoma County to Marin every day, which is what SMART is supposedly designed for.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Should we stop making bike paths because only 0,001% of the population uses them?
    I am a BIG fan of bike paths, and far more people use bike paths than would ever use SMART. According to SMART's own figures, the bike/ped path would support up to TWICE as many trips as would the SMART train.

    That should give an idea of how anemic SMART ridership would be.

    I am a supporter of a pure rails-to-trails conversion of this rail line.

    Partly that is because SMART would add to auto congestion problems instead of helping.

    Partly it is because it appears that SMART+Freight will never allow the bike path, at least not where it is needed (see my previous post on this topic.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Additional trips????????????????
    No shorter trips to the train station not ADDITIONAL.
    It takes 3000 trips of the freeway, in my book that is a lot!
    It is not al lot according to SMART's own figures -- according to SMART's own figures, SMART would not create any measurable reduction in traffic congestion.

    Yet those numbers do not take into account the auto and bus trips to and from stations.

    And those numbers do not take into account the extra 70,000 auto trips that could be the result of zoning increases demanded by some of SMART's funding.

    SMART provides 3000 round-trip slots, but could create as many as 70,000 more trips than would likely occur without SMART, because SMART funding requires zoning increases near stations.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    You must be kidding again because you are not pulling a number out of your hat.
    You are trying to compare the odds of ONE car against several train wagons full of people, instead of comparing it to 3000 car trips.
    Just not very relative.
    I only made the point that there are lots of ways to look at safety numbers.

    And the version I gave *is* relevant -- when I ride a train or a plane, I might be less likely to have a small accident, but I am more likely, per hour, to be involved in a fatality. It just depends on how you want to look at it.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Capped by what? politicians who are going to be replaced?
    Capped by the fact that SMART runs on a single track shared with freight and 100+ intersections.

    Train frequency is unlikely to increase much beyond the 30 minute planned frequency due to passing issues. The lengths of the trains are unlikely to increase much because of station sizes and intersection issues (as well as passing issues).

    Etc.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Are you saying only ONE train can run?
    No. But I *am* saying that when trains are headed in opposite directions (passenger OR freight), one of the trains must pull off into any of the "sidings" (little spur tracks, shunting off the main line), then wiat until the other train has passed, then pull back onto the track, then continue on.

    Since freight trains can be up to 60 cars in length, the two-car passenger will probably be obliged to get out of the way each time a freight train comes by. That will slow trip times and reduce fuel efficiency.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    Are you saying that cars can never do better than what they can do now, on fuel efficiency, so let's get rid of them and start all over????
    Actually, cars and busses can adopt new technologies *much* faster than SMART could.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by MsTerry: View Post
    The fact that we ALLOWED to let them rip up the tracks in Sonoma and Marin, THAT is an atrocity and not very SMART!
    Well -- we can disagree about that last one.

    In the North Bay, commuter rail just doesn't make sense.

    Best regards,
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. TopTop #30
    MsTerry
     

    Re: SMART Train Volunteers Welcomed!

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by burro: View Post
    Dear MsTerry,

    I am not trying to confuse people -- quite the opposite.

    SMART proponents have been putting misleading ideas out there for years, well funded by development and freight interests.

    I'll try to help.
    ,
    If you want to help, let's start with this claim: "well funded by development and freight interests."
    What do you have, besides your opinion, that this is a fact?
    Freight and Commuters usually don't mix, because of the different requirement for the rails.
    Quote 3000 round-trip slots. 750,000 North Bay residents.

    Essentially every North Bay resident and business would be affected by the sales tax, but 3000 round trip slots only accommodates 0.04% of the population. Is that fair?
    My taxes pay for a lot of things I will never ever use.
    Is that fair?
    Quote It is fair when bus could provide comparable or superior services for a small fraction of the cost?
    Riding a train or a bus isnot the same
    A train is superior, hands down
    Quote Looking at all commuters, SMART's ridership would be less than 1%. And -- to achieve that -- SMART would get some of its ridership from bus and some from carpools.
    That takes vehicles of the road, doesn't it?
    Quote Also, most of the trips would be very short -- an average of 13 miles per trips, according to SMART's own figures. And according to SMART's own figures, only 230 peak-period commuters would go from Sonoma County to Marin every day, which is what SMART is supposedly designed for.
    I don't consider 13 miles "very short"
    SR Marin-SR Sonoma is a minimum of 35 miles

    Quote I am a BIG fan of bike paths, and far more people use bike paths than would ever use SMART. According to SMART's own figures, the bike/ped path would support up to TWICE as many trips as would the SMART train.
    Oh Boy, that got a BIG laugh out of me
    6000 bikers up and down to Marin?
    If you'll get 60 to do it daily, I'll eat my hat!


    Quote I am a supporter of a pure rails-to-trails conversion of this rail line.
    I think this is the your key motivation, and rather selfish since so few people would use it

    .




    Quote And those numbers do not take into account the extra 70,000 auto trips that could be the result of zoning increases demanded by some of SMART's funding.
    Now that is some nice speculative fear mongering!
    What do you have to back up that 70.000?



    Quote Capped by the fact that SMART runs on a single track shared with freight and 100+ intersections.

    Train frequency is unlikely to increase much beyond the 30 minute planned frequency due to passing issues. The lengths of the trains are unlikely to increase much because of station sizes and intersection issues (as well as passing issues).

    Etc.
    Freight runs at night, commutes are in day time.
    You knew that right?
    Crossings??? trains don't stop at crossings,

    Quote No. But I *am* saying that when trains are headed in opposite directions (passenger OR freight), one of the trains must pull off into any of the "sidings" (little spur tracks, shunting off the main line), then wiat until the other train has passed, then pull back onto the track, then continue on.
    Yes that is why they have time schedules

    Quote Since freight trains can be up to 60 cars in length, the two-car passenger will probably be obliged to get out of the way each time a freight train comes by. That will slow trip times and reduce fuel efficiency
    See above.
    That is why they have schedules
    Quote Actually, cars and busses can adopt new technologies *much* faster than SMART could.
    If that was the only truth, there wouldn't be any trains left in the world.

    In the North Bay, commuter rail just doesn't only make sense, it is essential!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Are We Smart Enough To Figure This Out?
    By Braggi in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 05:20 PM
  2. Smart Drugs
    By Zeno Swijtink in forum WaccoReader
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2008, 06:43 AM
  3. I imagined I had smart feline children......BUT !!!!!
    By nurturetruth in forum Pets and other Critters
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-18-2008, 07:27 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-20-2006, 08:56 AM

Bookmarks