Background on 'SMART' (Measure Q -- 2008)

[burro]

(Feel free to circulate this article or the link to it.)

From:
https://www.coastalpost.com/08/10/23.html


Rail Measure Off-Track
By Louis Nuyens

Following the loss of a similar measure in 2006, Marin and Sonoma voters are again being asked to vote for a sales tax increase to fund "SMART."

"SMART," the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit system, would be a single-track commute rail system operating between Cloverdale and Larkspur.

According to project backers, SMART would cut greenhouse gasses and provide convenient, cost-effective transit around the North Bay.

Critics of the project challenge those assumptions, and point to enormous costs for a system whose maximum ridership would be severely limited by its design, and a host of other problems.

The overall cost of the system is estimated between $1.3 Billion and $1.6 Billion. $1.33B is the most recently released estimate, but SMART's estimates have fluctuated significantly. The project would primarily be funded by a 20-year Marin-Sonoma sales tax increase of 0.25%.

While the sales tax increase would begin in 2009, the SMART system would not start carrying passengers for 6 years - only 14 years of service would be provided of the 20 years of taxation.

The commute rail system would stop at 14 stations (9 in Sonoma County and 5 in Marin County) spanning between Cloverdale and Larkspur. The single-track system would require numerous pull-outs ("sidings") to allow trains (passenger and freight) going in opposite directions to pass each other. SMART is not an elevated system - it has over 100 at-grade crossings. The at-grade crossings would impact local auto traffic and typically necessitate 70db loud horns whenever a train passes through an intersection. In addition to intermittent commute rail service, freight trains of up to 60 cars in length would share the track with commute trains, at least as far south as Novato. Because of the single track system and SMART train scheduling, it is highly likely that freight trains would run throughout the night, as well.

SMART would not connect to BART, the SF Ferry, or any other regional transit system aside from Golden Gate Transit (GGT) bus service, nor will it go to San Francisco; and these are not practicable in the foreseeable future. Although the south-most station is in Larkspur, SMART would stop approximately 4 blocks from the ferry. Placement of the Larkspur station would eliminate the main parking lot for Marin Airporter bus service, possibly leading to closure of that business.

SMART ridership numbers by the end of 20 years of service are estimated to be 2,500-3,000. Compared to the total cost of SMART, that is approximately a half-million dollars per "round-trip slot" (for those 14 years when SMART is operating). Although SMART is scheduled to mainly serve south-going commuters, SMART's ridership studies show that only 230 riders are expected to make peak-period commutes from Sonoma to Marin each day. Only approximately 30-40 riders, from all locations, are expected to transfer to the ferry each day.

Because its ridership is so small and dispersed, SMART's estimates reveal that SMART would not provide measurable traffic relief on Hwy 101. Moreover, some of SMART's planned funding comes with 'strings' that mandate substantial increases to development within a half-mile of each station, making far worse congestion a virtual certainty. At present, about 17,500 units exist within a half-mile of the proposed station sites - the mandates ask for zoning increases up to 30,800 units in those areas. Since most of the stations are near Hwy 101, the additional units and increases density would make very large increases in traffic congestion extremely probable. If built out, the additional units would add over 100,000 trips per day (using the typical average of about 10 auto trips per unit per day), tens of thousands more than are possible under existing zoning; yet SMART carries only 2500-3000 round-trips per day.

SMART proponents claim that SMART would create a 0.2-1.0% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions versus the auto trips SMART would replace, and claim that this would add up to about 31 million pounds of carbon emissions per year. However, those estimates do not seem to take into account that some of SMART's riders would be taken from GGT bus lines, some of which would be discontinued; nor does it seem to take into account the many bus and auto trips needed to deliver SMART riders to and from stations. More compellingly, the many thousands of extra units mandated by some of SMART's funding would very likely spell far, far greater increases in greenhouse gas emissions than the emissions SMART claims to save. Therefore the very likely net result of SMART would be sizable increases in Marin-Sonoma greenhouse gas emissions.

With SMART's total cost averaging over $100 per round trip (over $50 per one-way trip), and an average trip distance estimated at about 13 miles, critics of SMART have pointed to alternatives. A former GGT planner has penciled calculations estimating that bus system enhancements could provide comparable, even superior, service for a fraction of the cost of SMART. Bus system enhancements that double SMART's scheduled frequency and go closer to the origins and destinations for most people might be accomplished for $200-$250 million. In other words, SMART would cost 4-5 times than the cost for bus to provide comparable, and in some ways superior, services. In addition, SMART's functionality is limited and SMART's ridership is severely capped by physical and operational parameters - no matter how much the population increases, SMART's ridership cannot increase appreciably. Meanwhile, bus services are flexible and expandable, and much less likely to come with SMART's growth-inducing strings attached.

Another benefit claimed by SMART supporters is that SMART has plans to put a bicycle-pedestrian path adjacent to the rail line, a colorful selling-point that has made avid supporters of many bicyclists. The cost of the path would be $90M-$135M of the SMART's total. Environmentalists have observed that the path would double the project's "foot-print" through sensitive habitat, which, they say, would already be seriously degraded by resumption of rail operations and preparatory construction activities.

But recent letters by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Northwest Pacific (NWP) may mean that the path will never be built, particularly where it is most desired, such as along the "Novato Narrows." PUC and NWP comments indicate that the path cannot be constructed within SMART's easement without interfering with freight operations. The letters outline safety issues, inadequate setback from tracks, regulatory limitations and potential for a second track.

Other public concerns regarding SMART range from worries about property values - which typically decline sharply near active rail systems - to the struggling economy. Critics also assert that SMART cannot be considered a viable "alternative" system. SMART shares so many intersections with auto traffic that they would affect each other, critics say. Moreover, in an emergency, such as a flood or earthquake, SMART operations would immediately be shut down, and could take days to resume.

Measure Q, the SMART ballot measure in Marin and Sonoma, is already competing for general funding sources against interests such as fire protection and open space. Ballot measures for other needs around the North Bay have recently been set aside by local politicians and elected officials to make Measure Q more likely to pass in November.

On November 4th, 2008 - and earlier, for those who vote by mail - voters will have to ask whether it is cost-effective to commit a half-million dollars to supply one round-trip on a commute train for 14 years, and then to do that 3,000 times; or whether SMART's cost and congestion-inducing side-effects make SMART an idea that is off-track.


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

To volunteer to defeat SMART, see
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42892

[burro]

Also see https://www.notsmart.org

[burro]

URL had a typo -- it is now correct.

Also see https://www.notsmart.org

[dhbetty]

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.”

[danejasper]

Quote: "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."

Is that a real estimate? Boy, thousands of folks are going to be newly FIT - there are some long distances between destinations along that rail line.

-Dane

[dhbetty]

Quote: "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."

Is that a real estimate? Boy, thousands of folks are going to be newly FIT - there are some long distances between destinations along that rail line.

-Dane

Good question/comment. Considering that the population of Marin and Sonoma is close to 720,000 I would say a one percent usage is reasonable. (It is not like folks are going to be forced to ride the entire 70 miles if they want to use it). Most folks are going to use it to avoid city streets and I would imagine that most of these trips will be around 1-5 miles each.

This trail will be the back bone of the bike network and will run directly through the most populated areas. I know I will be riding it just about everyday, and likely multiple times.

Chris

[burro]

Quote: "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."

Is that a real estimate? Boy, thousands of folks are going to be newly FIT - there are some long distances between destinations along that rail line.

-Dane

Hi Dane,

Yes -- SMART's path ridership numbers were basically pulled out of thin air.

Notice that they don't talk about total miles traveled, either -- they don't say how many people will pull on to the path for a block or two.

Also, if true, these path ridership numbers give yet another measure of just how anemic SMART ridership would be -- the path numbers are up to twice the number of trips taken by SMART riders.

As someone who used to commute daily to work from Cotati to Novato and San Rafael, the "back way," I am inclined to think of the path as the ONLY good thing about SMART.

BUT THEN, the PATH WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE BUILT -- at least not where it is really needed, like the 'Novato Narrows.'

Check this out:

Powerful interests appear to be lining up to prevent the bicycle/ped. path that has made many bicyclists avid supporters of SMART. This may meanno 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, the only conceivably worthwhile aspect of SMART appears very likely to never happen.

Cheers,
'burro'

[Sonomamark]

Burro, you are wrong on every single element of this topic.

Short-term ridership issues aren't even relevant. The bottom line here is: do you want our region to remain dependent on gasoline-driven automobiles as the ONLY way to get up and down the 101 corridor--and do you believe that is sustainable over the long term? Or not?

Opposition to SMART is backed by Marin NIMBYs with a three-decade track record of opposition to anything they think might allow "undesirables" to enter their precious county, aided by small-minded right-wing business leaders in Marin who don't want any distraction from their freeway-widening agenda, and finally, by deluded self-styled "environmentalists" in Sonoma County who think that they can stop growth here by opposing all transportation infrastructure.

I'm a real environmentalist. I care about energy efficiency, global warming, planning for the future, and providing alternatives to inefficient transportation modes. I recognize that rail transit will encourage new growth to happen in city centers, instead of sprawling out into areas that support wildlife.

SMART is long overdue. We should have done it before widening the freeway--actually, INSTEAD of widening the freeway.

Get the facts, folks, and think about the future, when gas is $9 a gallon. And vote YES on Q.

cf my post to your call for volunteers.


SM

Hi Dane,

Yes -- SMART's path ridership numbers were basically pulled out of thin air.

Notice that they don't talk about total miles traveled, either -- they don't say how many people will pull on to the path for a block or two.

Also, if true, these path ridership numbers give yet another measure of just how anemic SMART ridership would be -- the path numbers are up to twice the number of trips taken by SMART riders.

As someone who used to commute daily to work from Cotati to Novato and San Rafael, the "back way," I am inclined to think of the path as the ONLY good thing about SMART.

BUT THEN, the PATH WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE BUILT -- at least not where it is really needed, like the 'Novato Narrows.'

Check this out:

So, the only conceivably worthwhile aspect of SMART appears very likely to never happen.

Cheers,
'burro'

[burro]

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 record 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'

[Sonomamark]

Crosspost, sorry--there are two threads running on this:

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.

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.

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

[burro]

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.


Anyone who wants to pick up the rest of this less-than-pleasant thread can do so here:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...1313#post71313