Greedy Tycoons Funding "SMART"

[burro]

Please Vote NO on Sonoma-Marin Measure Q!

A person can tell a lot about a ballot measure by who is supporting it.

With SMART -- as with a lot of other bad ideas -- there is rarely money for fighting a bad idea, but lots of special interests willing to support an idea that does not benefit the greater community.

Opposition to SMART is primarily backed by long-time environmentalists, transportation experts, and others, in Sonoma and Marin counties, who are volunteering their time because they understand that SMART will be a terrible detriment to North Bay communities and transit.

SMART is funded by a host of greedy freight and development tycoons and other vested interests.

Look below to find some of your favorites.

BTW -- In 2006, the losing "SMART" ballot measure out-spent the grassroots opposition by TEN TIMES!


From:
https://notsmart.org/2008_Q_supporters.htm

SMART backers:
Contributors to SMART ballot measures

Information from reports filed 2006-2008 with
Registrar of Voters in Marin & Sonoma Counties

Waste Management
Houston based landfill developer

HDR Engineering
World-wide structural engineering firm, from Walnut Creek

LTK Engineering Services
Pennsylvania-based engineering firm designs freight systems and operations

Coddington Mall LLC
Part of the Simon Property Group of Indianapolis, develops retail malls

Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers
Engineering firm, develops rail stations

Issues Mobilization PAC
Los Angeles based political action committee for California Realtors Association

Infineon Raceway
Owned by Skip Berg, a member of the board of directors
of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company,
the freight operator planning to use SMART tracks.

Codding Enterprises
Shopping center developer

AECOM technology corporation
Architectural, engineering and construction management firm, Los Angeles

Basin Street Properties
Northern California real estate investing firm

Amalgamated Transit Union Issues PAC
Sacramento political advocacy committee for the transit union

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria

Lambert Development
New York based housing developer

Southgate Partners LLC
Part of Delco Builders and Developers group, of Pleasant Hill

Siemans Transportation Systems
Major supplier of rail vehicles, equipment and services, Orlando, Florida

Port Sonoma Marina
Sonoma marina aiming to become major transportation hub

International Parking Design
Los Angeles firm provides design, engineering and consulting for large-scale parking facilities

PG & E Corporation

Syar Industries
Building materials supplier

Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc.
Construction management consultants, Point Richmond

DMJM & Harris
Los Angeles based construction management firm

Builders Association Political Action Committee

Christopherson Homes housing developers

Sutter Corporation Hospitals



Please Vote NO on
Sonoma-Marin Measure Q!

[Zeno Swijtink]

Opposition to SMART is primarily backed by long-time environmentalists, transportation experts, and others, in Sonoma and Marin counties, who are volunteering their time because they understand that SMART will be a terrible detriment to North Bay communities and transit.

This is misleading. Most long-time environmentalists and many transportation experts support SMART, unfortunately.

See my response at https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...1332#post71332

[burro]

This is misleading. Most long-time environmentalists and many transportation experts support SMART, unfortunately.

See my response at https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...1332#post71332

Hmmm... thanks Zeno...

Gosh -- I really did not think my title to be misleading -- there ARE greedy tycoons/corporations supporting SMART, as the major funders of the SMART ballot measure campaigns.

But -- if people are taking it that way, let me offer this clarification:

I have never said, nor meant to imply, that there are not good people on both sides of this issue.

There ARE good and great people on both sides of this issue, in both counties.

Heck -- there were even good people who voted for Bush... twice!

However, I would not agree that MOST environmentalists support SMART -- I have not found that to be so.

I only meant to point out who the biggest funders of the SMART campaign are.

I think people ought to know.

Many thanks, again, Zeno!

[nicofrog]

HELLO; well what do you expect, the sierra club, and an organic garden on every roof? we're talkin' trains here WHAT POSITIVE IDEA ARE YOU ADDING TO THIS CAMPAIGN? naturally,trains are built by big greedy corporate interests, and they carry nice regular people like me, and my bike.this is symbiosis.
who is funding YOUR anti train approach? the bus companies??
that's a smelly incompetent lot ! I for one am tired of a freeway where the
consensus speed limit is 80, and is constantly getting wider and slower through towns.
I like the smart train, it's cool looking, can run on bio fuel, and allows lines to be kept open for freight, perhaps you have a trucking company??
cmon, put your cards on the table,who are YOU buttering up...
Nico

Hmmm... thanks Zeno...

Gosh -- I really did not think my title to be misleading -- there ARE greedy tycoons/corporations supporting SMART, as the major funders of the SMART ballot measure campaigns.

But -- if people are taking it that way, let me offer this clarification:

I have never said, nor meant to imply, that there are not good people on both sides of this issue.

There ARE good and great people on both sides of this issue, in both counties.

Heck -- there were even good people who voted for Bush... twice!

However, I would not agree that MOST environmentalists support SMART -- I have not found that to be so.

I only meant to point out who the biggest funders of the SMART campaign are.

I think people ought to know.

Many thanks, again, Zeno!

[Photoguy]

I really don't understand how a train running up and down the north bay is anything but good. Improved roadways and more cars are definitely not a good answer. This country desperately needs public transportation like trains, which certainly can be converted to electric at some point. If people in this country don't drop their greedy self possessed ways and learn how to share resources for the greater public good, we are doomed. 1 in every 5 families with a car which is shared makes some sense, everyone with a car is greedy and idiotic. Co-operative transports work great in developing countries. We just have to learn how to give up some personal space and integrate. More trolleys and railways, less cars and roads is the only answer.

[Barry]

While I certainly agree that mass transit is good, it doesn't follow that all mass transit system are good no matter what the cost or usage of it will be.

In this case, this is an expensive system that is not projected to get much use, partly because people are attached to their cars, but also because it doesn't go where people want to go.

I really don't understand how a train running up and down the north bay is anything but good. Improved roadways and more cars are definitely not a good answer. This country desperately needs public transportation like trains, which certainly can be converted to electric at some point. If people in this country don't drop their greedy self possessed ways and learn how to share resources for the greater public good, we are doomed. 1 in every 5 families with a car which is shared makes some sense, everyone with a car is greedy and idiotic. Co-operative transports work great in developing countries. We just have to learn how to give up some personal space and integrate. More trolleys and railways, less cars and roads is the only answer.

[Photoguy]

That's kind of the point, people wont give up cars because they still have easy options, what about when the society is in true stress, by then it will be too late to develop the mass transport we need. A train can be used to move goods and produce to hubs where smaller rail systems or trollys can then transport them. This is a good start, if we wait until people don't want to use their cars, or can't, we are already doomed.

While I certainly agree that mass transit is good, it doesn't follow that all mass transit system are good no matter what the cost or usage of it will be.

In this case, this is an expensive system that is not projected to get much use, partly because people are attached to their cars, but also because it doesn't go where people want to go.

[MsTerry]

The road to change starts with one step
SMART is the first step
To expect that the whole county will be connected from day one, is counter productive.
It took BART more than 20 years to get a stop at SFO, but it is there now!

Zeno, if SMART isn't a start, tell us what is the alternative?
What's your back up plan?

This is misleading. Most long-time environmentalists and many transportation experts support SMART, unfortunately.

See my response at https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...1332#post71332

[RichT]

While I certainly agree that mass transit is good, it doesn't follow that all mass transit system are good no matter what the cost or usage of it will be.

In this case, this is an expensive system that is not projected to get much use, partly because people are attached to their cars, but also because it doesn't go where people want to go.

Infrastructure does not appear overnight. Observe the seemingly continual construction on Bay area freeways to extend or widen them. Our road system has taken decades to develop. Any new transit system has to start from the ground up. Once the initial line is operational, other transit modes can be used to deliver riders to stations. Over time it can be expanded as demand increases, much like BART has done over the years.

Transportation solutions are not come cheap. Just look at how much it is costing to add one lane to 101 through Sludgea Rosa! How much longer do you want to keep throwing our transportation funds into an inefficient system?

[Dan Fein]

I was a member of the General Plan update committee and chaired the subcommittee that studied the transportation system and made recommendations. Based on what we learned, SMART is an essential part of the transportation infrastructure. Even if it looks like it won't be heavily used in the early years, it needs to be in place to provide an alternative to cars over the long term. We can't be looking at this in a short time horizon or in terms of our own current realities. In 30-50 years the rail line will be an indispensable component of the overall transit system.

For SMART to ultimately succeed will not rely on you and I to decide to immediately park at a SMART station and take the train on day one. It will depend on people making lifestyle choices that include the availability of transportation in the equation. Lifestyle choices like NOT buying another car or choosing to live close enough to transit to make it a viable option. In some ways it's a generational difference.

I will probably not use SMART much. I've settled in the far west of the County where we have to drive to go anywhere. We made our choices 30 years ago based on the availability of $1.00 gasoline and $500 rent and no concept of global warming. We've been around awhile and we're invested so we won't be making significantly different lifestyle choices at this point. My son, on the other hand, who is not yet settled, is making choices to live in Santa Rosa where he can bike to most of the places he needs to go and only drive occasionally. His reality is $4.00 gasoline and $1200 rent on a student budget. He would use SMART if it existed now and he would make it work, even if it's not as convenient.

One of the things we learned from the traffic engineers who worked with us is that the difference between a smoothly flowing freeway and a gridlocked one is a very small percentage - somewhere around 5%. You've probably experienced this effect if you commute through Marin between Novato and 580. Most of the time it's stop and go, but in the summer it flows smoothly. I did the math once and figured out that the number of people on vacation in any given summer week is probably in the 5% range. In other words, SMART doesn't have to take a huge number of cars off the road to have a positive impact on traffic, so even if you continue to drive, you benefit from the reduction of traffic that SMART will provide.

Another thing we learned is that adding lanes to freeways is a no-win proposition. No matter how many lanes you build they will fill up. There is a logical reason for this based on economic theory, but it boils down to this: people are willing to put up with a significant level of misery before they would change behavior by getting out of single occupancy cars. If you reduce the misery by adding lanes, more people will make decisions regarding location, transportation and jobs based on the ease of long-distance driving, until the 6 lane road becomes as miserable as the 4 lane road was, and then there will be pressure for lanes 7 and 8. You don't have to look past San Rafael to see that, and of course, LA is the poster child of hopeless lane-building.

In many ways this needs to be a selfless decision. It is true that most of us won't see the full benefit of having SMART in our lifetimes. The next generation will thank us if we build it. If not, it will go down in the history of lost opportunities along with the LA red cars and the Bay Area rail system that were destroyed by the "greedy tycoons" of GM and Firestone and Standard Oil.

I believe the arguments against SMART fail to take the long view.

While I certainly agree that mass transit is good, it doesn't follow that all mass transit system are good no matter what the cost or usage of it will be.

In this case, this is an expensive system that is not projected to get much use, partly because people are attached to their cars, but also because it doesn't go where people want to go.

[Sue]

Greedy tycoons, or local businesses and individuals with a stake in Sonoma and Marin Counties' transportation future? Your list is very selective. Click here to see who endorses SMART.

https://www.smarttrain2008.org/endorse

[Barry]

I was a member of the General Plan update committee and chaired the subcommittee that studied the transportation system and made recommendations. Based on what we learned, SMART is an essential part of the transportation infrastructure. Even if it looks like it won't be heavily used in the early years, it needs to be in place to provide an alternative to cars over the long term. ...

Thanks for your cogent comments, as always, Dan!

I can see your point for having the SMART system in place and let the North Bay "grow into it", as it were.

My only point of disagreement, is that adding a HOV lane to the freeway seems to me to be a good idea on two counts:

1. It's essentially a mass-transit lane, not dissimilar to train tracks, that carpools and buses can use.
2. And nicely enough, it can be shared by non-carpools on off peak hours, such as weekends, when there is getting to be a lot of traffic that is unlikely to use mass transit (are you going to take the train to go camping or to the beach?) and there is insufficient density to develop a comprehensive mass transit system that is available for most transit needs (such as the NYC subways).

I don't know if the HOV lane competes with the SMART train for funds. Both seem like prudent planning.

[burro]

Let's get back on track, here.

If the sales tax increase starts in 2009,
SMART would begin service in ~2014-2015.

That start-up service would provide 5300 trips per day
(2750 round trips per day).

20 years after the tax begins,
roughly 14 years after service begin,
SMART guesses they might get up to 3000 round trips per day.

So, *maybe* 3000 round trips per day, after 14 years of service, and ONLY assuming "maximum transit-oriented build-out."

Those trips would average just 13 miles. $1.33B means over $50 for each one-way trip.


I AM SORRY BUT THAT IS ***NOT*** WORTH IT.

No matter how many people move here, no matter how high gas prices go, SMART ridership is crucially "anemic" -- it is NOT a 'start' -- it is a DEAD-END!




Meanwhile, bus can provide BETTER service covering what SMART would provide for 1/5th the cost!

When the San Rafael HOV lane is complete (a few weeks after the election, due to a delay) a huge bottle-neck will go away and GGT bus service will be even more capable, *IF* we restore some of the funding that has been cut in the past 7-8 years.

Give bus a little more money, and bus will carry more passengers. As many as you like. Not SMART.



SMART competes for ALL SORTS of funding -- not just transit dollars.

Just look at all the other funding measures that were put off to give SMART a better chance of passing -- waiting means those other measures are less likely to be funded. Fire protection, open space, you name it.


Sure, all kinds of people are supporting SMART -- it sounds like a good idea, until you look closer.

But the big-money people -- they know the score -- that's WHY they are backing it -- SMART is not good for people, in general -- SMART is good for freight tycoons and developers.

[burro]

Hi Dan,

My responses are below.

…SMART is an essential part of the transportation infrastructure. Even if it looks like it won't be heavily used in the early years, it needs to be in place to provide an alternative to cars over the long term.

SMART detracts from the transportation infrastructure in numerous ways -- it compete for general use dollars with other modalities, it imposes on bus to deliver passengers to and from stations, it duplicates bureaucracy, some of its funding mandates increased zoning around stations that will lead to substantial congestion on roads in those areas, even without induced zoning it measurably increases congestion around stations without measurably reducing congestion on 101.

SMART is NOT a real "alternative" for daily ridership because its projected ridership represents only 0.04% of the population in Marin & Sonoma Counties. That percentage will go down as the population increases.

SMART is also NOT an alternative in an emergency -- for example, in a flood or an earthquake, 101 might remain open, but SMART would shut down immediately, very likely for days.

We can't be looking at this in a short time horizon or in terms of our own current realities. In 30-50 years the rail line will be an indispensable component of the overall transit system.

What will happen in 30 years to increase ridership? Elevated track? Double-track? Strapping a tube to the underbelly of the Golden Gate Bridge; to where? How will you get past the limitations of two-car trains, one a single-track line, sharing with over 100 at-grade intersections, and sharing with freight, to carry extra people? Where will the ridership come from? If we are going to change SMART that radically, why not wait and build it right the first time?

What will bus look like by then? Probably all electric, right? And still able to go relatively close to the doors of origin and destination, where SMART is still pinned to the tracks, right? And if gas is high enough for rail to be more in demand, won't demand for bus be through the roof? What are the chances we will have finished all our HOV/HOT lanes by then; pretty high, right? So express bus, going closer to origins and destinations for most people, could be not only cheaper, but faster, too, yes?

For SMART to ultimately succeed will not rely on you and I to decide to immediately park at a SMART station and take the train on day one.

THAT's a good thing, because some of those stations have no parking.

Oops, that's also a bad thing.

Sadly, park & ride for bus is under-funded, too.

It will depend on people making lifestyle choices that include the availability of transportation in the equation. Lifestyle choices like NOT buying another car or choosing to live close enough to transit to make it a viable option. In some ways it's a generational difference.

It is not just lifestyle choices on the consumer level, Dan.

Our socio-economic system requires that most people in the work-force have personal vehicles in order to stay competitive in the work-force.

Also, when people use personal vehicles, they very often do so in order make many stops on the same trip -- drop the kids, do the shopping, see a friend, etc. -- trying to do these things on even the best public transit would take too much time out of a day for most people. Let's remember that the average working adult has lost something like ~17 hours a week of leisure time (between extra work, longer commutes, etc.) during the last 30 years (as of 10 years ago -- an old Harper's Index stat) -- we are a society fraying at the seams for time.

Of course we should still build mass transit -- that is imperative. But we have to recognize the limitations, AND use that information to design the most attractive systems possible.

Commute rail works in many settings. But not all. It does not match up with the North Bay -- in part due to existing land uses, in part due to failure to connect practicably to a densely urban major economic center. People REALLY don't want to do multiple transfers or transfer between different forms of public transit -- very few people do that.

To make public transit attractive to people in dispersed settings, bus makes a lot more sense than rail -- it can go to the people instead of vice versa; it can grow to meet demand; it can readily adopt new clean-engine technologies.
[/quote]

I will probably not use SMART much.

Don't feel bad about that, Dan: you would not be alone.

VERY FEW people would ride SMART, as the ridership projections indicate.

To make matters worse, SMART's big selling point is getting Sonoma workers to jobs in Marin (or even S.F.) -- but only about 230 Sonoma commuters are projected to hop on a peak-period train for destinations South of the Sonoma-Marin border each weekday -- and only 40-55 are projected to transfer to the ferry from all origins each weekday morning. Wow. $1.33 BILLION, for THAT?

I've settled in the far west of the County where we have to drive to go anywhere. We made our choices 30 years ago based on the availability of $1.00 gasoline and $500 rent and no concept of global warming. We've been around awhile and we're invested so we won't be making significantly different lifestyle choices at this point.

You've probably made a wise choice -- in a "post-carbon" environment, if there are energy crises, it is better to be close to where food is grown -- people in large urban settings will be the ones who are in trouble. That's an argument against the increased zoning densities that some of SMART's funding requires to occur within a half-mile of each station -- they are trying to FORCE people to ride SMART, and STILL only get 3000 round-trips per day projected if those areas are built out.

How can that be good?

My son, on the other hand, who is not yet settled, is making choices to live in Santa Rosa where he can bike to most of the places he needs to go and only drive occasionally. His reality is $4.00 gasoline and $1200 rent on a student budget. He would use SMART if it existed now and he would make it work, even if it's not as convenient.

Sure, but he'd be one of only 3000 people who would do that.

And what would he do for the rest of his trips, ones not on the SMART line?

If he could do some of those by bus, and bus can also offer the service SMART offers, why add SMART to the mix, at extraordinary cost, for very limited capacity, duplicating bureaucracies, etc.?

One of the things we learned from the traffic engineers who worked with us is that the difference between a smoothly flowing freeway and a gridlocked one is a very small percentage - somewhere around 5%. You've probably experienced this effect if you commute through Marin between Novato and 580. Most of the time it's stop and go, but in the summer it flows smoothly. I did the math once and figured out that the number of people on vacation in any given summer week is probably in the 5% range. In other words, SMART doesn't have to take a huge number of cars off the road to have a positive impact on traffic, so even if you continue to drive, you benefit from the reduction of traffic that SMART will provide.

Yes -- that is all true -- but it is also all bad news for SMART.

It's funny the way people in a particular field, like traffic engineers or economists, can put on blinders to information that might interfere with the cohesion of their hypothetical mythology, ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

SMART would remove less than 1% of the trips from 101. Since SMART's riders travel only an average of 13 miles per trip, and since their trips are spread out over the line, the result is NO MEASURABLE DECREASE in congestion on 101 -- you can see that in the SMART EIR. You can also see that, without accounting for induced growth, SMART would create measurable congestion around some stations.

Meanwhile, however, some of SMART's funding mandates net zoning density increases within a half-mile around stations (i.e. very close to 101 on/off-ramps) that I estimate to be 6000-7000 more units than are currently zoned for.

Using the typical numbers for average household trips, at build-out that would be 60,000-70,000 more trips on or near 101 with SMART than without SMART.

That would be a measurable impact to traffic congestion -- making it worse.

So, let's see -- SMART might remove as many 5300-6000 trips per day, but could be directly responsible for adding 60,000-70,000 trips per day.

Even if the result is half that bad, it is bad.

Looked at this way, doesn't it seem clear that SMART is benefitting developers -- and the freight operators who have been dying for years to get the public to pay for track repair in Marin and Sonoma -- rather than benefitting the people who live here?

Another thing we learned is that adding lanes to freeways is a no-win proposition. No matter how many lanes you build they will fill up. There is a logical reason for this based on economic theory, but it boils down to this: people are willing to put up with a significant level of misery before they would change behavior by getting out of single occupancy cars. If you reduce the misery by adding lanes, more people will make decisions regarding location, transportation and jobs based on the ease of long-distance driving, until the 6 lane road becomes as miserable as the 4 lane road was, and then there will be pressure for lanes 7 and 8. You don't have to look past San Rafael to see that, and of course, LA is the poster child of hopeless lane-building.

Same is true for public transit.

And VERY true for SMART, which over 14 years of service, and under ideal conditions, is projected to increase ridership by only 700 trips per day.

In many ways this needs to be a selfless decision. It is true that most of us won't see the full benefit of having SMART in our lifetimes. The next generation will thank us if we build it. If not, it will go down in the history of lost opportunities along with the LA red cars and the Bay Area rail system that were destroyed by the "greedy tycoons" of GM and Firestone and Standard Oil.

I am willing to make selfless decisions to support quality of life or preserve the natural environment.

But SMART does neither. In fact, SMART makes things worse, and impedes superior alternatives.

If you want to cut GHGs, you'd do better adding freeway lanes and buying Priuses for people.

If you don't like single-occupant vehicles, support bus.

But SMART is a huge expense for which we will be rewarded with tragically negative outcomes.

Why sign on for that?

Why be selfless just so developers can make a quick buck off of quick development that makes traffic worse, and so that freight operators can turn the Eel River area into California's largest gravel pit mine?

I believe the arguments against SMART fail to take the long view.

Still think so?

How?

Best regards,
b

[Waccomole]

I have expressed gratitude to both Dan and Burro who have opposing views. They disagree, but in a well thought out and rational way. Now I need to decide which argument is most valid for the overall good, not just my interests. Waccomole

[elienos]

That price ($50 per trip), outlined by Burro is too much. Can anyone refute that? 1.3 billion per year?

[MsTerry]

You keep on misrepresenting the numbers to make your case.
What is the % of the population that takes the bus???
How many people can actually walk to the bus and their final destination? Not I.
If you look at the parked cars around busstops you'll realize that many trips are necessary to take the bus.

You seem dead set against ANY kind of train system, if you were to suggest solutions to the shortcomings of SMART your arguments might become more persuasive.

SMART is NOT a real "alternative" for daily ridership because its projected ridership represents only 0.04% of the population in Marin & Sonoma Counties. That percentage will go down as the population increases.


b

[MsTerry]

Burro manipulates numbers to make his case,
Without all the subsidies, including Bridge tolls, a bus ticket would be around $20. Is that a fair price?

That price ($50 per trip), outlined by Burro is too much. Can anyone refute that? 1.3 billion per year?

[MsTerry]

How are your freight tycoons going to benefit?

But the big-money people -- they know the score -- that's WHY they are backing it -- SMART is not good for people, in general -- SMART is good for freight tycoons and developers.

[Photoguy]

I must admit I am new to the area, but I have been paying attention to the problems of public transportation for a long time. I believe that regardless of intent, expanding roadways always increases use of personal vehicles, light rail and trains decidedly do not. The ridership estimates are completely based on an economy of relatively cheap and available sources of fuel for cars, a mistake. If you believe things can go along the way they have and just adding more lanes and more buses, if there is sufficient ridership, is a false scenario. It seems to me once there are more lanes, driving will increase and it will actually work against more people using public transportation. Numbers can be manipulated any way you want, I do not believe the $50 per ride number. Supporting the train is supporting the beginning of the end of cars. Increasing use tax on roadways and using that money for rail, and light rail development seems forward looking. High density housing near transportation hubs is also part of this. We need to change some very basic things about how we live, easy access to urban sprawl with more roads and buses just seems like disaster.

[Dan Fein]

Barry,
The HOV lanes are basically a done deal. Most of the planning is done and most of the funding is in place. SMART is yet another North-South artery, and one that does not require additional footprint, since the right of way is already there. SMART will not take funds from HOV lanes.

Dan

Thanks for your cogent comments, as always, Dan!

I can see your point for having the SMART system in place and let the North Bay "grow into it", as it were.

My only point of disagreement, is that adding a HOV lane to the freeway seems to me to be a good idea on two counts:

1. It's essentially a mass-transit lane, not dissimilar to train tracks, that carpools and buses can use.
2. And nicely enough, it can be shared by non-carpools on off peak hours, such as weekends, when there is getting to be a lot of traffic that is unlikely to use mass transit (are you going to take the train to go camping or to the beach?) and there is insufficient density to develop a comprehensive mass transit system that is available for most transit needs (such as the NYC subways).

I don't know if the HOV lane competes with the SMART train for funds. Both seem like prudent planning.

[MsTerry]

HOV lanes though, don't alleviate, but actually add to the congestion by taking away a lane for normal use.
It also adds to accidents and slowdowns by having slow moving cars merging in to the faster moving HOV lane.

Barry,
The HOV lanes are basically a done deal. Most of the planning is done and most of the funding is in place. SMART is yet another North-South artery, and one that does not require additional footprint, since the right of way is already there. SMART will not take funds from HOV lanes.

Dan

[burro]

Hi Elienos,

I don't think anyone can refute these numbers --

The approved SMART financial plan is here:
https://sonomamarintrain.org/userfil...undingplan.pdf

The total cost (over 20 years) is currently set out at $1.33 Billion (in today's dollars, assuming actual construction and operation stay within costs).

To get the total cost per trip, then, divide by the number of trips.

SMART claims up to 6000 trips per week day -- assuming maximum ToD build-out among other things.

SMART is saying it will only operate for 14 years.

Taking SMART's best-case ridership of 6000 per week day, and giving SMART the added benefit of assuming the same ridership on weekends and holidays, the total number of trips is:
14 years * 365 days per year * 6000 trips per day.

Take that result, and divide it into $1,330,000,000.00 to get the total cost per trip.


Note -- SMART subsidizes construction of the bike/ped path (the only good thing about SMART, as I see it) -- unfortunately, it is looking quite likely the bike/ped path won't be completed, due to objections by freight operators reinforced by the PUC.

Still, if we remove the bike/ped path construction part of SMART, the total cost is still $1.2 Billion. If we take away some of the erring in SMART's favor, we still get about the same number for total cost per trip.

This also does not count the "externalized" costs of bus and auto trips needed to get SMART passengers to and from stations, nor the "externalized" costs of things like delays to auto traffic around stations.

That price ($50 per trip), outlined by Burro is too much. Can anyone refute that? 1.3 billion per year?

[burro]

HOV lanes though, don't alleviate, but actually add to the congestion by taking away a lane for normal use.
It also adds to accidents and slowdowns by having slow moving cars merging in to the faster moving HOV lane.

In this case, we are ADDING new HOV lanes, which increases throughput -- not removing full-use lanes for use as HOV/HOT.

[burro]

Barry,
The HOV lanes are basically a done deal. Most of the planning is done and most of the funding is in place. SMART is yet another North-South artery, and one that does not require additional footprint, since the right of way is already there. SMART will not take funds from HOV lanes.

Dan

Yes - the new HOV lanes are basically a done deal.

However, SMART *does increase* the footprint. Adding the bike/ped path more than DOUBLES the existing rail line footprint, including directly through the habitat of Endangered Species, and other sensitive habitat.

Assuming the bike path gets built.

Other upgrades to the line will have marginal foot-print increasing effects, as well.

But, more importantly, SMART just doesn't deliver -- it costs a mint, and doesn't deliver.

Meanwhile, it will suck the life out of the bus alternative, which has already proven itself to be far superior in the North Bay setting -- cost-wise, and performance-wise.

BTW: SMART *definitely* competes for all sorts of public funding -- it has already bumped several other public funding measures off local ballots. I believe the only concession SMART has made about non-competition for public funding is that it won't go after money ALREADY earmarked for TAM.

[burro]

You keep on misrepresenting the numbers to make your case.
What is the % of the population that takes the bus???
How many people can actually walk to the bus and their final destination? Not I.
If you look at the parked cars around busstops you'll realize that many trips are necessary to take the bus.

Golden Gate Transit, alone (not even counting SCTA) already carries 5 TIMES as many passengers as SMART will take at start-up.

And that is after about 8 years of severe budget cuts to GGT.

At 20% of the cost of SMART, GGT (or other bus) could provide superior service meeting the same needs.

If we fund bus more -- it will carry more. That is not appreciably true for SMART.

It should be totally obvious that, by going into neighborhoods as bus can and train can't, bus is far more accessible to more people.

I rode GGT for about 10 years to S.F., when I was not bicycling daily from Cotati to Novato or from central Marin to downtown S.F. -- I did this from MANY starting points over the years.

In each case, I could either walk to the bus, or take a short drive and then park.

From some locations, I had to transfer once.

But it was always a direct connection, and I could stay on the same modality (bus) the whole way.

Study after study shows that people don't like to change modalities, and they don't like to transfer if it is not a direct connection.

SMART can't appreciably grow ridership.
SMART costs a fortune.
SMART mandates more growth than is currently zoned.
(And will therefore INCREASE auto congestion.)
SMART damages sensitive habitat.
Etc/. Etc/.

SMART can be replaced by more frequent, more convenient bus service, and for a small fraction of the cost.

THAT's why I oppose "SMART."

[burro]

How are your freight tycoons going to benefit?

It has been scuttlebutt for years before SMART was on the scene that Northern California freight operators would love to resume freight operations all the way down into Marin (for various schemes, some quite nefarious, like the Eel River gravel mine scheme, or the Port Sonoma scheme), but that they did not want to take on the costs of track repair and upgrades.

Well, it looks like freight gets a several hundred million dollars worth of rail system repair in Sonoma and Marin Counties if SMART goes through.

WE get next to nothing -- aside from a millstone around the neck of local transit and other funding needs.

But FREIGHT gets a several hundred million dollars of upgrades at the public's expense.

Hellooo Eel River!

[Dan Fein]

Life is risky. Always eat dessert first.

I won't get into a point by point argument with Burro, who is clearly passionate in his/her view that SMART is a bad idea. That would miss the big question. Rather, I would say that there is, without question, a need to shift our transportation paradigm.

It comes down to this: Do we risk a quarter cent sales tax to start the process of shifting the transportation paradigm? If we say yes and we're wrong people 30 years from now will say "what a boondoggle". That's possible. If we say yes and we're right, they'll say "good planning". That's possible too. On the other hand, if we say no, we can be 100% certain that things will go along as they have.

All of the discussion, on both sides, of costs, ridership, trips generated and growth inducement are guesses. When you pay good money for studies and models and EIRs and bond prospectuses you have to call them "projections". Any projection has a range of possible outcomes and an associated likelihood for each possibility. When you go to the financial community or the environmental reviewers you have to be "conservative" (in the good sense), by erring on the side of less optimistic and least unlikely. Naturally, this kind of analysis lends itself to a pessimistic outlook. Arguing about numbers is just arguing about whose guess you like. I think that SMART will be way more successful than they are projecting. But that's my guess.

In traffic engineer parlance there is a concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is graded A through F where A is clear sailing and F is near gridlock. You can figure out the in-betweens. In the main north-south corridor of Sonoma County LOS D-E is typical during commute hours. This is on the freeway and the roads that feed it. There are some C's around. Both the Petaluma traffic model and the Sonoma County traffic model projected LOS E-F in most places in the corridor given even modest growth. Ironically, adding freeway lanes makes LOS worse on the feeder roads unless the feeder roads are also fattened significantly. This, we were told by the traffic modelers, will happen no matter what we do - train, freeway lanes, busses, re-routing traffic or nothing at all.

SMART is a beginning of instigating paradigm change. SMART will not displace cars or busses. It will probably reduce some of the inevitable increase in the number of cars. I suspect that as LOS degrades in more and more places, the train will look more and more attractive. Like most approaches to any problem it's not all or nothing, it's not a replacement for what exists or competition with another approach. It doesn't detract from anything. It's a component.

In addition to building the train, we need to think about how to get people out of cars, whether it's to get to work or to get to the train (or whereever). I have been pushing to adopt the view that "bike lanes" should be recast as "low-speed vehicle lanes" to be used not only by bicyclists and skaters (my preferred mode) but also to provide a safe lane for electric wheel chairs, powered scooters, Segways or any other vehicle that operates below 15mph. Instead of viewing these lanes as recreational trails, they need to be incorporated into the transportation infrastructure and planned and developed accordingly. In the General Plan we included verbiage that puts emphasis on providing safe routes for alternative transportation. I called them Segway lanes, but the actual language is more general.

The West County trail is a good example. I can skate from Graton to Downtown SR in 30-40 minutes. Add that to the SMART corridor and it's clear sailing to Rohnert Park. I could skate to the casino! But I digress.

Would the availability of better trails cause a massive shift to Segways? That would be great, but not likely. What's more important is the 5% rule. Even a minor shift to Segways, bikes, skates and trains would improve LOS from really awful to just awful.

The argument that SMART costs too much is one that can be debated ad nauseum. What is too much compared to the cost of roads? We will see the cost of SMART every day in our sales tax. We don't see the cost of roads because it's hidden in the price of gas and in local Public Works budgets, but it's huge. Billions. Freeways are not expected to pay for themselves through farebox collections. If SMART were being built from scratch and we had to buy the right-of-way and build all new tracks we probably wouldn't be considering it. But that's not the case. Since we already have all that it is crazy not to use it.

Figure out the cost to you. SMART will cost you a quarter for every $100 you spend on taxable stuff. At my most profligate, that might amount to about $75 per year for my family - less than what I spend to support KQED and parking meters. If that gets even one car off the road for a year, that's worth it.

Dan Fein

[Photoguy]

Here is a quote from the "Press Democrat" published September 9th.
"Superior Court Judge Terrence Boren had issued a preliminary ruling Friday siding with officials of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Agency, who called arguments against the passenger rail plan misleading.
The judge agreed that several phrases used by opponents to Measure Q were false or misleading.
Measure Q is a quarter-cent sales tax that would raise $890.7 million over its 20-year life to run commuter trains on a 70-mile route from Cloverdale to Larkspur.
The ballot argument phrases that were ordered changed on the Marin County ballot include phrases similar to those a Sonoma County judge eliminated from ballot arguments earlier this month, which claimed “freight train operations and gravel mining, if facilitated by Measure Q, might damage the Eel River and its threatened salmon and steelhead.”

[burro]

Life is risky. Always eat dessert first.

Hmmm... I'd LOVE to...

But if don't watch my figure, who will?!

I wonder if this isn't a good analogy for SMART supporters and SMART opponents...

I won't get into a point by point argument with Burro, who is clearly passionate in his/her view that SMART is a bad idea.

Ah. But I only oppose SMART *because* the details don't pan out.

It is not at all a knee-jerk thing with me. I am a BIG supporter of mass transit.

That would miss the big question. Rather, I would say that there is, without question, a need to shift our transportation paradigm.

I mostly agree with that, however, I think the key is obviously shifting our land-use paradigms and letting transportation follow.

I think that gets more obvious the more we look into it -- shifting transportation paradigms creates only marginal improvements in energy consumption, GHG production, etc.

When it comes to land use, I think we are learning that large dense urban environments are great for public transit, but that they "externalize" costs -- the costs are still there, even though they don't figure in to mainstream methods of accounting. I am referring to things like production, packaging, preservation, and delivery of food, water, and other natural resources over long distances.

Statistics about the supposed "energy efficiency" of dense urban settings typically leave off many "externalized" factors.

Looking at communities "holistically" I think "Transit Oriented Development" would more properly be termed "Development-Oriented Transit" in many cases.

We are bending over backwards to shove people into dense urban settings in order to achieve the supposed "efficiencies" of mass transit and especially fixed mass transit.

I think we are learning that this style of rapid development ignores the need for gradual maturation of local economies, and thereby commits people living in those areas to relatively long-distance commutes.

We are also learning that the "relocalization" model -- in which many natural resources are available in and come from the immediate vicinity -- is superior in many ways, particularly in terms of reducing factors associated with long-distance delivery of workers and natural resources.

Many parts of the North Bay is already built more along the "relocalization" model than many other parts of the Bay Area -- it has smaller, dispersed urban centers with a greater amount of surrounding agriculture.

That is largely why existing land use lends itself better to bus than to rail. There are no densely urban major economic centers to which SMART will travel or conveniently connect.

It comes down to this: Do we risk a quarter [PER]cent sales tax [INCREASE] to start the process of shifting the transportation paradigm? If we say yes and we're wrong people 30 years from now will say "what a boondoggle". That's possible. If we say yes and we're right, they'll say "good planning". That's possible too. On the other hand, if we say no, we can be 100% certain that things will go along as they have.

This is a fallacious agrument -- there is no reason things would necessarily go along as they have if we do not vote for SMART. There are other, superior, less costly options.

The problem with approving SMART is that the money to pay for it is not free. It is absurdly expensive and an obstruction to progress in other areas.

All of the discussion, on both sides, of costs, ridership, trips generated and growth inducement are guesses. When you pay good money for studies and models and EIRs and bond prospectuses you have to call them "projections". Any projection has a range of possible outcomes and an associated likelihood for each possibility. When you go to the financial community or the environmental reviewers you have to be "conservative" (in the good sense), by erring on the side of less optimistic and least unlikely. Naturally, this kind of analysis lends itself to a pessimistic outlook. Arguing about numbers is just arguing about whose guess you like. I think that SMART will be way more successful than they are projecting. But that's my guess.

In traffic engineer parlance there is a concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is graded A through F where A is clear sailing and F is near gridlock. You can figure out the in-betweens. In the main north-south corridor of Sonoma County LOS D-E is typical during commute hours. This is on the freeway and the roads that feed it. There are some C's around. Both the Petaluma traffic model and the Sonoma County traffic model projected LOS E-F in most places in the corridor given even modest growth. Ironically, adding freeway lanes makes LOS worse on the feeder roads unless the feeder roads are also fattened significantly. This, we were told by the traffic modelers, will happen no matter what we do - train, freeway lanes, busses, re-routing traffic or nothing at all.

When you look at the LOS numbers in the SMART EIR, you can see that SMART provides no net appreciable LOS improvement. Any improvement on 101 will be unnoticeable while congestion increases near stations will be noticeable.

If you factor in the increased zoning limits mandated by some of SMART's funding, there could (very, very likely) be SUBSTANTIAL increases in congestion as a direct result of SMART.

The LOS provided by bus can be superior to what SMART brings, and cost a small fraction of what SMART brings.

SMART is a beginning of instigating paradigm change. SMART will not displace cars or busses. It will probably reduce some of the inevitable increase in the number of cars. I suspect that as LOS degrades in more and more places, the train will look more and more attractive. Like most approaches to any problem it's not all or nothing, it's not a replacement for what exists or competition with another approach. It doesn't detract from anything. It's a component.

SMART is the same "solution" that brought massive, rapid growth -- and commensurate auto congestion -- to the East Bay and the South Bay.

At least in the South Bay and East Bay, rail actually helps, now that all that extra development is there. We CANNOT legitimately make that claim of SMART.

In addition to building the train, we need to think about how to get people out of cars, whether it's to get to work or to get to the train (or whereever). I have been pushing to adopt the view that "bike lanes" should be recast as "low-speed vehicle lanes" to be used not only by bicyclists and skaters (my preferred mode) but also to provide a safe lane for electric wheel chairs, powered scooters, Segways or any other vehicle that operates below 15mph. Instead of viewing these lanes as recreational trails, they need to be incorporated into the transportation infrastructure and planned and developed accordingly. In the General Plan we included verbiage that puts emphasis on providing safe routes for alternative transportation. I called them Segway lanes, but the actual language is more general.

I support these ideas.

The argument that SMART costs too much is one that can be debated ad nauseum. What is too much compared to the cost of roads? We will see the cost of SMART every day in our sales tax. We don't see the cost of roads because it's hidden in the price of gas and in local Public Works budgets, but it's huge. Billions. Freeways are not expected to pay for themselves through farebox collections. If SMART were being built from scratch and we had to buy the right-of-way and build all new tracks we probably wouldn't be considering it. But that's not the case. Since we already have all that it is crazy not to use it.

If we are going to use the rail right-of-way, I'd prefer we go with a straight rails-to-trails conversion -- it would take bit of legislation, but is in the realm of possibilities.

Regarding the cost of roads -- roads cost a very (!) small fraction of what rail costs per passenger mile.

I am no fan of widening freeways. I think we need to address overpopulation and make new land use models. But, for right now, reducing congestion does a fantastic job of reducing GHGs, and adding HOV lanes in Marin and Sonoma makes bus EXTREMELY feasible.

Figure out the cost to you. SMART will cost you a quarter for every $100 you spend on taxable stuff. At my most profligate, that might amount to about $75 per year for my family - less than what I spend to support KQED and parking meters. If that gets even one car off the road for a year, that's worth it.

Here are some ways to look at costs:

• $1.33B is equivalent to $1700 for every man, woman, and child in Sonoma and Marin Counties, even though the number of round trips provided by SMART represent only 0.04% of those populations.

• SMART costs about a half-million dollars per round-trip slot, for 14 years of service -- would you pay a half-million dollars to remove two trips per day for one car, for 14 years? (Remember that there is an average number of trips per household of about 10 -- so there are still 8 other trips per day being taken by that car.) Now -- would you pay that half-million to remove two trips per day for one car 3000 times?

• Would you take money that might otherwise be able to fund fire protection, open space, education? What if it could otherwise support bus service that would be superior to SMART service but at 20% of the cost of SMART?

The cost of SMART is real -- and there is only so much money to go around.

(even if federal government spending makes it seem otherwise)