Why Oppose Alternative Transportation?

[Photo Consultant]

I guess what I have wondered about the folks who are against SMART as alternative transportation is- what are their personal reasons for not wanting an alternative? It is federally funded. No solution is perfect but it does give us options.
Most cities have trains that get so much use in the U.S. as well as abroad.

What I know about people who are for the train and bike path is they have expressed a hunger, a real need for a gas/ oil alternative. We want and need one.
If all politics is personal, the situation has left me wondering why some one is personally against it. Why isn’t there an honest conversation about this aspect from the anti-train people. There are primary and secondary agendas on any given political measure. The primary agendas are the facts/ arguments and counter arguments. The secondary agendas are the feelings and personal reasons. Anti-train people have never put forth their personal reasons. They claim to want to help the environment yet, have not strongly opposed freeway widening in Marin County, why is that? This hidden agenda has been strongly perceived by voters and doesn’t sit well.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I guess what I have wondered about the folks who are against SMART as alternative transportation is- what are their personal reasons for not wanting an alternative? It is federally funded.

Not federally funded. The proposal asks for a quarter-cent sales tax.

[Photo Consultant]

The agency already has obtained approximately $132
million from federal, state, regional and county sources. Passenger fares will cover more than a
third of the train’s operating costs – a “farebox recovery” rate that compares well with other
transit systems throughout the United States. In addition, SMART will earn money by leasing
property it owns along the rail line, and from the development of key pieces of property such as
5.5 acres that will be turned into a transit village in Santa Rosa’s Railroad Square. Also, SMART
will receive user fees from any freight rail operation that runs in the SMART corridor.

Most importantly, this does not answer the question of why someone personally opposes alternative transport, or why the hidden agenda is not being openly, honestly discussed.

Not federally funded. The proposal asks for a quarter-cent sales tax.

[Dynamique]

Here are some reasons why I'm not supporting the "not-so-SMART" train:

1. Based on direct personal experience, I am categorically opposed to any transportation proposal/project that involves bicycles. Bicycles are not a solution; making special infrastructure for them is a big waste of tax money and a distraction from realistic solutions that actually do work for the majority of the population. I'm also dang tired of the "bike nazis" -- a small, hyper-vocal, hyperactive special interest group -- dominating the transportation discussion.

2. Not liking the SMART rail proposal does not mean being against "alternative transportation." Personally, I'd love to see a county transportation infrastructure based on electric trolleys and electric vehicles. A viable and practical alternative to fossil-fuel based transportation within the county would be a win-win. Bicycles are not viable or practical for the 99.99% of the adult population who have long distances to cover in a hurry and a lot of stuff to bring with them. Let go of bicycles and free your mind to other ideas.

3. Any time a transportation infrastructure is improved or created, you get people moving to the far end of the line. Look at what happened to former farming regions in the Bay area when freeways were built in the 1960-70s. If you think there is too much house building in Sonoma County now, it's nothing compared to what will occur if a rail line from Marin County is installed. I suspect that this is the real "hidden reason" for opposition to the SMART rail and regional/inter-county passenger rail in general. It's a legitimate concern.

4. How about using all that money to fix the existing roads so that they are SAFELY multi-modal? The roads in the unincorporated area of the county are a disaster. They are so narrow and unsafe that trying to use them with anything other than a large, high-powered vehicle is a suicide mission. Trying to cross the roads in the unincorporated area is a nightmare because there are NO CROSSWALKS!!! Let's fix the existing infrastructure first.

I guess what I have wondered about the folks who are against SMART as alternative transportation is- what are their personal reasons for not wanting an alternative? It is federally funded. No solution is perfect but it does give us options.
Most cities have trains that get so much use in the U.S. as well as abroad.

What I know about people who are for the train and bike path is they have expressed a hunger, a real need for a gas/ oil alternative. We want and need one.
If all politics is personal, the situation has left me wondering why some one is personally against it. Why isn’t there an honest conversation about this aspect from the anti-train people. There are primary and secondary agendas on any given political measure. The primary agendas are the facts/ arguments and counter arguments. The secondary agendas are the feelings and personal reasons. Anti-train people have never put forth their personal reasons. They claim to want to help the environment yet, have not strongly opposed freeway widening in Marin County, why is that? This hidden agenda has been strongly perceived by voters and doesn’t sit well.

[Photo Consultant]

Thanks for giving your personal reasons. I am also for electric cars and there are many people in my neighborhood who are car sharing them. I personally cannot afford one, so I choose to walk or bike. I am not sure about Marin Co., but I know that there is a 25 year building moratorium outside of the elected urban boundaries in Sonoma Co. and also I can see that growth is a real concern.

p.s. I am part German descent, but I am not a "bike- Nazi"

Here are two reasons why I'm not supporting the "not-so-SMART" train:

1. Based on direct personal experience, I am categorically opposed to any transportation proposal/project that involves bicycles. Bicycles are not a solution; making special infrastructure for them is a big waste of tax money and a distraction from realistic solutions that actually do work for the majority of the population. I'm also damned tired of the "bike nazis" -- a small, hyper-vocal, hyperactive special interest group -- dominating the transportation discussion.

2. Not liking the SMART rail proposal does not mean being against "alternative transportation." Personally, I'd love to see a county transportation infrastructure based on electric trolleys and electric vehicles. A viable and practical alternative to fossil-fuel based transportation within the county would be a win-win. Bicycles are not viable or practical for the 99.99% of the adult population who have long distances to cover in a hurry and a lot of stuff to bring with them. Let go of bicycles and free your mind to other ideas.

3. Any time a transportation infrastructure is improved or created, you get people moving to the far end of the line. Look at what happened to former farming regions in the Bay area when freeways were built in the 1960-70s. If you think there is too much house building in Sonoma County now, it's nothing compared to what will occur if a rail line from Marin County is installed. I suspect that this is the real "hidden reason" for opposition to the SMART rail and regional/inter-county passenger rail in general. It's a legitimate concern.

4. How about using all that money to fix the existing roads so that they are SAFELY multi-modal? The roads in the unincorporated area of the county are a disaster. They are so narrow and unsafe that trying to use them with anything other than a large, high-powered vehicle is a suicide mission. Trying to cross the roads in the unincorporated area is a nightmare because there are NO CROSSWALKS!!! Let's fix the existing infrastructure first.

[Zeno Swijtink]

With Sebastopol's Northeast Plan, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit plan is the most divisive among environmentalists.

I support the Northeast Plan but do not support SMART.

I think SMART is too expensive and too little and does not deliver transportation options where they are most needed. I don't think SMART is scalable.

Most of my friends support SMART. It's painful.

What we need is an integrated transportation plan for the NB area. Unfortunately the constant Pro/Con SMART discussion has kept that discussion restricted to small groups of insiders.

Zeno

*****
https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/artic...NEWS/810050369

NO ON Q: Dated concept too costly, would be underused, lead to overdevelopment

By JOAN VILMS
and ERNIE CARPENTER

Published: Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 4:43 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 4:43 a.m.

If you're considering voting for Measure Q because you think it would reduce traffic, reduce greenhouse gases and reduce commute time, please think again.

The SMART train is not a green solution to traffic congestion. It is a recipe for fiscal malfeasance and environmental menace.

Six hundred thousand Sonoma County taxpayers would pay nearly $1 billion to subsidize 2,500 daily commuters. The train would operate at a multimillion-dollar deficit ranging from $11 million to $19 million per year. After the 20-year sales tax expires, where would funds come from to sustain operations? A train can't run on red ink.

Successful rail services require urban population densities, highly concentrated homes and workplaces along the tracks. Sonoma County has widely scattered homes and jobs. The train simply can't go where most of us live and work, nor is there a feeder system to take people to or from the train.

If measure Q passes, powerful forces will propel massive growth and urbanization from Petaluma to Cloverdale under the rubric of "transit villages."

Land-use controls will be inadequate to protect neighborhoods and natural areas. Overtaxing our limited water supply could make "toilet to tap" (recycling wastewater for drinking water) a reality.

The proposed bicycle-pedestrian trail may not even happen. Northwest Pacific Co., the freight hauler who by law would share track with SMART, considers the trail a safety hazard and is challenging SMART's legal right to build it in the shared corridor.

The train simply won't work as advertised. SMART's own projections show that too few commuters would use it to make a meaningful impact on traffic or air pollution. It would, however, divert huge sums of money from more workable transportation solutions.

In other parts of the country, computer-smart transit picks people up where they are and takes them where they want to go. A fixed-route, diesel train can't do that. Instead of wasting a billion or more dollars on a nostalgic commuter train for the few, we should be investing in technology that moves more people more efficiently.

In sum, the cost of Measure Q is vastly disproportionate to the meager service it would deliver. Under the guise of reducing greenhouse gases and traffic congestion, Measure Q would actually fuel overdevelopment and environmental decline. The good intentions of proponents cannot offset Measure Q's outlandish expense, limited utility and detrimental consequences.


https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/artic...NEWS/810050317

YES ON Q: Train would improve quality of life in region, cut
congestion, aid environment

By STEVE RABINOWITSH and LISA WITTKE SCHAFFNER
Co-chairs of the Sonoma County SMART Committee

Published: Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 4:40 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 4:40 a.m.

We need new transportation options in Sonoma and Marin counties. Congestion has increased greatly over the years. In fact, Highway 101 is the fourth-most-congested highway in the Bay Area. The SMART train provides an alternative: 14 round-trip trains during the weekdays between Cloverdale and Larkspur and four round-trip trains on Saturday and Sunday. This new train system will remove about 1.4 million car trips a year from Highway 101.

Measure Q will provide a pathway for bicycles and pedestrians, which will be built along the rail right of way. It is estimated that between 7,000 and 10,000 people will use the pathway every day. It will also link into the bikeway systems in the cities and counties in the North Bay and help create safe bikeways in all the communities along the rail line. The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition and Sonoma County Trails Council have endorsed Measure Q because they realize the benefits of SMART.

Measure Q will help us improve our quality of life in Sonoma and Marin counties. There will be less air pollution as people take the train instead of driving. The train will help us protect our environment. These are some of the reasons why Sonoma County Conservation Action and Greenbelt Alliance have endorsed Measure Q.

SMART will cut carbon emissions by 31 million pounds a year. The trains will run on environmentally friendly, efficient onboard engines and odorless clean fuel. The result is that SMART riders will be three to five times as fuel efficient as drivers of single-occupant vehicles. These are some of the reasons why the Sonoma County Climate Protection Campaign has endorsed Measure Q.

Measure Q will help business and our local economy. It will help us attract and retain the best companies, thereby creating and protecting jobs. Employees will be able to get to their jobs easier. SMART goes through the heart of our two counties. In fact, 80 percent of all North Bay commercial, residential and educational facilities are located along the SMART corridor.

Businesses will be able to cut the vehicle miles traveled by their employees and help them meet the requirements of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act. Tourism will be helped by having another way for visitors to come to our counties. These are some of the reasons why the Sonoma County Alliance and the North Bay Leadership Council support Measure Q.

Measure Q is supported by a coalition of neighborhood organizations, labor unions, business leaders and environmental groups.

More than 40 city council members and mayors from Sonoma County have endorsed Measure Q. All five members of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors have endorsed it as well.

They all realize the importance of SMART and are working together to pass Measure Q. This is a historic opportunity to improve our quality of life. Please vote yes on Q on Nov. 4. For more information, visit our Web site: www.smarttrain2008.org.

[Sonomamark]

Dynamique, your conclusions here are based in erroneous beliefs.

First, on bicycles. Nearly all of Sonoma County travel up and down the 101 corridor for commute purposes is within the county, most of it focused between Windsor and Petaluma. That's all nearly flat terrain, and perfect for opportunities for bicycle commuting. Bicycling is the most efficient transportation mode that isn't on foot. More that than, politically you will never get an alternative transportation package passed in the North Bay without a healthy bicycle component, so if you're unwilling to accept that, you're stuck with roads-only transportation expenditures, forever. Like it or not, that's the landscape. If all you want is roads, then we just disagree.

Second, on trolleys, etc. There are only two ways to get non-automotive mass transit implemented here: on roads (with buses), or on the publicly owned rail corridor that already exists. We have buses--people don't generally like to ride them, and pretty much only people who have other choices will do so unless they're traveling very long distances (only a small portion of the ridership). Capital costs for buying rights of way and implementing any other kind of system are completely impractical. Dream as we might, we have to play the hand we are dealt. There will never be electrical trolleys in this county again.

Third, you are simply wrong about "people moving to the end of the line". This only happens if you don't have the land use controls in place prior to implementing the infrastructure, which is why the East Bay went BOOM when BART went in. Here, that isn't true: we have locked-in urban growth boundaries and growth controls in all cities being served by the system. Plus, we've got water supply and wastewater infrastructure limits. Union City and Fremont can't happen here, and never will.

The BART booms were caused by people who wanted to commute to the City. Most people here don't travel that far to work, and people living in the City can't get there on SMART. It's a perfect situation for serving existing populations as they grow in a controlled, sprawl-limited manner, and providing an alternative to automotive dependence.

Finally, to your fourth point, you clearly haven't compared the relative cost of road improvements to rail infrastructure: the former is astronomically higher. You can't do much of anything to improve roads with what SMART will cost, nor will you be able to maintain what you have done. Roads are unbelievably inefficient ways of moving people--not only from the standpoint of energy, but of money, as well.

SM

Here are two reasons why I'm not supporting the "not-so-SMART" train:

1. Based on direct personal experience, I am categorically opposed to any transportation proposal/project that involves bicycles. Bicycles are not a solution; making special infrastructure for them is a big waste of tax money and a distraction from realistic solutions that actually do work for the majority of the population. I'm also damned tired of the "bike nazis" -- a small, hyper-vocal, hyperactive special interest group -- dominating the transportation discussion.

2. Not liking the SMART rail proposal does not mean being against "alternative transportation." Personally, I'd love to see a county transportation infrastructure based on electric trolleys and electric vehicles. A viable and practical alternative to fossil-fuel based transportation within the county would be a win-win. Bicycles are not viable or practical for the 99.99% of the adult population who have long distances to cover in a hurry and a lot of stuff to bring with them. Let go of bicycles and free your mind to other ideas.

3. Any time a transportation infrastructure is improved or created, you get people moving to the far end of the line. Look at what happened to former farming regions in the Bay area when freeways were built in the 1960-70s. If you think there is too much house building in Sonoma County now, it's nothing compared to what will occur if a rail line from Marin County is installed. I suspect that this is the real "hidden reason" for opposition to the SMART rail and regional/inter-county passenger rail in general. It's a legitimate concern.

4. How about using all that money to fix the existing roads so that they are SAFELY multi-modal? The roads in the unincorporated area of the county are a disaster. They are so narrow and unsafe that trying to use them with anything other than a large, high-powered vehicle is a suicide mission. Trying to cross the roads in the unincorporated area is a nightmare because there are NO CROSSWALKS!!! Let's fix the existing infrastructure first.

[raines]

While I don't agree on SMART (I'm a supporter, looking forward to being able to visit North Bay friends and communities without having to rent a car or spend 3 hours on buses), I wanted to express appreciation to Zeno for including both pro- and con- articles from the paper. It is so easy to be selective and imbalanced, when with a little effort more perspectives can be included, furthering the conversation.

Raines

I support the Northeast Plan but do not support SMART.

NO ON Q: Dated concept too costly, would be underused, lead to overdevelopment

YES ON Q: Train would improve quality of life in region, cut
congestion, aid environment

[Dynamique]

Perhaps a more flexible and sensible solution to local transportation, especially in urban areas, is to set up a SmartCar rack and make those available on a co-op type basis. These are fabulous little electric cars that fold and stack up like grocery carts.

A reasonable, practical and affordable alternative to fossil-fuel vehicles is something that I would really like to see available TODAY!!

With respect to the nazi thing, riding a bike does not make one a bike-nazi. (Think soup-nazi from the Seinfeld show or femi-nazi from a certain blowhard drug addict.) Being German does not make one a Nazi, as the Israelis have been demonstrating over the past 10 years or so! Hijacking government and using it to create problems and shove them up other people's ass DOES make one a "-nazi."

Thanks for giving your personal reasons. I am also for electric cars and there are many people in my neighborhood who are car sharing them. I personally cannot afford one, so I choose to walk or bike. I am not sure about Marin Co., but I know that there is a 25 year building moratorium outside of the elected urban boundaries in Sonoma Co. and also I can see that growth is a real concern.

p.s. I am part German descent, but I am not a "bike- Nazi"

[hearthstone]

Supporting alternative transportation would be in order, if this quest for it would be paralleled by eliminating the need for any form transportation whatsoever--by bringing the reasons for the existence of transportation to within a walking distance of one's dwelling.

This would be the ultimately ideal sustainable form of transportation, undoubtedly.

Thank you, Hearthstone.

--
Designing Sustainable Sebastopol:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/SustainableSebastopol/

[Tars]

Sometimes, my friends, we need to think about projects that will take decades to come to fruition; SMART is one of those projects. Any plan that involves individual-powered vehicles for distance travel is stuck in the mid 20th century. All around the world, countries are developing rail systems. U.S. consumers are spoiled. They want their individual transportation units. And until now, in this area at least, they've defeated any efforts to move forward on this.

My thanks to all those people who were able to think a bit more longterm, and helped SMART get started.

Speaking of individual transportation - I regularly get passed by Prius', et al, on the freeway, while I'm cruising along at 55. Yesterday, one passed me like I was standing still - must've been going 70 at least. Didn't know those little things could go that fast. Why'd they buy a Prius?

[Dynamique]

However.... walking is a form of transportation!! One would need to plan and provide for safe walkways and reasonable distances between destinations.

Another thing that would reduce the need to have people go large distances on a regular basis is live-work type buildings. The old deal that our great-grandparents used, having the shop below and living above, is something that we need to restore.

Supporting alternative transportation would be in order, if this quest for it would be paralleled by eliminating the need for any form transportation whatsoever--by bringing the reasons for the existence of transportation to within a walking distance of one's dwelling.

This would be the ultimately ideal sustainable form of transportation, undoubtedly.

Thank you, Hearthstone.

--
Designing Sustainable Sebastopol:
https://groups.yahoo.com/group/SustainableSebastopol/

[Dynamique]

I must disagree with you on this point. trains and rail-based transportation are 18th century, centralized approaches that are not compatible with the needs and lifestyles of the 21st century. The rail systems in Europe are based on those developed during the 18th century andhave been in use in some form or another ever since.

The western U.S. grew after the invention of the automobile, so our infrastructure is based on that instead of trains. Forcing people to use trains or mass transit simply will not work. Whenever people have any sort of choice, they go for the individual vehicle. We need to change the power source of the vehicle and some other details, but abandoning the established infrastructure for some starry-eyed fantasy simply will not work.

Sometimes, my friends, we need to think about projects that will take decades to come to fruition; SMART is one of those projects. Any plan that involves individual-powered vehicles for distance travel is stuck in the mid 20th century. All around the world, countries are developing rail systems. U.S. consumers are spoiled. They want their individual transportation units. And until now, in this area at least, they've defeated any efforts to move forward on this.

[Sciguy]

It seems to me that the situation is incorrectly framed. I would suggest the question: what form of transportation can we create that combines the best qualities of automobiles with the energy efficiency of full trains. Automobiles give us the option to take off when we want and go to where we want, carrying lots of weight whether passengers or goods, gravel (in pickups) or purchases and travel in a controlled climate. They also make use of a huge infrastructure (roads, car manufacturing, repair networks, parts networks). Trains offer efficient use of energy and (if you agree that this is a benefit) a social experience; freedom from steering and controlling a vehicle and a nice view that you can actually watch going by. You can surely add to the lists. There is a way to blend both. It uses modified vans that use on-full departures. But every time I suggest how to do it, people seem to imagine some low grade version that has been forced into the illegal, unlicensed, bastardized niche (called by the romantic sobriquets of "gypsy" or "pirate") that is made available by a commercial society that bans anything not established as a super profit making establishment, such as taxis, cruise buses or luxuriously funded SMART trains. (did you know that the province of Ontario Canada has effectively banned carpooling and ride sharing - check on the web). We can have a network of smart Dolmushes (the Turkish name) that can come to your door or a nearby transportation hub, that are cheap, that let you carry extra packages, that use the existing automotive infrastructure, that always travel with lots of passengers and therefore use energy efficiently, that give you a controlled climate, a social experience and let you watch the countryside so you learn where you are living. It's a wonderful, well-performing system, that could revolutionize our transportation, if we would just stop moaning about trains, buses and other megaton, inefficient solutions that ride around half or entirely empty much of the time, and begin to work on logical transportation modes.

Sciguy

I must disagree with you on this point. trains and rail-based transportation are 18th century, centralized approaches that are not compatible with the needs and lifestyles of the 21st century. The rail systems in Europe are based on those developed during the 18th century andhave been in use in some form or another ever since.

The western U.S. grew after the invention of the automobile, so our infrastructure is based on that instead of trains. Forcing people to use trains or mass transit simply will not work. Whenever people have any sort of choice, they go for the individual vehicle. We need to change the power source of the vehicle and some other details, but abandoning the established infrastructure for some starry-eyed fantasy simply will not work.