CONTACT
US:
Marin Phone: (415) 419-3510
Sonoma Phone: (707)
583-2323
E-mail:
smart_train@hotmail.com
Mail: 90 Digital Drive, Novato, CA
94949
Website:
www.sonomamarintrain.org
ABOUT THIS
UPDATE: Sonoma Marin Area Rail
Transit (SMART) provides periodic updates to interested members of the
public. Please send us your
questions or comments by contacting us by phone, e-mail or regular mail. We want to hear from
you.
IN THIS
ISSUE:
EIR/EIS
Update
Station Area
Planning Work Begins
SMART In The
News
Help Spread
the Word
The Federal Transit Administration is currently reviewing the first draft SMART Alternatives Analysis. This document describes the specific alternatives to be studied during the environmental review process, e.g., the No Build Alternative, which includes no additional rail or transit services, Bus Alternative and Passenger Rail Alternative for North Bay residents. SMART is working with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the project’s consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff, to develop the EIR/EIS. The Administrative Draft of the EIR/EIS is expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2004.
Other project work includes a preliminary assessment of the NWP’s grade crossings and bridges to evaluate their current condition and to determine what repairs need to be done for passenger rail service. The team is also conducting simulations of service run times.
A Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee has also been organized to assist SMART in the design of a parallel bike and pedestrian facility. The committee’s first task is to identify areas along the corridor where it will be easy to build the bicycle-pedestrian path and areas where it will be more difficult to build due to space constraints within the right-of-way. The committee should complete this evaluation and have a final report by June. If you are interested in the work the committee is doing, or wish to comment on proposals as they are developed, meeting packets (including meeting agendas and minutes) will be posted on the SMART web site www.sonomamarintrain.org.
The next scheduled meeting for the Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee is May 20th at SMART’s Project Office, 90 Digital Drive in Novato.
Recent coverage of the SMART Project in the Marin Independent Journal and Press Democrat generated op-ed responses and additional public response. Since many of you don’t have easy access to both papers, we have incorporated them in this update.
Several
readers have already responded to the Marin Voice column by Nancy McCarthy,
which described the direction of land use and transportation planning in Marin
as a “developer’s ploy to destroy Marin for their own profit.” There are still a
few more glaring misconceptions from that column that require responses.
Myth1: We can choose not to create affordable
housing in Marin. The state of California has mandated that every county will
provide affordable housing. The exact number required for Marin, as well as
other Bay Area counties has been finalized through negotiations with the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The “regional housing needs
determination” for Marin is that we shall provide 6,515 total units by 2006;
almost 2000 of these must be affordable to those with “very low” to “low”
incomes. Penalties for not providing this housing can range from the county and
cities defending themselves in court (ala Corte Madera), to losing all
state funding for any development at all, including roads. For more information,
go to ABAG’s Web site (www.abag.org).
Providing
affordable housing in Marin is not optional. It is not a nefarious scheme by
real-estate developers or anyone else. Those in the Consortium for Affordable
Workforce Housing are working together to plan where this housing is going to go
so that we don’t end up with Ms. McCarthy’s vision where “we will be Fremont or
Pleasanton or Bakersfield.” Hundreds of those units might have been at St.
Vincent’s, in an ecologically sensitive plan focusing on pedestrian and bike
transportation, with 85 percent left to open space.
Now that
Susan Adams’ election has frightened local politicians into not pursuing that
option, this will require housing will be wedged into a neighborhood near you.
Don’t like it? Complain to you state representative, but stop attacking your
local planners; they aren’t making this up.
Myth 2: The SMART rail will terminate in San Rafael,
tangling traffic in downtown. The project mission of SMART is that “Rail service
will be provided from Cloverdale to the San Francisco bound ferry terminal in
Marin County” (see www.sonomamarintrain.org).
There are two factors
leading to the recent confusion about where the train will terminate. First
there is some question about where the ferry terminal will ultimately be.
Currently, it is at the Larkspur Landing. The two other proposed locations for
either additional or substitute ferry terminals are Port Sonoma and San Quentin.
Because the ultimate location is currently in question, there has been some
ambiguous verbiage about the location of the terminus, leading to the erroneous
idea that the rail will end in San Rafael. It will not.
The second factor leading to
this misunderstanding is the last survey of the public regarding rail. The
question on the survey was “Would you support rail from Cloverdale to San
Rafael?” No rational personal would want the train to end in San Rafael. Due to
the wording, the positive response was low, thus we had no tax measure to
support rail on the last ballot. This badly worded survey has led to a general
misunderstanding about where the rail is intended to end. Answer: it will end at
the ferry bound for San Francisco.
While the choice of car is
not final, the current focus is on the Colorado Railcar “diesel multiple unit”
(DMU). These cars are 90 feet long. The planners for SMART are well aware of the
distance between the blocks where the rail station may be placed. There will be
a limit of three DMUs for the trains going to central San Rafael so that traffic
is not impeded when the train is in the station.
Myth 3: Rail should pay for itself.
Ms. McCarthy also complains of the cost of the train. I refer her to the SMART
Web site for figures and projections on costs and ridership. I would remind her
that highways are not free either. Caltrans’ 10-year Highway System
Rehabilitation Program states that “increased vehicle miles traveled results in
a faster rate of pavement deterioration,” requiring $8.6 billion to repair
(1998-2008). That’s where your transportation taxes are currently going. Now add
up the cost of cars, gas, maintenance and insurance we each pay to meet our
basic transportation needs in this county. That is your current personal
transportation tax. Could that ever come close to the proposed sales tax
increase?
No public transit pays for
itself. If we are to prevent the scenario she describes – unlimited sprawl
across Marin, the loss of open space and deterioration of air quality – we need
start reallocating our transportation dollars, both individually and at the
city, county and state level to providing safe, convenient and environmentally
friendly transportation for all our citizens, drivers and non-drivers alike.
SMART is an essential part of fulfilling that vision, in combination with local
buses, the ferry and a network of bike and pedestrian
paths.
Along with the other
respondents to Ms. McCarthy’s article, I invite her to participate in the messy
work of planning the land use, housing and transportation for Marin County. It
is neither simple nor easy, but it is transparent and open to anyone who cares
to roll up their sleeves and grapple with hard questions.
Valerie Taylor is a board
member and transportation liaison for the Santa Venetia Neighborhood Association
and a co-founder of the North Bay Pro Rail Forum
By
Tim Smith
While I
appreciate the recent extensive coverage and editorial attention to the
implementation of passenger rail by the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District,
there are several corrections that need to be made.
First,
the SMART train will not end in San Rafael; we are actively planning to create a
seamless rail-ferry connection to San Francisco (and eventually the East Bay) at
one of three possible locations (Larkspur Landing, San Quentin or Port Sonoma).
Second,
your articles and editorial fail to mention the rigor and proven accuracy of
Carl Schiermeyer's previous ridership analyses.
As
opposed to the "critics" whose theories you quote, Schiermeyer has a solid
record of correctly predicting actual ridership. In fact he did the forecasts
for the other two routes you referenced: Inland Empire from Riverside to
Oceanside and the Altamont Commuter Express.
In both
instances Schiermeyer's forecasts, done in advance of the service
implementations were right on target, accurate within 5 percent of the actual
ridership counts. Further, Schiermeyer does not start with a priori assumptions
related to urban versus suburban environments. His ridership forecasts are based
purely on the type of service offered (peak headways, reverse commute figures,
off peak service levels), parking and shuttle availability, and the amount of
jobs convenient to the station locations.
In other
words, the distinctions are not suburban to suburban vs. suburban to city center
assumptions, but numerical inputs into his forecasting model. His track record
of proven results lead the SMART board to select him for our work in an effort
to provide the public with the best analyst available for commuter rail
forecasting work.
In
addition, your coverage failed to note the significant distinctions between the
operating environments of the different systems. Whereas the Altamount system is
limited to three one-way trains per day (based on controls imposed by owners of
the track), SMART does not have those restrictions as the rail right-of-way is
in public ownership. Hence, more trains can be scheduled, with no accompanying
"trackage fees", thereby contributing to the higher ridership forecast for
SMART.
Furthermore, the story did not fairly compare
SMART to Altamount Commuter Express; the story should have highlighted the fact
that ACE has approximately 85 percent occupancy and if they were to add trains,
they would be full as well, resulting in even higher ridership numbers.
Your
discussion of the differences between the San Diego Area Coaster train and SMART
are also misleading in that the size and location of cities along both the
Coaster and SMART rail corridors are much more alike than your article and
editorial imply.
An
additional concern raised by your articles was the feasibility and timing of
getting SMART up and running.
As
opposed to other transportation projects, the SMART rail right of way is already
under public ownership and the bulk of the rail infrastructure is already in
place, i.e. station sites, tunnels and bridges.
Repairing
and replacing ballast and rail is not a complicated or difficult process, given
the alignment is currently in place and station locations are within city center
sites. Existing bridges and tunnels must be rehabbed and upgraded, but the lead
time for rail rehabilitation is much less than a project that begins with no
infrastructure at all. With completion of the environmental draft documents and
preliminary engineering over the next 18 months, and assuming approval of a tax
measure by voters in November, 2004, SMART could begin construction in less than
two years.
In
addition, I take exception to the editorial characterizing this project as
lacking careful and complete analysis.
On the
contrary, the SMART Board, our dedicated staff and project team have done a very
thorough job in every assignment they have undertaken and have made these
analyses public through our Web site. The SMART project has also benefited from
input provided by the public, especially in Sonoma County. We have received
nothing but the highest praise from the experts in the field on the quality of
our work.
On behalf
of the SMART Board I want to express our pride in being associated with such a
highly qualified and hard-working group of individuals. At a time when the
nation and the world are looking to alternatives to the single-occupant
automobile -- in light of fuel costs, availability and environmental impacts --
SMART understands it's role in spearheading a cost-effective rail alternative
for North Bay residents.
We look
forward to continued public dialogue as we move the project forward.
Tim
Smith is a Sonoma County supervisor and the chairman of the SMART board of
directors.
Please forward this email
update to your friends, neighbors and co-workers. Better yet, send us the name
of anyone (including email lists) who you think ought to know about the train
and we’ll make sure to include them in future updates. If there are any topics
of interest you would like to have us cover, let us know with a quick call or
email or letter at:
Marin Phone: (415) 419-3510
Sonoma Phone: (707) 583-2323
E-mail:
smart_train@hotmail.com
Mail: 90
Digital Drive, Novato, CA 94949