In 2006, voters in Marin and Sonoma Counties very narrowly turned down a 1/4-percent sales tax whose proceeds would fund Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART), the project that would rehabilitate the 70-mile right of way (formerly of Northwestern Pacific) between Cloverdale in northern Sonoma County and Larkspur in Marin County. This year, that project is once again on the ballot in the form of Measure Q, again as a 1/4-percent sales tax requiring 2/3 approval for passage. SMART would operate DMUs (essentially, light diesel commuter rail) every 30 minutes at peak, with limited weekday and weekend service, comparable to the Sprinter in Oceanside-Escondido. The project also includes a pathway for cyclists and pedestrians along the right of way. The train would not connect directly to San Francisco, a fact that has prompted opponents to dub it the “train to nowhere.” But this claim is really without basis considering North Bay commute patterns: in 2000, a little over 75% of Sonoma County home-based work trips remained in the county; for Marin, a smaller percentage but still over half of home-based work trips remained inside the county. More trips still were carried out between the two counties, but still without a bay crossing. San Francisco is not presently the predominant travel market, and it won’t be in the future either, as this trend is expected to solidify and strengthen as new jobs are added to the North Bay. Even though most SMART riders will not be riding the train to Larkspur to transfer to a San Francisco-bound ferry, we still might wish that the Larkspur station had been brought all the way to the ferry terminal, and not a shuttle ride or ten-minute walk away. Nonetheless, we’re excited by the possibility of trains returning to grace the North Bay’s landscape of town centers and verdure pastures. Just like downtowns emerged on the Peninsula along the Southern Pacific right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose, so, too, towns in the North Bay were developed along the Northwestern Pacific right-of-way. In that sense, SMART, just as Caltrain currently does on the Peninsula, would provide convenient service to North Bay downtowns. SMART is a worthy project, and North Bay voters are encouraged to vote Yes on Measure Q for SMART.

SMART track runs through downtown San Rafael, which is already a regional bus hub; SMART would upgrade the station to an intermodal transit hub, a natural spot to plan for transit-oriented development. Courtesy of Northbayist.

Leading the charge against SMART are Mike Arnold and Joy Dahlgren, and the “North Bay Citizens for Effective Transportation” (NBCET). Although formerly known as the Marin Citizens for Effective Transportation, the name was presumably changed to trick voters into thinking that the anti-SMART campaign has picked up enough steam to become a bi-county effort — this despite Sonoma County’s consistently strong show of support for the train. NBCET’s claims are usually formulated from actual facts, but they are stated in a way that is intended more to deceive than to educate. As such, its claims are not too convincing, and I hope that voters in Marin and Sonoma will not find them too convincing, either. Arnold has chanted ad nauseum that the project is an expensive boondoggle, but we have to wonder — has he actually looked at the price of building transit these days? Rehabilitating the 70-mile right of way would cost about $541 million, which, at less than $8 million per mile, is basically the cheapest major transit infrastructure project in the Bay Area. Out of fear of freight operations, NBCET has urged that the right-of-way be paved for bus service, but every BRT project currently in planning is significantly more expensive, per mile, than SMART. (We also ought to know better by now than to pave over a right of way when we are lucky to have one at our disposal, least of all one that is seventy miles long.) And speaking of freight: the North Coast Railroad Authority could run freight even without SMART; rather, freight run times would necessarily be limited by having SMART operate on the same track. Most Marin voters, at least, need not worry in any case, as freight would not run south of the wye at the Highway 101/37 interchange.

Initially, the train has been predicted to have only about 5,300 riders each weekday, but there are at least a couple reasons to believe that this projection is an understatement. First, the projections were calculated when gasoline costs were a fraction of what they were this summer (in reaction to which ridership increased across the Bay Area, including on Golden Gate Transit), and prices are expected to increase long-term, most likely triggering still further increases in ridership. Second, the projections assumed that freeways would be widened, notably the notorious Novato Narrows bottleneck; but the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is now under increased legal scrutiny for prioritizing exactly these sorts of freeway widening projects, the construction of which would be detrimental to climate change and air quality. In the event that the Novato Narrows is not widened, a revised estimate from 2006 predicted that SMART ridership would increase 7%, but that correction factor was itself a conservative estimate. Both of these factors point to an understated ridership projection.

A mostly unspoiled hillside in San Rafael; courtesy of Northbayist.

It has been further suggested by SMART’s opponents that the North Bay would be better served by more buses roaming leafy suburban streets, rather than by running trains on a fixed guideway. But the North Bay is a fundamentally auto-oriented place, and simply running more bus service will not effect a large change in the North Bay’s attitude toward transit — at least, not without a corresponding shift in land use patterns. And on that point, an important nugget of advocacy has been downplayed by SMART’s supporters, perhaps not surprisingly, given that they face both NIMBYs and Marin County’s so-called “environmentalists,” who oppose all development and growth of any type, including smart growth. Notwithstanding SMART, both Sonoma and Marin Counties are expected grow considerably in the next two decades, adding about 130,000 new jobs and 130,000 new residents to the North Bay by the year 2025; this will increase the number of trips between Marin and Sonoma. Where will those new jobs and homes be placed: in downtowns, or sprawled across once-pristine hillsides? And will those new trips be made on transit, or in automobiles? Building SMART presents a unique opportunity to channel new growth into North Bay downtowns. In the process, we’d create more vibrant, walkable city centers, while preserving for future generations the lovely natural setting of which the North Bay is quite rightly so proud.

The time has come to restore rail transit to the last major part of the Bay Area that lacks it. I’m not sure how many Marinites and Sonomans read this site, but for those that do: Yes on Measure Q.

Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) will likely be going up for the ballot again this November. Most recently, in the November 2006 election, the Measure R quarter-cent sales tax for SMART failed — falling just short of the required 2/3 of votes in both counties, despite cleaning up with 70% of the votes in Sonoma, a county whose rapid growth calls out for a rail line to channel sustainable development patterns. The plan for SMART is to operate DMUs (possibly light DMUs, use of which would require approval from the FRA) along the old Northwestern Pacific Railroad right of way, a roughly 70-mile, generally single-tracked route with passing sidings, running from Cloverdale in northern Sonoma County to Larkspur in Marin County, serving North Bay downtowns, including Santa Rosa and San Rafael, and within shuttle access of other employment centers. The plan also includes a pathway for cyclists and pedestrians along the right of way. The southern terminus is a quarter-mile from the Larkspur ferry terminal, where riders can transfer from the train to a ferry for San Francisco via a connection that is not nearly as seamless as it should be for a regional connection point. Naysayers — headed by Mike Arnold and his gang, the Marin Citizens for “Effective Transportation” — emphasize that the route is predicted to capture just 5,300 daily riders and hence is not cost-effective as measured on a per passenger basis. (Of course, the original ridership forecasts date from when gasoline cost half what it does now. And prices were still substantially lower than they are now even when the updated forecasts were released, thus not weighing the potentially powerful persuasive effect of $7 per gallon gas.) In the interest of keeping this post to a reasonable length, we will postpone more detail about the actual SMART proposal and its opposing forces for another day, taking it here as a given that the project should be built. This post is meant to be about brainstorming and fun pipe dreams, not politics.

SMART’s supporters have worked to convince voters that even though trains would not directly serve San Francisco, it is nonetheless not a “train to nowhere.” In a very real sense, they are correct. Although there are details to work through in terms of station placement, the proposed SMART route goes exactly where it should, serving what is really the only corridor that will accommodate travel between Marin and Sonoma Counties. Most future SMART riders will not ride the train to transfer to a San Francisco-bound ferry in Larkspur. This may be in part due to the additional fare and time associated with the imperfect mode shift from train to ferry — but an important factor is that most North Bay commuters work in the North Bay, not in San Francisco. In 2000, a little over 75% of Sonoma County home-based work trips remained in the county; for Marin, a smaller percentage but still over half of home-based work trips remained inside the county. Clearly, then, San Francisco is not the predominant travel market, but it is far from inconsequential. There are still a lot of trips between Marin and adjacent counties across the water, and transit is carrying a small share of these trips. Annual average daily traffic at the Marin/San Francisco county line in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge span was roughly 118,000 in 2007; annual average daily traffic at the Marin/Contra Costa county line, on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, was roughly 69,000 in 2007. But on an average weekday in 2007, Golden Gate Transit carried 24,109 trips, merely 8,014 of which were peak-hour transbay trips, and Golden Gate Ferry carried 6,590 trips.

The lower predicted ridership at Larkspur highlights the fact that the ferry + SMART combination will capture few additional transbay trips to San Francisco, and it will not do a great deal to increase transit share in the Golden Gate corridor in the way that BART has for travel between San Francisco and the East Bay. That this should be so is not really that surprising. Even if the connection between SMART and the Larkspur Ferry were made to be as tight as possible, the process of unloading a train out onto a ferry is not instantaneous, and this mode shift will unavoidably lengthen travel times and increase fare cost. (The analogy is not perfect, but imagine a version of BART that terminated in Jack London Square, forcing East Bay riders to hop on a ferry to access San Francisco. Not only would ridership be lower, but such a system would create an inherently lower cap on capacity.) All in all, the current SMART proposal is a worthy project to bring rail transit back to the North Bay, and it is necessary to increase capacity in a commute corridor that promises to be only more heavily used in the future. But the rail line still remains isolated from the Bay Area’s rail network. So we present the following map — very much a pipe dream — which strives to integrate an electrified SMART into the Bay Area regional rail network, while still fulfilling MTC’s vision for building a regional rail link along two “stretch and grow” corridors in San Francisco: Folsom Street and Van Ness Avenue. This branch of the SMART extension is superimposed on the San Francisco subway dream map that was posted a few months ago. Another branch extends across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to join the Capitol Corridor in the East Bay.

The map color-coding scheme:

	Capitol Corridor; Caltrain (the Caltrain ROW includes high speed rail).
	SMART
	BART
	Muni Metro Light Rail

The first map depicts a branch along the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. SMART trains would meet BART trains at Richmond Station, but, what’s even better, would also meet the standard gauge Capitol Corridor, opening up new possibilities for enhanced regional connectivity.

The second map depicts a possible San Francisco branch. South of San Rafael, stations could be added in Corte Madera, Mill Valley, and Sausalito, as shown above. In San Francisco, the line would align along Lombard, Van Ness, and Folsom to serve Civic Center and South of Market, with transfer opportunities to Muni Metro, a future Geary BART subway, and also to Caltrain and high-speed rail at the Transbay Transit Center.

The cost-effective but politically challenging version of the San Francisco extension would be to dedicate two lanes on Highway 101 for exclusive bus use, and then run buses in the dedicated BRT transitway that is currently in planning for Van Ness Avenue. But given the lack of a regional rail link to the North Bay and a goal of connecting more closely to the actual SMART proposal that will hopefully succeed on this November’s ballot, it is tempting to strive for more in the long-term. It is a general rule that rail lines attract more ridership than their BRT alternatives, but it is also interesting to note that even without an existing rail option, North Bay transit ridership trends for the past several years have shown a clear shift away from buses to the one available non-bus option: the ferry. Along with other transit agencies across the Bay Area, the year 2000 was a dot-com bubble peak ridership point for Golden Gate Ferry, with over 6,000 daily riders; this number declined over the next few years, but then increased about 32% by 2007, exceeding the 2000 figure. During the same period in which the ferry experienced a decline followed by a surge in ridership, Golden Gate Transit bus ridership decreased steadily by about 25%. Ridership on GGT’s transbay bus routes followed a downward trend similar to that experienced by the system as a whole. Rising gas costs have helped to reverse this trend just this year — bus ridership has increased, and ferry ridership has decreased, per the District, because of vessels in dry dock. It is likely that this shift is attributable to a greater interest in transit that would, in turn, extend to a rail line. The SMART line as proposed for the ballot, while diverting some bus riders onto the train, would also encourage people to travel more often without an automobile and to take advantage of bus service as a means of filling in gaps in the train schedule, with the ultimate goal of increasing overall transit share. Of course, because the real-life SMART proposal does not connect to San Francisco, no negative impact is expected on Golden Gate Transit’s transbay bus routes. It is almost certainly the case that the pipe dream version of SMART, with a direct rail link to San Francisco, would severely decrease ridership on the GGT transbay lines (though AC Transit is an immediate example suggesting that some transbay bus routes could be maintained). But once again, the overall goal here is not to preserve the currently existing transbay bus routes indefinitely. Rather, the goal is to increase transit share, balanced against the need to not adversely affect the reach of local bus service.

We should note that Marin was part of the original five-county BART district, before both San Mateo and Marin Counties opted out of the plan. The decision to opt out was related to bridge studies carried out at the time, in which it was determined that both the Golden Gate Bridge and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge — to varying extents, and for a mixture of financial and engineering reasons — could not carry both automobiles and BART trains. So the above maps really are a pipe dream, in the truest sense of the word, and not least because it would require another look-see at the engineering, potential bridge modifications, narrow sections of the NWP right of way, and other issues. This pipe dream configuration would not be a starting point because of the extreme expense, and the San Francisco branch makes the most sense when bundled with one or more other rail services in the same corridor (in the above map, a Muni Metro line that we would not see for a long time). Not only that, but the the 2025 projection of SMART ridership per route mile, while higher than that of ACE, is closer to ACE levels than it is to Caltrain. So this discussion may be premature, but if we never brainstorm and think big, we’ll be boxing ourselves in before we even get started.

The configuration that is a starting point is the actual SMART proposal going on the ballot this November. ABAG forecasts predict that 130,000 new residents and about the same number of new jobs will be added in both counties by the year 2025, which will increase trips within the North Bay and between Sonoma and Marin. Where those new jobs and homes are placed matters. The presence of an active rail line in Sonoma and Marin can act as a catalyst to jumpstart dense growth near the stations, building a natural ridership of those who live and work near the line. Once that happens, a pipe dream extension like the one mapped here could provide the incentive for still more concentrated growth in downtowns along the route. It would bring the isolated, auto-dependent North Bay into the fold of the greater Bay Area, by connecting to the Capitol Corridor and to BART. It would also enhance a rail transit spine that could be complemented by a network of local streetcar routes serving San Rafael, Mill Valley, Tiburon, and other cities in Marin County. The land use point needs to be hammered home, though. We do not want to write off the North Bay as a hopeless case for smart growth, because the Bay Area really cannot afford to write off any of its cities as hopeless — least of all cities lying along a regional rail link. North Bay communities should reconsider the long-term feasibility of staunchly maintaining small-town charm at all costs, and they should seriously question how it is that such a policy has somehow masqueraded as being “pro-environment.” They will have to radically rethink their current land use policies to maximize home and job density within a half-mile to a mile of SMART stations. Given that we cannot simply continue to widen Highway 101 every few years, cities should really be doing this anyway.

It probably goes without saying that my that my opinions about these these candidates are based on more than just their records on transit and planning issues — in fact, that may have only been a small part of the equation. But I figured that if you are reading this blog, you are probably interested in the candidates’ perspectives on these topics — particularly because in campaigning, these issues often get lost in the shuffle, even though some of us find them to be extremely important. So that is the focus of these blurbs, as a starting point; readers are of course encouraged to research other issues they care about. This post does not pretend to be a thorough or equal discussion of all candidates campaigning for the same position — nor is this a complete list of all races. Candidates are after the jump.

Senate District 3 (Eastern San Francisco, Marin & Sonoma Counties): MARK LENO. Leno’s record demonstrates a commitment to environmental and transportation issues. Most notably, in 2007 he authored the Complete Streets bill (AB 1358), which would require the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to create guidelines for safely accommodating the movement of all users of the street, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and the disabled — and in turn, when cities and counties revise the circulation element of their general plans, they would do so in accordance with the updated OPR guidelines. He also co-authored the Safe Routes to School bill (AB 57). Leno has served as a member of the Assembly’s Smart Growth Caucus, and the SF Bicycle Coalition has noted Leno’s support of other transportation proposals, including SMART, congestion pricing, and the Bay Bridge bicycle path. As to Carole Midgen: she has done some fine work in the Senate, but her substantial noncompliance with campaign finance rules is more than a little worrisome — and seeing as how this three-candidate race has basically boiled down to a two-candidate Mark Leno v. Joe Nation race, the progressive vote should unite behind Leno. Leno is upbeat, smart, passionate about his work, blends idealism with pragmatism, and is simply a stand-up professional. I would be very happy to have him represent District 3 in the Senate.

Senate District 9 (Northern/Eastern Alameda County, West Contra Costa County): WILMA CHAN & LONI HANCOCK. A race between Wilma Chan (former Assembly Majority Leader, 16th District) and Loni Hancock (Assembly, 14th District), for Don Perata’s seat. This race is not in my district, so I admit I have not been following it as closely, at least not since Chan made campaign finance violation allegations against Hancock — and this is actually one of Hancock’s pet issues, since she authored the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. (And for whatever it’s worth, Chan has been sending out suspect mailers that misleadingly imply a Barack Obama endorsement.) Chan has been endorsed by Jerry Brown, and Hancock has been endorsed by Barbara Lee, each of whom I respect for different reasons. Both Chan and Hancock have served as members of the Assembly’s Smart Growth Caucus, and both have worked on the environment, e.g. by co-authoring AB 32, the greenhouse gas cap bill. Hancock chairs the Natural Resources Committee in the Assembly and has demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental issues, while Chan has concentrated time on other very worthy issues while she was in the Assembly, including health care and banning chemicals from toys and other goods. Given Hancock’s commitment to environmental causes, I might be inclined to vote for her if I lived in this district, but it really depends on how one prioritizes the issues. Chan has done some very good work, and I could also see her determination winning me over. Bottom line: either candidate would represent this district well in the Senate.

Assembly District 12 (Western San Francisco, Daly City, Colma): FIONA MA. So she isn’t perfect, but she is also an unopposed incumbent (and Majority Whip), so there is not much choice. But I do want to acknowledge Ma here for her commitment to improving transit — particularly in pushing for high speed rail in preparation for the bond vote this November. In spring of last year, she boarded the record-breaking 357 mph TGV run, and this year she joined other California legislators on a trip to Spain and Japan to study foreign high speed rail systems. She has become a valuable HSR ally in the Assembly, emphasizing HSR’s economic benefits, its role in reducing transportation emissions by providing a much-needed alternative mode of travel beyond automobile and plane, and the need to jumpstart this project sooner rather than later. Ma also authored AB 1221, which would allow for tax increment funding of transit villages, and AB 101, which is an amendment to the Vehicle Code that would allow footage from video cameras mounted on Muni vehicles to be used as evidence to enforce parking violations in transit-only lanes.

Assembly District 13 (Eastern San Francisco): TOM AMMIANO. Okay, so this one wasn’t so hard, since Ammiano is, after all, running unopposed for Leno’s 13th District seat, but he will be a good guy to have on our side in the Assembly. Although he is probably better known for San Francisco’s universal health care ordinance and his work on behalf of the LGBT community, Ammiano has also been a strong transit advocate throughout his time serving as Supervisor of SF’s 9th District. He is an MTC Commissioner and one of four SF Supervisors on the board of the Golden Gate District, not to mention a member of Rescue Muni. Although his district is especially sensitive on smart growth and displacement issues, Ammiano has generally taken SF’s transit-first policy to heart, discouraging road construction that would only increase car use, supporting use of tools like congestion pricing, working towards the procurement of cleaner Muni technology, and advocating for transit riders even in the face of budgetary constraint. He was also a co-sponsor of Proposition A (Muni Reform Initiative) which voters passed in the November 2007 election.

Assembly District 19 (Northern/Central San Mateo County): JERRY HILL. This is a three-way race involving County Supervisor Jerry Hill, Mayor of Millbrae Gina Papan, and Richard Holober, who is president of the San Mateo County Community College Board. From the transit and environmental perspective, Jerry Hill is a no-brainer to endorse as the successor to Gene Mullin’s seat, as he will provide a strong voice for these issues in the Assembly, and he has been the most vocal about making it a part of his campaign. Hill also has the most experience in elected office. From the transit perspective, Hill has served on the SamTrans Board of Directors, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers board, and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board. He has also served as President of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, as Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and as a member of the California Air Resources Board. As 2nd District County Supervisor, he has worked to preserve open space in San Mateo County, and he co-sponsored a Sustainable Building Policy requiring that new County buildings be constructed to LEED standards.

Don’t forget to get out and vote on Tuesday June 3! If you do not already know your polling place, click here to find out where it is.