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

<p>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.</p><p>The SMART train is not a green solution to traffic congestion. It is a recipe for fiscal malfeasance and environmental menace.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>If measure Q passes, powerful forces will propel massive growth and urbanization from Petaluma to Cloverdale under the rubric of "transit villages."</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>(Joan Vilms is a land conservation consultant and broker. Ernie Carpenter is a former Sonoma County supervisor for the 5th District.)</p>