36° CLEAR, Marin cities may be warming to SMART
Larkspur council may endorse rail plan; uptick of support in San Rafael
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at 6:07 p.m.
A change of heart at Larkspur City Hall and a poll in San Rafael suggest that Marin County's political landscape may be shifting in favor of the proposed 70-mile commuter train from Cloverdale to Larkspur, which needs voter approval of a sales tax Nov. 4 in two counties to move forward.
- Is the time right for rail?
- PD Editorial: Vote 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
- SMART ballot wording to change
- Measure Q Smart Quarter Cent Sales Tax - Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District
- Train advocates sue to force ballot language change
"It's entirely possible," San Rafael civic activist Jonathan Frieman said.
Dan Hillmer, the Larkspur city councilman proposing a pro-SMART collaboration -- instead of opposition -- between his city and Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit's proposed train, said it amounts to political movement.
"This is a shift," Hillmer said.
Hillmer, an architect and urban designer, also wants to bridge the 300-yard gap between the train's Larkspur station, its southern terminus, and the Larkspur ferry, possibly with an elevated moving walkway spanning Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
"One of the big complaints" about SMART, he said, is the gap, the basis for comments that the commuter line is a "train to nowhere."
"Well, let's connect them," Hillmer said, contending that an easy, no-waiting-time conveyance from the train to ferry would "get more people on the train."
In 2006, when a quarter-cent sales tax to support the SMART train narrowly failed, Larkspur was the lone Marin council to oppose the measure.
Tonight, the council is scheduled to consider both a multi-agency planning effort for the Larkspur Landing area, where the train would stop, and an endorsement of Measure Q, the revived sales tax measure on next month's ballot in Sonoma and Marin counties.
Hillmer and other Larkspur officials have said the council will either endorse the tax measure or take no official position.
"I hope they will decide to work with us," said Charles McGlashan, president of the Marin Board of Supervisors and SMART board chairman.
SMART's board is expected to approve the Larkspur Landing planning effort today, he said.
Two years ago, 70 percent of Sonoma County voters favored the rail tax, but a 57.5 percent "yes" vote in Marin pulled the two-county total down to 65 percent, just short of the 66 percent vote needed for approval.
Hillmer, who said he is "not enthusiastic" about the train, nonetheless said he personally will vote for Measure Q and its endorsement by the Larkspur council because the North Bay needs a transit plan.
Frieman said his online opinion poll, conducted in August, found that 47 percent of San Rafael voters "strongly support" SMART and 24 percent more are "somewhat in support." One-fourth of the 575 voters responding to the poll said they were "somewhat against" or "very much against" the train.
That could reflect a train-friendly sentiment, Frieman said, but he noted that Novato remains a pocket of opposition, largely because of the prospect of freight trains sharing the SMART rail line through that city.
The Marin Conservation League, which fought the rail tax in 2006, remains opposed to SMART, contending it costs too much for too little environmental benefit. "It's going to be a close race again," said Roger Roberts, the league's second vice president.
The $450 million rail system is expected to handle 5,300 passenger trips per day.
SMART also suffers politically from a perception in Marin that it will primarily serve Sonoma residents commuting into Marin, rather than Marinites headed north to work, Hillmer and Frieman said.
Dick Spotswood, a Marin political columnist, said he has not detected a significant shift in voter sentiment. The Larkspur council's apparent change of heart is a political reaction to the 55 percent pro-train vote in Larkspur two years ago, he said.
One factor favoring train advocates is an anticipated voter turnout of about 90 percent because of the presidential election, Spotswood said. Democrats dominate voter registration in the region and tend to support SMART, he said.
Marin voter turnout in 2006 was 74 percent; Sonoma County's was 76 percent.
Hillmer acknowledged that many Marin voters may still view the train as a Sonoma-serving transit system. But the high cost of gasoline may shift votes to SMART, he said, and a quick train-to-ferry link could help the cause.
SMART officials bristle at the "train to nowhere" notion, saying they will provide a free shuttle to the ferry terminal.
Hillmer said his proposed moving walkway would be built adjacent to an existing pedestrian bridge over Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. "You can walk (the distance), but you won't," he said.
You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat
.com.
Events Calendar More Events Submit Event
- A 'Deep Throat' reunion
- Rohnert Park woman dies in violent crash on Hwy. 116
- Bennett Valley rapist guilty, faces life in prison
- Thousands turn out to mourn in Angwin
- 'Twilight' edition: Fans greet vampires at midnight
- Sutter plans new Santa Rosa hospital
- 'Twilight' brings vampire love to SR at midnight
- NCS FOOTBALL PREVIEWS: Gauchos enter playoffs on a roll
- Tough times hit thrift stores
- Raiders' Johnson more than just a replacement
- A bishop, a king and a roux, too 16 min ago
- 'Bolt' helps Disney escape Pixar leash 24 min ago
- BROOKS: The recession and the shrinking middle class 29 min ago
- PINSKER: The myth of Lincoln and 'Rivals' 32 min ago
- PD Editorial: Supreme issue 34 min ago
- FRESNO BEE: No bailout for Big Three 35 min ago
- WALTERS: Businesses brace for property tax rise 35 min ago
- Letters to the Editor 36 min ago
- 26 malnourished children die 37 min ago
- Metrolink accident injures 4 near L.A. 50 min ago
Comments
Only moderator-approved comments are shown on this page. To see all comments, please visit the forum.Post a comment | View all comments on this topic.
October 15, 2008 7:39:32 am
RE: Link
Sorry, not good enough - the main problem with the train is that it's a DIESEL train - I can see wanting to use existing infrastructure as much as possible, but building another fossil-fuel system into it is going in the wrong direction. So it's supposed to be "odorless" (if you believe that); is that supposed to make it okay? There are better systems out there, and we need to utilize those, not support outdated technology.
October 15, 2008 7:55:17 am
Diesel is more efficient than gasoline. do you propose they continue driving their gasoline cars every day? If they get the (freight) rail in they can begin the process of updating the tracks and improving the efficiency of the trains and the network. Everything has to start somewhere. Your arguement sounds like someone who wants a bottle of Silver Oak but is living on a beer budget. (Let the Pacific Rail company) Show (that) the rail can be profitable and function (then pursue upgrades including passenger service and commuter trains). Who knows those diesel engines since they are compression fired engines may become prime candidates for a conversion over to hydrogen fuel. (Don't rule out older technologies and don't criticize what you donâ??t understand). (People constantly ridicule diesels as antiquated and stinky yet Europe has realized their efficiency and cleanliness over their less efficient more fuel thirsty gasoline counter parts that California and the EPA like to embrace.) (electric trains unless you support Nuclear technology which most of our electricity comes from sources other than nuclear and air probably comes from a fossil fuel fueled power plant so no gain other than saving you sinusâ??s here and putting the stench upon someone else)Pacific Railroad Company, the freight operator planning to use SMART tracks. - You have this wrong, Pacific Rail already purchased the tracks and has been attempting to upgrade them for rail freight for over two years, SMART and pacific will have a joint use agreement (if it passes). Hopefully it does not pass and the litmus test for any passenger service is left up to the owners of the tracks)I need to add since my post came off wrong: above in parenthesis is added to clarify)
I do not like smart and will not be voting for it due to the tax burden that i believe it will bring upon us.
I support a focus on freight service, that the private company Pacific Rail has been pursuing for the last few years but the lawsuits brought on by Marin and their agenda has almost ruined any future of freight service in Sonoma County. I caught the comment attacking this because it uses a diesel engine is like CA banning diesel cars for the last couple of years and then complaining about fuel consumption.
DIESEL is far more efficient than Gasoline will ever be.
And Freight / Rail service
October 15, 2008 8:15:02 am
The "train to nowhere" label is NOT eliminated by
simply running the tracks right to the ferry dock.
The Larkspur ferry dock IS NOWHERE in terms of a practical place to go. AND note the contributors and recall the call to build the Fountaingrove
Expressway, which was pushed as a speedy boon for
cross-city drivers but was actually the sneaky backdoor opening for developing the entire
hillside AND ridgetops of Fountaingrove. And a place to get speeding tickets if you go too fast.
October 15, 2008 8:16:42 am
The Train To Nowhere will be voted down by a large margin. The American taxpayer is sick and tired of government officials wasting their money. We know darn well that 1/4% will be only the beginning. A couple of years from now you'd come back to us saying that costs have risen and now you need another 1/4% to finish the job. I will say one thing though, hiring Chris Coursey sure has gotten you more press. My vote: NO
October 15, 2008 8:48:25 am
The reason Marin is warming up to the train because they have read the Cal Trans studies that predict the commute will REVERSE in about five years AND THEY WILL BE THE ONES STUCK IN TRAFFIC ! Heaven Forbid, they want a nice ride of a train, now that it will benefit them.
October 15, 2008 8:50:35 am
Few weeks back the PD did a piece on San Diegoâ??s Sprinter (Trains on parallel tracks, Sept. 28).
Well I did a little checking on my own and the picture is not as rosy as portrayed. Current ridership of the Sprinter is at 8,000 a day, far short of the 12,000 riders that had been projected. More telling is the lengths the transit district has had to go to in order to achieve these meager results. When ridership fell below 5,000 a day the district slashed the monthly pass fee and canceled all competing bus service. By districtâ??s own admission, 75% of current riders are former bus riders.Thatâ??s not really taking cars off the road is it.
October 15, 2008 9:14:08 am
I'd pay the 1/4% just for the bike trail from Cloverdale to San Rafael that will be next to the track. 54(?) miles of car-free riding, walking, jogging. Yes, there are some intersections, but few compared to biking through town.
October 15, 2008 9:21:22 am
From reading up on this SMART train. It sounds nice, but average cost of riding there and back would be around $8 a day? What's the difference of putting gas in your car and driving yourself? in the end, this will cost more to taxpayers, and even more when its actually complete. $8 now, but when it is complete, it will probably be $10. Just like when they approved the 3rd lane for the 101. All this money, and they make it a commuter lane? That's still not going to effect traffic very much. In a few years, they're going to be asking for more money for a fourth lane, which what they should've done. Waste of money, not as many people would ride this. Where you gonna go? Walk 1 mile to your job after you get dropped of at the train station? No thanks.
Post a comment | View all comments