The real decisions were/are being made in a year's worth of ad-hoc meetings. This is just for public consumption and to give the appearance of propriety. In spite of Tam's authority, and regardless of SMART's fate, this should be put to the voters. It's a major departure from the perceived intent of an agreement that undoubtedly swayed many of the votes on Measure Q, and unquestionably, Susan Adams' abstention on the matter in 2008 . People are both weary and wary of being asked for more and more, only to receive less and less... and with no fundamental changes to business-as-usual. Anything less would jeopardize all future approval of initiatives aimed at the taxpayers being asked to offer up funding for Marin's future infrastructural needs, and the memory of the voters is increasing out of forced necessity. Calling this a fair and impartial process is absurd, and calling it a "joke" is being very, very kind.

...and let's call it what it is- it's not a "donation", it's a "bailout"

With that in mind- Wall Street would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your "donation".

If Sonoma wants it so bad then let them, pay for it.

It TAM approves the bailout then I suspect that we have corruption afoot which needs investigation.

I am opposed to Marin County providing this $8 million to help SMART for these reasons:
- SMART will be serving basically all of Sonoma County from the northernmost point in Cloverdale to the southernmost point in Petaluma -- whereas it will only serve the northern half of Marin County from Novato to San Rafael (even though it would end in Larkspur at the ferry terminal, it's doubtful it would be used by commuters in Larkspur to get to the ferry terminal).
- Of the 80 miles of track, 62.5% or 43.75 miles of track will be in Sonoma C ounty, whereas 37.5% or 26.25 miles of track will be in Marin County.
- SMART will have six stations in Sonoma County (Healdsburg, Windsor, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Petaluma) and only one or two in Marin County (Novato and San Rafael were proposed, and now it seems the station in Novato will be eliminated, leaving one in Marin).
- SMART would be serving nine cities in Sonoma County and five in Marin County.
- Marin County taxpayers are already served by the ferries from the Larkspur and Sausalito terminals, so do not stand to benefit to the same degree as commuters from Sonoma County.
- If cuts are to be made in the overall SMART project the bike path would be the most logical cut. When one compares the number of bike riders who would use the bike path to the number of commuters who would ride the trains it's lopsided and the number of people who benefit from the train far outweighs the number will benefit from a bike path.

The initial SMART financial plan was dubious at best. Now the Wizards of SMART admit they are short of money and say they will build the train to no where. TAM should keep their funds to do the work they were intended to...not give them away to an agency that will someday be bankrupt holding many miles of unimproved railroad right of way and no working product for the millions wasted.

Thank you for the clarification, Dianne. However, I expressed a personal opinion that in no way was meant to be taken as fact, just a generally expected set of norms that have come to represent the growing sentiment of taxpayers who have seen this project rammed through by all means possible. I also believe that Diane Steinhauser's comments as to a year long ad-hoc relationship with SMART speaks volumes as to the probable outcome. What would the purpose of these meetings be...negotiation of the terms of a deal, repeated pleading on the part of SMART...? Would TAM be willing to make the minutes and/or results of those meetings available in order to assuage any question on the part of the citizens that the process was indeed untainted by any form of cronyism? Let's be honest- given the circumstances, as well as the very proposition that the there can be any misinterpretation of the intentions behind the "Adams Amendment", people aren't exactly enthralled with the idea that their trust and best interests are being looked after in an unbiased and responsible manner. "No" means "No"! It's really that simple.

$8 Million is a small price to pay for the benefits that SMART will bring.

Okay, how about we restructure this whole thing to be fair. Sonoma stays in the SMART sales tax game and the project proceeds as planned. The sales tax is removed in Marin. Marin pays NOTHING in sales tax for SMART... BUT, any Marin County resident who rides SMART pays the full cost of that ride, expressed as a pro rata share of the per passenger overall operating expense, and every Marin County business who employs anyone who rides SMART to work in Marin pays a "green" tax of the difference between the fare paid by their employee and the actual cost of the employee's ride, expressed as a pro rata shre of the per passenger overall operating expense. This "green tax" would be paid directly to the employee upon presentation of their commute tickets, thereby equalizing the taxes paid by the Sonoma employee and the Marin employer who benefited from SMART's availability to their workforce.

So, the question becomes, "Will Marin put its money where its mouth is?"

Let's see how that might work out on a daily basis- Phase I expenses for 13 years of operation is calculated to be about $470 mil. Daily projected ridership as it currently stands is generously estimated at about 1200 passenger trips (600 round trip). Let's make the rough assumption that each of those riders is going to use the train about 260 days per year. On the pro rata basis necessary to cover the costs of both construction and operation using the above figures during the 13 year term of that $470 mil, the typical user would have to pay just under $116 per day for SMART to break even. Results may vary, but even if you give SMART the full benefit of the doubt and allow them their projected 5000 daily riders, that still works out to a one-way trip costing about $14...so the proposed $4.50 fare only covers about 1/3 of what's necessary to run the thing. Perpetual sudsidization and socialism aside, it's not exactly the stuff that successful railroads are made of.

It amazes me how members of an ad-hoc committee, who meet in secret, then come forward with a plan, argue there is plenty of time for public comment. Yes, that is, if the public even knows about what they're thinking of, and they're willing to come to several meetings late into the night to address people they hardly know for 3 minutes.

The impression I had last night at the TAM -- and people can watch the video and make their own decisions -- the fix is in. Sonoma County is adopting their $3MM contribution next week. Now, how would they even know about this if there wasn't a deal cut behind closed doors?

The TAM is prepared to circumvent the big promise, citing words and language the public never understood had loopholes. TAM members absolutely know the public was told -- repeatedly -- that NO Marin funds would be used for SMART. Even supporters agree with this. Heck they're the ones that said it in the many debates running up to November 2008.

And, yet, they're willing to break this promise on a gamble: the public will forget next time TAM puts a measure in front of the voters. They're hoping that when Measure A comes up for renewal that no one will remind the voters "TAM can't be trusted. They broke their promise. Why give them more of your hard earned dollars?"

Maybe they're right. But it doesn't answer the core issue.

This is not the project the public voted for. They did not vote for a train that goes no farther south than San Rafael.

And everyone should remember: it was the same ad-hoc -- behind closed door process -- that led the TAM in 2008 to endorse SMART's faulty claims that it had enough money to build and operate a train on 70 miles of track. They didn't then, they don't now.

And did any TAM member ask "Gee, how come it took SMART 2 years to find out that repairing bridges and tunnels were going to cost $150MM more than they had told the public?"

Responsible politicians don't want to ask the hard questions: what did SMART know and when did they know it? Why would they? The answer would only make their lives all the more difficult. Better to stuff the truth, put their head in the sand, and hope for the best, just like they did in 2008.

If you are truly environmentally green, you must be against the SMART train. Why? SMART is an engine FOR sprawl. It encourages the idea that one can live 30-40-50 miles, or more, from where they work. If that's not sprawl, what is?

If Greenhouse Gases worry you (and they should!) then the $470 million in SMART costs would buy 18,800 Prius', more than triple the generous ridership number of 5,000. So, let's take that money and build a fleet of "rentable" electric vehicles for the commute. It'll provide more impact than people on the train. (I understand there's a pilot program starting to link-up carpools in real time. This would go well with the cars.) Likewise, even electric buses are a better scenario than SMART.

If it's congestion the train is aiming at, that just encourages sprawl. It's VERY unsustainable, both globally and locally, to think that people should live an hour or more from their work. So, exactly what problem is SMART solving?

Most importantly, voters elect representatives as a public trust, to do the right thing. Yes, the bicycle people want their path, so build one for them. But elected representatives - such as Diane Furst above - should understand that people cease to trust government when it becomes ossified and unresponsive. At this point an unyielding, inflexible stance on SMART is no better than Republicans claiming that all oil drilling is good. Nothing is all good or all bad, and even the best intentioned project can run into unexpected economic times and no longer make sense. Government needs to provide solutions, not mindlessly stick with something because the project is already started.

Lastly, for better or worse, money is a measure of resource costs. If $470 million can more easily lessen greenhouse gases another way, or provide a better transportation options then it's incumbent on the leadership to recognize that fact. Otherwise, this is just spending for the sake of spending.

Last thing: Let's not forget that every agency involved is in the business of encouraging spending and mindless expansion. Did they ever meet a project they didn't like? Maybe they've met some they couldn't fund; but have they ever said "That project makes no sense. It's too costly for a low benefit."

I double-dare a TAM Commissioner to answer. What have you every turned away as a bad idea when you had the money to fund it? If there's nothing then TAM is the Will Rogers of government spending: Never met a project they didn't like.

Trains are incredibly efficient ways to get around in high density areas...look at SF or all large cities in Europe (don't look at Portland, the traffic is actually worse). Trains are also incredibly efficient for moving freight, with a very low cost per ton/mile. But we move the vast majority of our freight on trucks, because it provides for much more flexibility and timeliness to get product to market (hard to sell fresh fruit and vegetables after a week)...SMART was originally an interesting proposition for transit, with the idea of going from Cloverdale (which has a nice little station) all the way to the ferry..now it has costs ballooned out of all proportion..and it won't cover nearly the original distance..this has been an "over promise and under deliver" from the beginning, and maybe it is really time to take a fresh look at some flexible bus routes (small buses) to get people where they need to go..to satisfy the now all powerful bike lobby, they can have bike racks too...while no transit pays its full costs, this doesn't really appear to be capable of paying even a token share of its costs...

Sonoma has already provided $11 Million. We need to use part of the $800 million from 101 widening to give a small by comparison $8 million to the train. We subsidize the roads and airports, when what we need is a train. Most of the work in my family is done without commuting, but when we commute we must get to the Ferry to get to SF- what a waste to drive when we could use the train- get some work done while traveling and keep our GHGs low. Marin needs to put its money where its beliefs are- invest in the train for all of us, our kids and our future.

I usually try to keep up with the latest news. I do read the newspapers (I.J. and Advance) and am a big fan of the NovatoPatch. However, I must have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the status of SMART. As one blogger mentioned earlier, many citizens of Marin are focused right now on their own personal plights in this economy, then whether or not the train goes forward. So, could someone explain to me what happened with the San Rafael station next to the Marin Civic Center? Has that been deferred, or has Downtown San Rafael taken its place? Both are excellent sites. It would be a shame to lose the Civic Center station with its government offices, Marin Theatre, Autodesk and other businesses, public facilities, tons of dense housing and the Northgate Shopping Mall within walking distance. This station is more feasible then Novato Atherton Station. Did the citizens of Marin ever get to vote on the location of the train stations? Someone screwed up. Mr(s) Maher, Drake, Ratto....please write an article in the I.J. with all your statistics and logic regarding this train. I'm terrible at math but Mr. Maher's numbers make sense. I think the hard working general public should be aware of all of this information because, unfortunately, not everyone reads the Patch. And, because many of us have been "asleep at the wheel." Thank you for this valuable information regarding SMART.

Hey Julie Combs: If you care so much, why don't you use the bus? They go to San Francisco and the Ferry. Seriously, I'd like to know why you think the train is better when you don't use the bus that's available now. Please.

No one has suggested a process for cancelling SMART. What would have to happen? What process would be legally valid?

Dianne Furst-

In light of the Grand Jury report on Corte Madera's finances, wherein you serve on the City Council, call many of us skeptical as to your ability to make the proper financial decisions as a member of TAM in relation to giving money to SMART. In both cases, the problem basically comes down to screwed up priorities and spending too much money on all the wrong things. Great job in your home town...please try not to repeat the same performance on a larger scale.

The Corte Madera Town Council discussed this TAM/SMART issue on Monday night. Check out this story on Larkspur-Corte Madera Patch: http://patch.com/A-jfm3

@ Marie - the repealsmart.org site is currently in disarray, but the registration works. You can also join the Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/stopsmart

@ Brent - Thanks for the heads-up on the Corte Madera meeting, and thanks for doing such a great job on Patch.

@LikesFacts - one thing I love about Patch is that people aren't afraid to use their full names, or at least their first name. You're one of the only ones that hides behind a fake name. It gives you less credibility in my book, and makes me think you work for SMART. All of your posts point to that. You can hide behind your fake name, just as you try to justify TAM trying to pull a fast one on us, but neither passes the smell test in my book. Do you work for SMART, TAM, etc?