SMART opponents predicted these problems long before the election was held. We pointed out that funding projections were insufficient, ridership projections were absurd, and that addition of a bike path was simply a bribe to the bicycle coalition that would not likely actually be constructed.

Somebody needs to audit the expenditures to date and come up with a realistic financial plan or else we need to put an end to this boondoggle and have another election to rescind the sales tax.

If this project was approved 15 years ago on the FIRST election, it would have started operating ten years ago at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars less. Now we are trying to start something in the middle of the great recession and some folks think it is too expensive. Hello, we told the naysayers this was going to happen way back then. Instead, three elections later, the naysayers think they are the smartest people in the room. You can't win.

I actually agree with you. Unfortunately you can't go back in time. I don't believe the train per se is the issue. I believe the costs to build according to Smart themselves make the project as planned a bad gamble. We are only going to get one shot to do this right. If you eliminate the stops and destinations that make the system partly viable I don't see the use to our community. Does that seem fair?

Jerry is making a silly argument. 1998 when Measures A/B failed, there was little planning that had occurred at all. They would have spent years putting it together. Ultimately, they would have run into the key financial hurdle: a quarter cent sales tax was NEVER enough to construct the system and subsidize rail operations. This was true before the meltdown because SMART's current financial problems aren't associated with the delays.

For example, whenever they started planning and engineering the system -- even if they had started years ago -- they would have run into the same cost overruns SMART publicized last fall. (Opponents did not cause the cost under-estimates of bridges and tunnels. )

In addition, the meltdown lowered debt service costs (lower interest rates) and construction costs (lower bids because of the recession), depending on how far back you go.

Finally, had they issued bonds some years ago, that higher interest cost now would be an enormous financial burden. Sales tax revenues didn't drop because SMART was delayed. And the higher debt service would be forcing SMART to make cuts right and left to balance their budgets. SMART would have been just like homeowners who borrowed more than could afford, betting on rising housing prices. It would have been a financial disaster. You should thank the opponents, not blame them.

Whenever the north station is approved, it needs to be designed "smartly" so as not to prevent an extra lane being added to Redwood (north & south) someday to handle all the increased traffic to happen when planned development on the north end of Redwood proceeds (eg, Buck Center expansion). Otherwise, station traffic will back up into the already-busy San Marin/Redwood intersection. Backup is especially likely since SMART's proposed traffic circle (with a crosswalk in it) will really slow traffic. Seems like an unsafe design to me.

This is one of the root problems with public transportation it either won't get you to where you want to go or it will make all stops and you won't be where you are going for a long time.

First off, I'm one completely against the idea of this train. For what this is going to cost you could permanently buy everyone in Sonoma County an electric car.

But, I'd like to know at what point will the SMART Board say "enough is enough, we can't build this."? Seriously, how different must the reality be from the proposals? Hypothetically, would they continue with it if it's only a Santa Rosa and a San Rafael station, with only one trip a day? The SMART Board must let us know what the "decision point" would be to stop the entire project.

Past that, it's a good idea to kill the North Novato station. Let Fireman's Fund, if it matters so much to them, help subsidize a shuttle bus that would run in a loop from a new Downtown Novato station, through the downtown and up North Redwood along all the planned development, to the Buck Center / Fireman Fund site. This would helping bolster the downtown area, provide better service to planned development, that will occur between DeLong and Atherton. the only reason the North Novato site was approved was due to the dog-and-pony show the city council swallowed hook, line, and sinker about the hotel/office development on the parking lot portion of Fireman's Fund. Otherwise you're spending how much in capital construction costs to provide waking distance for 360 Fireman's Fund employees?

The trouble with these trains is they cost a lot of money and if you have the shopping mall next to the stop you come out great, but downtown suffers the lack of business. So the big issue to me is the lack of integration. I realize that this only makes it harder because everyone will say they don't want a train going through downtown, that is until they realize they lost their customer base to the mall by the train.

No one is going to thank opponents who have held off a solution to the misery of commuting on 101. Opponents who worked hard to stop SMART, but have never lifted a finger to solve the high cost, waste and pollution of North Bay highway travel? All they do is yell "no". And for that they want to be thanked?

I am so disappointed at everyone associated with SMART. The measure would have never passed in Marin without the support of the MCBC and Fireman's Fund. SMART now appears to have completely abandoned these two groups and are attempting to build a train that will mainly benefit Sonoma County residents.

A reader asked me why the North Novato station is sometimes called the Atherton Station when Atherton is on the other side of Highway 101. Lots of people don't realize that Atherton doesn't change names until it crosses to the west side of 101. City maps don't make that clear, but it's true. San Marin Drive starts right at the intersection of Redwood & Atherton, so anything east of Redwood (including the vacant railroad station property) is then off Atherton. Thus, calling it Atherton is technically correct.

It is my understanding that recently the Citizens for Balanced Housing group put out a press release that they were against the Novato SMART stations. They were concerned about potential development of homes near the station. Then members of various neighborhood groups went to a SMART Board meeting and voiced their opposition. Can you blame SMART Board for delaying the station? It will be a real shame for Novato to watch the train go by without being able to benefit from the traffic relief, increased home values and convenience that proximity to commuter rail stations offers, but you really cannot blame the SMART Board for listening to the feedback they were hearing.

HCD and ABAG should follow the SMART Board: Start listening and responding to what the community wants instead of the investors and developers.

Walt

That Smart is vaible for now and in the future should not be in question. The increase in population in Marin and Sonoma, and only one spine highway dictates a need for a m,ass mover of peopl--which a rail line is, and with an existing rail right-of-way owned and in the publicdomain it makes sense to put it to use. The battle to build SMARt ended in 2008 when a super majority voted in favor of it. The economy has provided some lumps in the road--or rail if you will--but that will work out as will the debate about the N.Novato station. Urban and suburban rail systems, like highways, are not built to make money but they serve a very important and necessary public need and both are paid for with public dollars. Again, bacause of strong population growth here, and wherever, we need to solve the problem of mobility-- which rail does-- and not just accomodate it, which local highways do, but only for awhile. SMART is agood investment

I have to question the decision of the SMART board to choose a location at Hamilton Field in place of the Atherton station. With Fireman's Fund alone, and their willingness to offer their employees incentives to ride the train, you have a ridership of 600 people (300 round trip). That destination alone is a substantial portion of SMART's projections. I ask you, would you think that people in southern Ignacio would number that many for a short ride to the San Rafael transit hub, given that the time spent on the logistics of doing so would most likely be far more time consuming than simply staying in the car or utilizing the existing and well established bus service that already serves the area? I'm sorry, but the logic escapes me, and I can't help but feel that this is just another case of SMART not living up to their acronym.

I think what we'll find in a few weeks that a lot of this station-or-no- station discussion is being driven by MTC and their housing number focus. Stay tuned while the politicial process grinds on. We'll get back to the transportation issues after a while.