Blog Post < Previous | Next >
SMART
SMART Con Job Continues
On August 31st, the San Francisco Chronicle writer Michael Cabanatuan published a glowing review about the SMART train entitled, "SMART trains en route to North Bay; line to open in 2016." His depiction of SMART is inaccurate in almost every way. Below are my comments to him.
Dear Michael:
Like many reporters in the North Bay, you too have swallowed the ongoing campaign by SMART (Board and staff) to constantly mislead the public regarding its prospects.
And it’s always about what they don’t tell you and then you repeat only what they say. This has been going on since 2005 so you’re not the first, nor the last reporter, to fall into this chasm of misinformation. But here are realities by someone who has studied them, written about them, and campaigned on them for 10 years.
1) A quarter cent sales tax was never enough to both finance construction and fund operations. The cut in the train length was the recognition of this reality.
2) While they blame the Great Recession for this shortened line, (and the loss in sales tax revenues), they (and you) never mentioned that costs of construction and debt service costs were significantly reduced by the recession.
In total, it’s an approximate financial wash. To see this, compare their financial plans from before/after the Great Recession. It’s all there. Debt service is a huge load on future budgets. They were before and they are now, but the rates on their bonds are far far lower because they were issued after the financial crisis.
3) SMART was told in 2006 by Parsons-Brinkerhoff that a quarter cent would not finance the proposed rail line plus costs of operations. But polls indicated they couldn’t pass a half cent tax so they opted for the quarter cent and then lied to the public about the finances, as they still are.
4) In terms of ridership, your column did not mention that there is no way for commuters to get from suburban rail stations to jobs spread throughout 2 counties. That’s why their projected ridership is so low. 5,000 riders a day is 2,500 in the morning peak in 2 directions. About 2/3 would be southbound. That’s why their EIR (2006) showed only 132 riders would be on seven trains that crossed into Marin County and that was with the 70 mile rail line. Even that number is over a decade away.
5) The ridership number you quoted was for 2035. SMART’s own projections show far fewer riders over the next 10 years (in their financial plan). In the first year after operations they’re only expecting about 2,000 riders per day. Golden Gate Transit buses currently are taking 9,000 a day over the bridge and the ferry is 5,000 and limited by parking capacity.
6) In recent documents submitted to the FTA for the Larkspur extension, SMART told the FTA that the extension (according to SMART’s ridership model) would generate 131 riders a day. (Yes, that both directions AM and PM peak). That’s under 10 riders per train.
7) Details matter. Trains have 30 minute headways. This means to provide 7 southbound trains in the morning commute, the first trains will be arriving in downtown San Rafael before 6 AM in the morning. Ever been on 101 at this time? There is no traffic and driving is much faster. So, there are maybe 2-3 trains in the morning (given 30 minute headways) that provide convenient commute to workers in downtown San Rafael (that’s why ridership is projected to be so paltry) - similarly, for the northbound AM peak into near downtown Santa Rosa.
8) Extension to Cloverdale is a pipe dream. Take a look at the mileage and the population. Maybe in 2028, if the boondoggle is refunded by voters. I can’t imagine the State or Feds will cough up the money for those extensions and SMART has no money until the 2028 refunding.
9) As long as the 2/3 requirement on a special sales tax holds, SMART will not have the votes to pass an additional tax between now and 2028. They won in 2008 because of the Obama turnout factor. Trains are very popular among young, low turn-out voters. But those conditions don’t exist and politicians on the Board know this is all they’re going to have for the foreseeable future. If the 2/3 requirement is lowered by a state ballot measure this conclusion would be reversed.
10) No one – including you – focuses on the rail operations and finances. This is a highly leveraged system with huge debt service (increasing over time by design). So when the next recession hits and reduces sales taxes, the train’s finances are going to bleed. And then what? What can they cut? Service! And this will lower ridership all the more. You’ll have to take a look at their finances to get this behind the eyelids. I would expect the first cuts to occur on weekend service which is expected (by anyone with a mind) to be paltry. Trains don’t operate for free and eventually the red ink will force the issue.
11) You didn’t mention the single track plus passing lanes. It has to work perfectly to work at all. One delay anywhere on the single track section and the entire 45 mile rail service has to come to a halt (check this out). What will be the frequency of delay and expected problems? I’ve been trying to get this information for 9 years and still don’t have any good data because there aren’t other lines ANYWHERE constructed with 2 way service on single tracks.
12) Go visit downtown San Rafael and ask yourself, what happens to traffic on Hwy 101 when cars stalled behind crossing rail guards (every 15 minutes) stall traffic getting off the freeway during peak periods? Let alone who will pay to move the Bettini bus transit facility if the Feds do finance the extension to Larkspur? It’s all there in the planning documents. Someone is going to have to pay to move it.
Like many before you, you have been conned by Farhad and rail advocates. Trains are very popular, but there are limited circumstances when they generate significant ridership and that’s when they serve a central business district where commuters can walk to their jobs. There simply aren’t that many jobs within walking distance of the rail stations. They have constantly misled the public and the press regarding its prospects.
SMART’s constraints and low ridership will become apparent once the trains begin to operate. And then the financial constraints will be forced on them when the next recession occurs. This is something they have never evaluated even after 2 grand juries said they should.
If you’re still working on this in a couple of years, you can check it out for yourself.
Prof. Mike Arnold
Lecturer, Dept. of Economics
U.C. Berkeley
Berkeley, CA