RSS - Posts
Staff Report
Article Launched: 05/20/2008 12:02:11 AM PDTAlso, it should come as little surprise that the need for a Sonoma-Marin commuter train has increased as well since voters turned down the 2006 tax measure that would launch the 70-mile service.
SMART’s latest estimate puts the SMART’s price tag at $540 million, a $73 million increase over the 2006 estimate.
When you include the cost of long-term financing, the bi-county public transit system and bike path are projected to cost $1.6 billion. That’s $200 million more than the 2006 projection.
SMART’s critics are quick to pounce on the increase as an example that the agency’s estimates were wrong in 2006.
But it would have been even more surprising if that cost had remained fixed in the face of tumultuous economic changes affecting the price of labor, steel, engineering and construction expertise and gasoline, not to mention major adjustments in the cost of financing.
In short, it is not getting cheaper.
The updated numbers also reflect improvements SMART has made to its 2006 plan, adding weekend service and buying trains that would be more environmentally friendly.
SMART officials say they can still deliver the project with a quarter-cent sales tax increase. They say the bi-county economy has generated more in sales tax revenue than SMART’s 2006 estimate projects.
There’s no question that the price tag – whether you want to use the
Advertisement
$540 million project cost or the $1.6 billion cost including long-term financing – is a number that deserves to give any voter pause. It is a significant increase over the 2006 estimates.The increase is not going to make SMART’s task of selling itself to Marin voters any easier than it was in 2006.
There weren’t enough Marin voters persuaded to back the tax then. But the environmental and economic dilemma of the traffic jam on Highway 101 has worsened.
There is no doubt that part of the daily backup is caused by the highway widening through San Rafael. When that construction is completed at year’s end, it will make a difference in the flow of traffic.
But that’s not the complete solution. SMART is about building for the future.
The goal of SMART is to get people out of their cars, to get people into convenient and dependable public transit and to provide them with a comfortable and environment-friendly means of making their daily commutes.
We, as a community, need to respond to the economic pressures of $4-per-gallon gasoline and give commuters an alternative to pollution-belching cars.
The success of the Golden Gate ferries in providing a comfortable and convenient commute between Marin and San Francisco lends great promise to a train between Marin and Sonoma.
The SMART board is moving forward toward a tax measure on November’s ballot.
SMART needs strong and accurate numbers on which to build momentum for the measure. SMART directors need to assure voters the tax will be enough to get the train launched and the bike path built. They need to clearly demonstrate to voters that the train is the “greenest” solution to our traffic problem. SMART needs to communicate with voters that the 2008 plan is a new-and-improved version.
SMART needs to prove to Marin voters – much more than it did in 2006 – that the sizable investment of their tax dollars will be worth it.
Despite the crying up here about the SMART being noisy, this was found to be less noisy. Same style of cars, and operation, but more frequent.
Officials say $2.25 million for noise abatement goes to general fund
By GIG CONAUGHTON – Staff Writer | Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:09 PM PDT ∞
The Sprinter crosses Mar Vista Drive in Vista on Friday. (Photo by Hayne Palmour IV – Staff photographer)
VISTA —- A year after getting more than $2 million from the North County Transit District to help manage potential noise problems caused by the Sprinter light-rail line, Vista officials said they have no immediate plans to spend the money on sound control because the Sprinter hasn’t been that noisy.
Vista and the transit district had battled for months last year over measures that the city said would be needed to ease the Sprinter’s effect on Vista neighborhoods. The district agreed in May 2007 to pay the city $2.25 million to resolve the dispute.
City officials said at the time that the money could be used for noise studies and possibly to build “quiet crossings” where trains could cross streets without blowing their horns. But they also said the money did not have to be used for those purposes.
On Thursday, Councilman Bob Campbell said the city now has no plans to conduct the noise studies. He said nobody has complained about noise since the Sprinter started running two months ago.
The silence has been a surprise to city officials who had expected the train to disturb residents who live near the tracks, said Campbell, who represents Vista on the transit district board.
“My worst nightmare was that as soon as we got the Sprinter up and running that we’d be getting literally hundreds of calls from people saying, ‘My husband can’t sleep and he has to be up at 5:30 a.m.’ ” Campbell said. “I’ve gotten more calls that say the horn isn’t loud enough.”
At least one Vista resident said last week that Sprinter noise was driving him to distraction and could hurt property values in his neighborhood.
Will Tompkins, who lives near the railroad tracks near Mar Vista Drive, said the city should be using the transit district money to build “quiet crossings.”
Quiet crossings still have warning horns, but they’re placed at the railroad tracks, instead of on the trains, and are pointed directly at traffic, so they don’t create as much noise for nearby residents, officials said.
Mar Vista Drive is one of seven rail crossings in Vista where Sprinter trains sound their horns about 60 times a day.
“We still have no quiet crossing,” Tompkins said. “I am an angry person with a lot of money (invested) in his home.”
Sounding concerns
Vista had long worried about Sprinter noise because railroad tracks run very close to homes in some parts of the city —- much closer than anywhere else along the 22-mile rail route.
Though early designs for the Sprinter called for sound walls or other measures to shield neighbors from noise, the transit district dropped those plans in 2006 as the cost of the light-rail line continued to climb.
At the time, transit district officials said the barriers wouldn’t be necessary, in part because freight trains had been operating at night for years along the route without them.
However, Vista officials disagreed and continued to press for sound-control measures, citing an environmental report that said steps were necessary to alleviate noise. The city also said a settlement in a 1997 lawsuit Vista had filed to block the Sprinter project suggested that sound-control measures would be used.
Eventually, the transit district relented and paid the city $2.25 million to resolve the matter.
City Attorney Darold Pieper said last week that Vista never promised to use that money on quiet crossings or other noise-control measures. He said the money is now in a special protected account in the city’s general fund and would remain there at least through the next fiscal year. Money in the general fund can be spent at the city’s discretion.
Money woes
Vista leaders probably wouldn’t mind being able to spend the $2.25 million on something other than noise abatement.
Like several other North County cities, Vista has been struggling with the effects of a tight economy.
Mayor Morris Vance said Tuesday that Vista’s property and sales-tax revenue no longer covers the cost of law enforcement and fire protection in the city. In addition, Vista hasn’t received as much revenue as it hoped from Proposition L, the half-cent sales tax increase city voters approved in 2006.
The city also faces a potential $1.1 million fine from the region’s water cops over a 2007 sewage spill into Buena Vista Lagoon, as well as massive repair costs for the sewage pipeline, officials said.
Still listening
Campbell said that even though the city had been sidetracked by other issues, he was still monitoring Sprinter noise.
“It’s absolutely on my radar,” he said. “It’s just that other stuff has hit us, with sewer spills and budget issues … I’ll be glad to revisit this with anybody, anytime.”
Tompkins said he’ll be the first in line. He said it’s not just the Sprinter’s horn that is disruptive, it’s the clanging that occurs each time a train approaches the crossing near his home.
“The bells start going when the gates come down about a minute before and after the train comes through,” he said. “And that happens about every half-hour starting at 4:20 in the morning. It is an aggravation.”
How loud?
A walk through Tompkins’ neighborhood last week suggested that not many other people shared his aggravation.
A number of people outside their homes pooh-poohed the idea that the Sprinter’s noise was driving anyone to distraction.
Leon Farley, a 76-year-old resident, said he barely hears the Sprinter horn. He said it sounds “like a Volkswagen bug.”
Mike Woods, whose Phillips Street house is only about 20 yards away from the Sprinter line, said, “I don’t hear it.”
That was echoed by other neighbors.
Shalana Pohlman said, “I’ve got kids, so I’m bother-proof. Overall, I’m very impressed with how quiet it is.”
But Pohlman, Farley and several other neighbors did agree with Tompkins that a freight train that also runs on the Sprinter line track —- two to three times a week —- is extremely loud.
Sarah Benson, a transit district spokeswoman, said the freight train —- much larger than the Sprinter train —- is operated by the Burlington, Northern Santa Fe Railway, and runs mostly “late at night” on Friday and Saturday nights. It also has a much louder horn, people said.
“That one is a real humdinger,” Pohlman said.
Farley said, “We have double-paned windows, that cut it down a little bit, but you still hear it. There are some engineers who seem to revel in the idea that they can wake everybody up.”
Future unclear
Campbell said it was “possible” that the $2.25 million could be used to create quiet crossings to improve the freight-train issue, but that he doesn’t know whether that would be an effective fix.
Pieper said quiet crossings can cost between $250,000 to $1 million to create.
Tompkins said that even if people “could live with” the Sprinter noise, they shouldn’t have to. He said he would continue to press the city to use the transit district money on noise-related issues. Tompkins said the $2.25 million was taxpayer money targeted to deal with noise.
“It’s a matter of principle,” he said. “They had an obligation to spend it for that purpose. We were promised a quiet crossing, and we certainly don’t have a quiet crossing.”
Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 901-4067 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.
A 21st-century mass-transit solution will end the nostalgic fixation on trolleys or passenger rail. There’s good reasons those fell from favor in the 20th century, replaced by less-efficient—but more appealing—individual motor vehicles. The bike/pedestrian path included in the SMART proposal is projected to have thousands more daily users than the passenger trains, at a fraction of the cost. The opposition of Novato to opening the tracks for many freight trains coming through a week will kill the super majority needed to raise the sales tax for SMART. People want and need to exercise. CycleTrain! is a 21st-century mass transit solution. Truly “light” rail passenger trains will be powered by the multiplied horsepower of pedalers or rowers. Comfortably seated and sheltered from the weather, CycleTrain! riders will easily maintain traffic speeds, boosted with an electric engine assist for hills, the reduced rolling resistance of rail and the aerodynamic shell. A monorail could be embedded in existing roads or be the cheapest elevated transit option. The CycleTrain! can be built first in Marin instead of diesel powered, dual-railed, freight-piggybacked “light” passenger trains. It would generate worldwide acclaim for an affordable, healthy, quiet, 21st-century transit system—instead of the nostalgic folly of trolleys and trains. Here is a sketch of the CycleTrain! concept by Bolinas artist Stuart Chapman.—Stephen Simac, Stinson Beach
Officials say quarter-cent sales tax could still cover service
By Bob Norberg
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
May 17, 2008The cost of building a Sonoma-Marin commuter train and bikeway has increased to $540 million since voters defeated a sales tax measure two years ago, but it still could be financed with a quarter-cent sales tax, transit planners said Friday.
“The big thing is the cost of construction materials over the two-year period,” said Lillian Hames, executive director of Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit. “We are looking at upwards of 10 percent increases, depending on the material types.”
A quarter-cent sales tax would bring in $890.7 million over the agency’s 20-year life, more than anticipated in previous estimates that used old sales tax projections. By leveraging that money with construction bonds, the system could be up and running by 2014, Hames said.
The commuter train’s building cost is estimated now to be $450 million, with an additional $90 million for a bicycle-hiking trail alongside it from Cloverdale to Larkspur.
That is an increase of 11.5 percent from 2006, when SMART’s quarter-cent sales tax measure was narrowly defeated.
In addition, operating costs have risen from $441 million over the 20-year life of the sales tax to $462 million, in part because SMART plans to add weekend service, Hames said.
“We know for sure we can finance the cost of building and running the railroad and most of the pedestrian-bicycle path without having to get money from the North Coast Railroad Authority or state grants,” said Charles McGlashan, a Marin County supervisor and SMART chairman.
The new cost estimates will be presented Wednesday to the SMART board, which already has indicated its intention to put a new tax measure on the November ballot.
Continual increases in construction and operating costs make the November election critical because at some point they could make a quarter-cent sales tax inadequate, Mike Kerns, a Petaluma board member, said.
“It really points out how important it is we pass this sales tax measure in November,” Kerns said. “If we don’t, the cost of doing the project just keeps escalating, and it will reach a breaking point where we won’t be able to afford to do it. If we have to go back to voters in the future at a half-cent, that is a real hurdle to overcome.”
To be able to start rail service by 2014, SMART would use the sales tax to secure $345 million in bonds between 2009 and 2015 to build the project.
The district also would get $23 million from a November 2004 sales tax measure in Sonoma County for design and engineering, $14 million from development on SMART property, $28 million in Proposition 116 funds, $37 million in state Transportation Congestion Relief Program funds and $800,000 a year from the state Transportation Program Assistance.
Opponent Mike Arnold of Citizens Opposed to the SMART Train Tax said he believes the transit agency is still underestimating its construction costs and overstating the amount of money it would receive from a sales tax.
“A quarter-cent sales tax is not sufficient to provide the train services they are proposing,” Arnold said. “Along with lots of other organizations, yes, absolutely, we are preparing to defeat the 2008 tax measure.”
SMART owns the right of way and tracks along the 70-mile line between Cloverdale and Larkspur, but most of the tracks would have to be replaced, depots rebuilt and platforms constructed.
The proposal is to run lightweight, diesel-powered commuter trains much like those used in Europe.
Ridership is estimated to be 5,050 weekdays, 1,820 to 2,020 Saturdays and 1,160 to 1,260 Sundays.
The cost was estimated at $425 million in 2004, escalating to $484 million in 2006, an increase of 14 percent.
In 2006, a quarter-cent tax measure to finance the train was defeated, gaining 65 percent overall in Sonoma and Marin counties, but needing two-thirds to pass. Sonoma County voters gave it 69 percent support, but it got just 57 percent in Marin County.
You can reach Staff Writer Bob Norberg at 521-5206 or bob.norberg@pressdemocrat.com.
