1

• 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred
  in the last 12 years! 1
• Cars, trucks, and buses contribute 41 of our
  (Californias) greenhouse gases. 2
• Transportation accounts for over 60 of Marin and
  Sonomas Emissions

1 http//www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ As
noted in An Inconvenient Truth 2 June 2005
PUBLICATION CEC-600-2005-025.pdf
2
Environmental Approval of SMART 06

• The Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance,
  Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Leadership
  Institute for Ecology and the Economy, Threshold
  Environmental Center, Madrone Conservation
  Committee, Sonoma County Conservation Action,
  Madrone Audubon Society and both the Marin and
  Sonoma County Bicycle Coalitions are just a few
  of these environmentalists and environmental
  organizations. In addition, the highly respected
  League of Women Voters (Marin and Sonoma)
  endorsed SMART.

• Jared Huffman, Joe Nation, Charles McGlashen,
  Steve Kinsey, Lynn Woolsey, Joe Bodovitz, Joan
  Boessenecker, Raisin Cain, Betsey Cutler, Peter
  Douglas, Phyllis Faber, Larry Fahn, Doug
  Ferguson, Michael Fischer, Dr. Marty Griffin
  (Former Pres. Of Marin Conservation League),
  Randy Hayes, Paul Hawken, Alf Heller, Deb
  Hubsmith, Wendy Kallins, Ike Livermore, Marge
  Macris, Denis Rice, Jane Rogers, Marty Rosen,
  Annette Rose, Polly Smith, Sim Van der Ryn, Dr.
  Ed Wayburn, Veronica Valero

3
Help Curb Global Warming

• SMARTs estimate of 5,300 cars removed daily is
  conservative
• Done when gas prices were 1.50 gallon in 2005
  dollars
• Did not include cars removed for use of
  bike/pedestrian path
• Done when knowledge of global warming and desire
  to cut carbon footprint was much lower
• Savings of 32 Million pounds (16,000 tons) of
  greenhouse gases per year, even before
  bike/pedestrian path included is significant
  average American emits 9 tons of greenhouse gases
  from all sources per year.

4
Better Eco Value

• Consumes less energy per passenger mile
• Saves 120,000 pounds of greenhouse gases per day
• 387 million for 70 miles of rail including cars,
  stations and other features
• 800 million for Novato Narrows highway expansion
  of 16 miles

5
SMART Environmental Benefits

• the SMART project will remove 32 Million pounds
  of CO2 per year
• Charles McGlashan Marin County Board of
  Supervisors
• Also, remember that the "cars removed" part of
  SMART's C02 benefits is only the beginning.  The
  change in land use patterns in Sonoma, and to a
  lesser extent Marin, will equate to much bigger
  -- and permanent -- C02 reductions.
• Our dependence on automobiles and the kind of
  planning and development that extends from
  automobile dependency is by far the biggest part
  of our global warming footprint, SMART holds the
  promise of being one of the fastest and most
  significant changes we can implement here in the
  North Bay to do our part in helping prevent
  global warming. Proposed alternatives to SMART
  amount to denial and an ever-worsening status
  quo"
•  
• Jared Huffman Marin County Board of Supervisors

6
Rail has many Indirect benefits

• Indirect benefit Better air quality and public
  health
• Per the Transportation and Land Use Coalition
  Report Reduced driving will lead to cleaner
  air Less driving will reduce instances of asthma
  and related illnesses.1
• Curtail emissions that lead to global warming.

• 1. Source http//www.transcoalition.org/reports/
  it_takes_transit_village.pdf

7
Reduce Marins Carbon Footprint

• Shifting a commuter from a single occupancy
  vehicle to SMART will reduce that commuters CO2
  production by a factor of four, NOx and
  particles by a factor of three to six for the
  portion of that commuters trip along 101.1

• Research by Willard Richards, PhD in physical
  chemistry, who is a
• co-founder of Sonoma Technology, Inc. which
  performs air quality studies for industry and
  government clients.

8
Suburban Rail The Time Has Come

• Commuting in America, III" by Alan E. Pisarski
  "From 1990 to 2000, about 64 percent of the
  growth in commuting in metropolitan areas was
  from suburb to suburb, while the traditional
  commute from suburbs to a central city grew by
  only 14 percent. As more employers move out of
  cities to be closer to skilled suburban workers,
  the suburbs now account for the majority of job
  destinations." ...and "The number of Americans
  who commute from the city to the suburbs exceeds
  the number of those commuting from suburbs to the
  city and accounts for 9 percent of commuting
  activity. From 1990 to 2000, the number of
  Americans commuting from the city to the suburbs
  increased by 20 percent.

Alan E Pisarski is an independent transportation
policy analyst and consultant
9
Successful Suburban Rail Systems

• Inland Empire Orange County Line (MetroLink)1
• 14 suburban stations along 100 mile route
• Ridership continues to grow annually
• 4,200 avg daily in 2005 (16)
• 4,400 avg daily in 2006 (5)
• 4,750 avg daily in 2007 (8)
• Metrolinks Inland suburb to suburb line has more
  avg weekday riders than Metrolinks Ventura and
  Riverside Line, which both link to Los Angeles!
• Salt Lake City to suburbs (TRAX) 2
• Salt Lake City small urban area of 180,000, close
  to Santa Rosas 158,000 but much smaller than
  SFs 850,000 population
• Ridership 50 above initial projections and
  growing annually
• Voters approved additional 1/4 cent sales tax in
  2000 to fund extension
• Currently averages 28,000 combined daily
  passengers on two routes
• TRAX rail increased bus ridership with total mass
  transit up 18.5 since 1996

1. Metrolink Fast Facts www.metrolinktrains.com 2
. Source Federal Transit Administration, NTDB
data, 1996-2001
10
SMART Takes Cars off the Roads

• For SMART, the conservative forecast (done when
  gas was 1.50 gallon and not including cars
  removed for bike path commuters) was as
  follows  
• page 3.2-20 the estimated daily savings during
  two peak hours of each day (morning and evening)
  are summarized, showing 17,400 to 39,200 fewer
  vehicle miles traveled
• SMART will remove close to four and a half
  million vehicle miles traveled from our roadways
  annually!

11
A Sustainable Future

• Renewable energy
• Water conservation
• Locally grown, organic food
• Zero Waste
• Walkable Communities
• Housing, jobs, activities close by
• Fast, Efficient Transit

12
People Prefer Trains

• 65 favor SMART
• North Bay Employees choose rail 3.5 to 1 over bus
• Metrolink 88 of rail users were formerly
  single occupancy drivers1

1. Metrolink Fact sheet on home website
13
Trains Enhance Bus Use
Source Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
14
Speed, Comfort, Convenience

• Santa Rosa to San Rafael
• By Car 90 minutes
• By Bus 98 minutes

By Train - 55 minutes
15
Rail travel consumes much less energy than bus or
automobile travel
Litman, Todd, Rail Transit in America, October
2004
16
Feet First
17
Transit Next
18
Commute Patterns

• No increase on Golden Gate Bridge in 10 years
• 31 increase coming south from Sonoma
• 41 increase going north from Marin
• 40 of Marin workers are from outside Marin

19
North/South Commute

• 18,000 Sonoma residents work in Marin
• 40 of the Civic Center employees
• 400 Sonoma workers at Firemans Fund
• MMWD, Autodesk and more

20
Rail Ridership Often Beats Forecasts
Dallas DART 10 higher (source DART, 2000)
Portland MAX 22 higher (source Tri-Met, 2000)
Salt Lake City TRAX 43 higher (Utah Transit
Auth, 2000)
Denver to Littleton 67 higher (Denver Bus.
Journal, 1/26/2001)
21
People Prefer Trains Over Buses

• Report published by American Public
  Transportation Association concludes that rail
  transit is likely to attract from 34 to 43 more
  riders than will equivalent bus service.
• Clearly identifiable rail route delineated stops
  that are often protected more stable, safer, and
  more comfortable vehicles freedom from fumes and
  excessive noise and more generous vehicle
  dimensions may all be factors.
• http//www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.h
  tm

22
Why Wait?

• Freeway widening
• 10-20 years
• or more
• Smart 3 years

23
What Relieves congestion?

• Not freeway expansion because of induced Traffic
  lanes fill up within 5 years
• Increasing capacity on a highway increases
  traffic
• Increasing capacity on a rail line decreases
  traffic

24
Cost Effective?

• BART 100 million a mile
• Highway HOV lanes 30 million a mile
• SMART 6 million a mile

25
Measure R in 2006

• ¼ cent sales tax in Sonoma and Marin Counties
• will generate 33 million/yr
• Approx. half will go into operating the system
• Approx. half will go into paying off the bonds

26
Rail Transit Systems in the U.S.(Existing and
under construction as of January 31, 2007)

• Albuquerque   commuter rail (2006)
• Atlanta   rapid transit (1971)
• Austin   commuter rail (under construction)
• Baltimore   light rail (1992), rapid transit
  (1983), commuter rail
• Boston   light rail (1897), rapid transit (1901),
  commuter rail (1974)
• Buffalo   light rail (1985)
• Camden   light rail (2004), rapid transit (1936)
  
• Charlotte   light rail (under construction)
• Chicago   rapid transit (1892), commuter rail
  (1856)
• Cleveland   light rail (1920), rapid transit
  (1955)
• Dallas   streetcar (1989), light rail (1996),
  commuter rail (1996)
• Denver   light rail (1994)
• Galveston   streetcar (1893)
• Harrisburg   commuter rail (under construction)
• Hoboken   light rail (2000), rapid transit
  (1908), commuter rail
• Houston   light rail (2004)
• Kenosha   streetcar (2002)
• Los Angeles   light rail (1990), rapid transit
  (1993), commuter rail (1992)

• Nashville   commuter rail (2006)
• Newark   light rail (1935), commuter rail
• New Orleans   streetcar (1835)
• New York City   rapid transit (1868), commuter
  rail Oceanside   light rail (under construction)
  Philadelphia   streetcar (1858), light rail
  (1906), rapid transit (1907), commuter rail
• Phoenix   light rail (under construction)
• Pittsburgh   light rail (1987)
• Portland   streetcar (2001), light rail (1986)
• Sacramento   light rail (1987)
• Salt Lake City   light rail (1999)
• San Diego   light rail (1981), commuter rail
  (1995)
• San Francisco   streetcar (1860), light rail
  (1918), rapid transit (1972), commuter rail
  (1863)
• San Jose   light rail (1987), commuter rail
  (1998)
• Seattle   light rail (under construction),
  commuter rail (2000)
• St. Louis   light rail (1993)
• Syracuse   commuter rail (1994)
• Tacoma   light rail (2003)
• Tampa   streetcar (2002)
• Trenton light rail (2004)
• Washington D.C.   light rail (under
  construction), rapid transit (1976), commuter
  rail

Four of the newest rail transit systems use
SMARTs proposed self-propelled Diesel Multiple
Unit (DMU) vehicles plus eBART extension to
Contra Costa
27
Self-Powered Vehicle
Five of the latest US rail projects will utilize
this type of DMU railcar Oceanside, Austen,
Camden, Trenton, and eBART extension to Contra
Costa
Oceanside to San Diego Sprinter (interior) to
begin service in December 2007
28
Self-Powered Vehicle Interior of SMART Type of
Railcar
SMART-type self propelled vehicle with
wrap-around glass
29
Self-Powered Vehicle Interior of SMART type of
Railcar
Business configuration on SMART-type
self-propelled vehicle
30
Clean Diesel Technology

• SMART railcars will comply with strict new
  Federal regulations requiring low sulfur/low
  particulate fuel (EIR section 5-31)
• Sulfur content of fuel reduced 97 from 500 ppm
  to 15 ppm (EIR 5-31)
• Additionally, SMART is committed to implement
  control measures for NOx and diesel particulate
  matter which include high efficiency catalytized
  particulate filters, selective catalytic
  reduction systems, NOx absorbers, and use of low
  sulfur fuel (EIR section 5-31)
• Initial laboratory tests with prototype engines
  show air leaving diesel trains outfitted with
  particulate filters will be cleaner in particle
  emissions than the air that went in!
• Ultrafine Particle Emission Control
  Strategies by David B. Kittelson
• University of Minnesota Center for Diesel
  Research South Coast Air Quality Management
  District Conference on Ultrafine Particles The
  Science, Technology, and Policy Issues
• Wilshire Grand Hotel, Los Angeles April 30 May
  2, 2006
• www.aqmd.gov/tao/ultrafine_presentations/Preconfe
  rence_3_Kittleson.pdf

31
Clean Diesel Technology

• No harmful effects from trains even in worst case
  scenario of continuous exposure for 70 years
  (FEIR section 3.5.4)
• EIR reviewed sensitive areas including local
  schools and neighborhoods that have homes much
  closer than ours and still found no significant
  negative effects. (FEIR 3.5.5)

32
(No Transcript)
33
Self-Powered Vehicles are Quiet

• At 50 feet away (EIR section 3.7) SMART 50
  dBA lt City Bus 80 dBA
• SMART self-powered railcars will be 75 quieter
  than a locomotive1
• Continuously welded rails will also keep train
  noise to a minimum.

1 Source Colorado Railcar brochure
34
Decibel (dB) Comparisons of Common Sounds1
1. Decibel table developed by the National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, Maryland 20892. January 1990
Decibel table developed by the National Institute
on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
20892. January 1990.
35
Quiet Zone means no Train Horns

• City applies for quiet zone, for example
  Hamilton and Los Robles quiet zone
  included in SMARTs budget no train horn
  sounded at Hamilton Parkway/Los Robles crossing
  ever.
• San Diego is making 13 intersections quiet zones
  by 2008 for their new rail project. Richmond
  just completed several quiet zones.

36
Home Value Station Effect is Positive

• Consultants Booz Allen Hamilton reviewed twelve
  rail projects to determine the station effect on
  home and land value and concluded that
• in general, proximity to rail is shown to have
  positive impacts on property values
• www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents
  /diaz.pdf
• Consultants concluded the property value
  premiums due to increases in accessibility range
  between 3 and 40

37
Home Value Station Effect is Positive

• SMART conducted research at UC Berkeley Institute
  of Transportation Studies
• (Section 3.2-50 of FEIR)
• Regression analysis showed the positive impact on
  property within a one-half mile of rail stations
  1
• 1. Research also reviewed Condominium and
  Apartment effect, but neither is relevant to
  Hamilton.

• SMARTs Daily Avg Ridership of 5,050 is higher
  than both of these lines 4,621 for Riverside and
  4,411 for Ventura (Source Metrolinks Fast
  Facts)

38
Home Value Station Effect research is well
documented

• According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI),
  residential properties for sale near commuter
  rail stops in California consistently enjoy price
  premiums.1
• Home value increased in these studies of
  traditional locomotive rail not as small, quiet,
  clean or comfortable as SMART

1 Urban Land Institute (ULI), Apply the Power of
Partnerships, Ten Principles for Successful
Development Around Transit, Washington, DC, 2003,
p. 7.
39
SMART for our children

• The choices we make now will have a profound
  effect on our childrens generation.
• It is time to stop incentivizing people to drive
  in single occupancy cars, and provide
  environmentally-friendly mass transit
  alternatives such as SMARTs plan for rail,
  bicycle/walking path and shuttles.