Lots of commenters on AP recognize that SMART
was a boondoggle from the beginning. What within
suburban train line isn't?

There are passenger trains serving commuters all over
the U.S. So, we have a lot of experience and data as
to the circumstances when rail transit produces real benefits
for the public vs. when it's just a waste of public
funds.

One of the key findings from years of studying passenger
rail is the importance of the density of employment at
destination stations. Rail transit will serve proportionally more passengers
(say as a percentage of commuters) when commuters (the primary users)
can walk from destination stations to where they work.
Think SF, Chicago, NYC.

I'm sorry, San Rafael? Santa Rosa? There just isn't the
employment density that will generate meaningful ridership.

Let's see: there's a lot of cost for the infrastructure
which in SMART's case the all-in cost of construction,
including P&E is nearing $1B. And if it doesn't generate
many riders, what is the benefit? Well, that's what a boondoggle is.

What makes it worse in our region is the lying by SMART staff
and Board members (which is continuing) and the acceptance of
those lies by true believers, who think rail is good way to
spend tax dollars under any and all circumstances.

So, my question to SMART supporters include: just what are going
to do when ridership comes in much lower than forecast?
What will you say when SMART has to start cutting service
because it can't afford to operate all of the trains it has
promised the voters?

What will you advocate then? Will you advocate raising sales
taxes even more?

Therein lies the rub.