A few facts are in order as apparently a lot of pundits in this string don't read such documents as an EIS or EIR.

1) In 2006, Parsons-Brinkerhoff did SMART's ridership analysis. Based on the 70 mile train line and a simulation to 2025, they projected 404 riders/day would board/alight in downtown San Rafael.

2) In 2014, SMART staff, in the EIS using the MTC model projected that the extension to Larkspur would generate an additional 131 riders/day for the year 2035.

3) In the same EIS, AECOM did traffic modeling for downtown San Rafael for 2040 and concluded that traffic would be so bad, the train crossing 2nd/3rd on its way to Larkspur would not make a material difference. They used the LOS rating and it was F in both cases. There was no evaluation of the traffic impacts in intervening years (e.g., 2020, 2025, etc.)

4) At a neighborhood meeting in San Rafael, city staff told the audience that they have no plans to do any traffic analysis of the impacts on trains crossing 2nd and 3rd prior to granting SMART/GGT the various permits required for SMART to proceed. Currently the tracks bisect the Bettini transit center. There are several alternatives for an interim solution. All of them cause traffic impacts -- according to the city's planning staff.

5) The $40 MM issue: GGT is going to have to relocate Bettini. There is currently no location identified and no money to fund it. Steve Kinsey has been hired by the city to come up with a solution.

6) The City Attorney has advised the San Rafael City Council that SMART may sue them if they delay SMART's timeline for beginning construction of the Larkspur extension.

7) The issue being raised by Richard Hall -- whether cars exiting sb 101 in the AM peak will be backed into the gridlock has not been analyzed by anyone. Currently traffic is backed up to Rowland Blvd most weekday mornings, taking drivers about 45 minutes to go six miles or so. Cars backed into that stream would worsen the commute for thousands. The question is whether the crossing guards -- if they're working -- coming down on 2nd and 3rd would, in fact, have that effect.

8) To the extent drivers perceive additional gridlock on 2nd and 3rd, they will seek alternative routes in the area. This means one of the impacts may be to add drivers into the gridlock on Sir Francis Drake.

***************************

All of the above is going to get resolved in a political context, much as the Quiet Zones were. If San Rafael residents show up to San Rafael City Council meetings where the issue is discussed and the city council doesn't listen to them, readers of this forum ought to expect a ballot measure (initiative/referendum) to occur. And the key issue will be: traffic caused by the extension. That process will absolutely delay SMART from beginning construction in downtown San Rafael, but not south of 2nd.

Could SMART sue? Of course, but that would require support of the Marin County SMART Board members. Seems unlikely, but one never knows for sure.

Hence, if those on the forum think that the traffic impacts are immaterial you should recommend to your friends in San Rafael that the city study them and put the issue to rest.