A lot of comments on the SMART Larkspur extension contained some significant
misinformation. Here are some pieces for those interested to consider.

1) The tracks bisect the Bettini Bus Transit facility used by 9,000
people per day. This is a count of individuals getting on and off buses. Many of them (not all) are transferring.

2) There is no agreed upon location/design/funding/environmental clearances for the "future" Bettini Center. Conservative estimates of the time to completion are five years from the time the funding is in place. More likely 8-10 years from now.

3) This means there must be an "interim" plan during which many buses will be parked on
city streets, requiring passengers to cross busy streets to catch buses, and -- based on the city's traffic model -- backing traffic all the way and onto Hwy 101 during peak hours.

4) It is the interim plan that everyone has reacted to. There are significant impacts on traffic associated with the combination of at-grade crossings AND buses maneuvering around.
Very little time has focused on the long term solution, because none of them are very inviting and the city council has reacted negatively to them.

5) FYI: For SMART to continue south of downtown it must cross two significant arteries,
2nd and 3rd streets. Current vehicle counts indicate about 50,000 vehicles a day cross the
tracks at 2nd and 3rd streets. According to the traffic models -- and one can debate how accurate they are -- when the Bettini is fully relocated, the traffic impacts will continue to be significant, but not as significant as the combination of crossing guards coming down AND buses parked on the streets.

6) By contrast, the # of passengers taking the train to Larkspur or from Larkspur was projected to be 231 riders/day and that was for the year 2035. Yeah, SMART proponents
are saying these projections are conservative, but they don't really know. But they are published and all can see them in the Appendix to the Extension EIS.

That the MTC, TAM, Golden Gate Transit and the FTA signed off on this extension without
full consideration of this issue is beyond belief. It should have always been included
in the extension as anyone who understood traffic dynamics would know, the transit center
is a huge deal. Huge.

As a consequence, the back tracking by the Mayor is recognition of the above observations, none of which are in dispute. And it will set up one of the most interesting political local battles of recent memory.

Mayor Phillips sits on the SMART Board. Just under half the members are from Marin County.
Which of these members is going to cross swords with the above observations? Only Sonoma County members are going to complain. How it gets resolved in anyone's guess.

And what's also hovering over the entire process: in order for the construction of rail
across 2nd and 3rd, GGT will have to obtain permits from the San Rafael City Council.
The granting of permits are referendable.

I would expect six months from now we'll all know a lot more about how these moving
parts will find an equilibrium. But I wouldn't put it pass the activists who have
fought PDAs, train horns, and SMART circulate petitions should the city council cave
on the delay. Of course, this alone would generate a significant delay.

In the meantime, watch for SMART's start-up date. If they don't fix their issues
with PTC and the malfunctioning at-grade crossings, right in the middle of the debate
and back and forth, SMART could announce a further delay.

Now how will that affect San Rafael's willingness to back off demands for delay?

AC