I've read the stats, they were back when gas was $2 something a gallon, now they are close to $4 a gallon. That makes a difference.

Back then SUV's were in vogue, now try selling them and getting the loan amount out of them. Most of the time, you ain't going to do it.

Why is it you opponents, will cit ridership and state it will have no effect, yet forget the bike path, with clearance done elsewhere in the state will also reduce the usage of 101.

"I certainly do not consider electrification a dumb idea. On the contrary I believe it to be the only way to go for transit rail. As to mainline freight railways I doubt we will ever see that kind of investment without nationalization.

Commute rail from the North Bay can only succeed if there is direct access to San Francisco. The rail feeders to ferries concept died in the early 1940's. Without a very substantial subsidy the Marin ferries of today simply wouldn't be there either.

While I am certainly opposed to building more freways, I do not agree with the SMART backers that a minimal plan is better than no plan, especially if it means hobbling the ROW with a bikelane. SMART is doomed to underwhelm. I feel it will leave a legacy of botched opportunity, kinda like BART."

Electrification can't be done everywhere, simple economics. Thus dumb in some instances. Look at how much Amtrak has to pay to revitalize it's infrastructure in the NE. Again listen to yourself, if you are saying the commute to SF is dying, why is the commute to SF a necessary to be direct connection? You are talking billions of up front cost difference.

Guess what, the opposition plan is to widen the 101. So by your opposition to SMART, you by default will widen the freeway. Hope your happy, because it will happen. Think of the Novato narrows will have $800 million in upfront costs, MIJ said SMART is a bargain, even covers more ground.

You need a lot of traffic before you need double track.