Where We Stand

Vote for Hamilton: Petaluma City Councilmember Jane Hamilton wins our endorsement for the 2nd Supervisorial District. Hamilton has the experience the south county needs to help implement complicated transit improvements and nurture the region’s fast-growing economy.

A select list of local endorsements

Edited by Greg Cahill

THE PUNDITS, in their infinite arrogance, say you are a faded, jaded electorate. They say you’re too dazed by the glare of the presidential sex scandal to recognize that some of the most important decisions about the future of the North Bay will be made Nov. 3 at the ballot box. They predict you’ll sit at home that day and watch Melrose Place reruns.

We don’t buy that.

Be smart. Get out and vote. Here is a select list of endorsements to help sort through the issues. (For more endorsements, see “A Quick and Dirty Election Guide“).

Measures B and C

Reality check. In a perfect world, you’d get public policy and planning processes that please everyone–something that would be all things to all people.

In the real world, you get back-room deals and compromises that often leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

Meet Measures B and C.

A recent public opinion poll found that 79 percent of respondents support Measure B, which calls for construction of two extra freeway lanes, a passenger-rail line, freeway interchange upgrades, bike lanes, and a few other bells and whistles. Yet respondents are just about evenly split over Measure C, an advisory measure authorizing a 1/2-cent sales tax increase over the next 20 years and requesting, but not requiring, that county officials spend the money on the aforementioned transit package. The sales tax measure is expected to raise about $627 million toward $950 worth of transit improvements (federal funds and other revenue sources will cover the rest).

The measures are the culmination of a decade of planning. Most recently, the proposed transit plan was crafted by a coalition of local conservationists (mostly the leadership of Sonoma County Conservation Action), business leaders, and public officials based on recommendations issued in a report by respected transportation consultant Peter Calthorpe.

Even Calthorpe’s report shows that the plan is flawed–expect to shave only about 1/10 of the time off your commute after we taxpayers have spent a billion dollars. And opponents, namely the Environmental Defense Fund, argue that the plan is fiscally flawed as well–it underestimates costs and fails to take into account expected cost overruns.

The supes say there’s plenty of funding in the tax measures.

Under the pay-as-you-go plan (in which projects are completed as the sales tax revenue accumulates), the EDF estimates, rail operations would not begin until 2015 and the highway widening would not be completed until 2016. If cost overruns occur, or if the public demands faster action, they say, the county may be forced to defer all other improvements and issue costly transit bonds to begin rail service by 2003 and get the extra freeway lanes built by 2005.

And what about that passenger-rail line? Only about a quarter of the increased sales tax revenue has been set aside for the train–about $175 million, barely enough to make one commute run per hour between Santa Rosa and San Rafael–and the plan doesn’t accommodate expensive southern storage facilities and other pricey items.

Indeed, the train is a weak link in the transit plan, since a public opinion poll earlier this year showed that while a majority of respondents favor a passenger-rail service, only 40 percent say they will actually use it and then only if it reaches Larkspur. Here’s the problem: At 40 mph, the train will require nearly an hour to travel from Santa Rosa to San Rafael (the proposed rail system won’t extend to the Larkspur Ferry to make a San Francisco connection because there’s not enough money to fund that stretch), the number of feeder buses from outlying areas will be minimal, and the buses will run infrequently at rush hour.

Not much of a deal, huh?

That said, after a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, Measures B and C still constitute the best plan. For instance, without the money these measures provide it is likely that the existing railway, whose freight operations keep nearly 40,000 trucks a year off Highway 101, will shut down. Even limited rail service is better than none. Also, defeat of the transit plan will deprive the region of $51 million for sorely needed bus improvements and $18 million for bikeways.

We agree with Sonoma County Conservation Action that the rail service should be built first to take advantage of $28 million in state funds that must be used for rail within three years and to lure commuters off the freeway, and we hope that the limited runs are just the first phase of a more complete rail service in the North Bay. We also applaud those conservationists–including members of the EDF, Friends of the River, Greenbelt Alliance, and the Sierra Club–who have either taken a stand against the transit plan or remained neutral (as is the case of the latter two organizations). Their energy and expertise will be needed to fight the bid to mine 6 million tons of gravel from the already damaged Russian River to be used in the freeway paving project, and to find ways to make this plan more workable.

Quite simply, commuters and the private sector need to recognize that the transit plan alone is not going to fix the North Bay’s commuter mess. Other steps are needed, and ultimately commuters must accept responsibility for altering their driving habits by embracing car pools and public transit.

And there are other low-cost options that should be considered to augment Measures B and C. For instance, how about better transportation system management plans that feature such incentives as staggered work shifts, telecommuting, or subsidized bonuses for employees who car-pool? And shouldn’t regulators fast-track a proposed ferry service from Petaluma to Larkspur? The list goes on.

Most important, Sonoma County residents should acknowledge that extra freeway lanes may help fuel suburban sprawl. Part of the key to the transit plan’s success is a campaign to focus growth in transit-oriented, mixed-use developments in downtown areas. In 1996, a majority of voters backed five urban growth boundaries, reining in development to what residents hope will be manageable levels. (Measure I would restrict development south of Petaluma to the Sonoma/Marin county line, and establish a UGB around the River City.) These are powerful land-use tools that must be guarded at all costs if the county is to exhibit economic growth while retaining its pastoral charm.

Vote Yes on Measures B and C.

2nd Supervisorial District

In a crowded field in June, Petaluma City Councilwoman Jane Hamilton stood out as the brightest candidate. However, a close race with Petaluma Police Sgt. Mike Kerns, a virtual political neophyte, forced a runoff election.

Hamilton remains a bright, thoughtful, and able candidate.

Favored by the local environmental community and backed by most of the City Council, this two-term City Council member and telecommunications manager gained kudos a couple of years ago for helping open the public dialogue during the divisive Lafferty Ranch swap debate. While she has been cautious in her support of Measures B and C, Hamilton backs the transit plan and has pledged to make sure that the county Board of Supervisors lives up to the intent of Measure C, if it passes, advising but not requiring supes to spend all funds from the sales tax increase on the transit fixes.

Her opponent is a 25-year veteran of the local police force who rose to prominence as the department’s spokesman during the Polly Klaas kidnap/murder case. He has twice been elected as a trustee to the Waugh School District and recently picked up the endorsement of retiring Supervisor Jim Harberson.

Kerns has never been involved in any significant planning decision, and that’s a serious shortcoming, considering that the Board of Supervisors is going to make crucial decisions in the next couple of years about the future of the region’s transportation and economy.

Those decisions should not be placed in the hands of a rookie.

Vote for Jane Hamilton.

From the October 22-28, 1998 issue of the Sonoma County Independent.

© Metro Publishing Inc.

Rail Thin

Train time: In 1996, passengers inspected a self-propelled, diesel-powered Regio Sprinter like the one rail proponents would like to see offering local rail service.

How much train can you buy for $175 million? Not much.

By Janet Wells

WHEN COMMUTERS think about taking the train to work, they fantasize fast, convenient, and environmentally friendly coaches. Like Bay Area Rapid Transit. But BART, at an estimated cost of $115 million per mile, is a bit out of Sonoma County’s price range. With $175 million proposed in a pair of Nov. 3 transit-tax ballot measures to cover a 60-mile rail system, what can residents and commuters expect to get for their tax dollars?

Small and slow.

Measure B, the transportation advisory companion to the Measure C proposal to raise the county’s sales tax by 1/2 cent, doesn’t provide a detailed passenger rail plan. But the Transportation and Land Use Study that served as the basis for Measure B recommended making do by adding a bit of spit and polish to the current freight rail system: a single-track standard-gauge rail line that can handle a maximum speed of 40 mph, with 14 stations between Healdsburg and San Rafael.

Under that plan, the diesel-powered passenger rolling stock, as train cars are called, would run every half hour during peak commute hours and drop to 60-minute intervals until 10 p.m., when freight trains would get the right-of-way through the night.

“If you’re going to have commuter rail that’s really going to get people out of their cars, it has to be high-speed, comfortable, and get them from where they are to where they want to go. This system will do none of these. It takes an electric train like BART to move people,” says Richard Gaines, with the Campaign Against Wasting Millions. “I’m all for a real railroad, but I want something that’s up-to-date technology. There’s no point in putting good money after bad into a system that goes nowhere.”

Settling for a somewhat antiquated system that will likely attract a low ridership (a public opinion poll last year found that only 14 percent of rail supporters would actually use the trains) doesn’t bother proponents of the rail portion of Measure B. In fact, they consider it good business sense to start slow and build. “The beauty of it is that because we own it, we can repair it and buy rolling stock,” says Bill Kortum, board chairman of Sonoma County Conservation Action, which has endorsed both transportation measures. “It’s not like putting in an electrical system with huge up-front capital. You work your way into it.”

Dick Day, also an SCCA board member, agrees, “We’re looking at this for the long term. Rail will develop slowly. What we want is the cities to put their growth in areas close to the rail stations. It’s important that rail is available for Sonoma County residents.”

Suzanne Wilford, executive director of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, says sources of funding for the $175 million rail system over 15 years include $20 million from ticket fares, $17 million from state transportation bond measure Prop. 116, and $138 million from increased sales tax revenues. Sonoma County also is in line to compete for additional federal funds for rail that could replace funds from sales taxes.

Overall, $92 million of the budget would be spent on upgrading tracks, signals, control systems, station platforms, communications, ticket vending machines, a maintenance facility, sidings, communications, and 25 diesel-electric rail cars. Those cars would likely be akin to a European-style Diesel Light-Rail Vehicle, which has diesel engines generating electrical power.

The $5.5 million annual operating costs, which include train operators, fuel, maintenance, sales, fare collections, insurance, and administration, deplete the remainder of the $175 million proposed budget over 15 years.

BUT CRITICS SAY that’s simply not enough to construct an efficient rail system that will lure drivers off of the freeway. A report released this week by the Environmental Defense Fund–an organization that boasts 1,200 members locally and opposes the transit tax measures–concludes that the rail line and proposed freeway improvements will fail to curb traffic congestion and sprawl. The report, prepared by EDF transportation program manager Michael Cameron, points out that the transit plan fails to list detailed capital or the operating plan for the proposed rail system. “The information that is available ignores altogether, or seriously underestimates, several costs,” the report notes. “For example, the plan does not account for a southern storage yard for rail cars, yet most functioning rail systems need storage capacity at both ends of the line.

“Additionally,” the report continues, “to operate trains at the frequency proposed, the rail system would need an automated control system to manage trains traveling in opposite directions on a single track to prevent them from colliding, yet the proposed rail funding falls $27 million to $40 million short of the full cost of this system.”

In the final report of the three-part series, scheduled for release Oct. 27, EDF will contend that any rail plan in Sonoma County would face considerable obstacles to success.

Still, part of EDF’s complaint is that the existing plan fails to state precise financial details that should be ascertained before the public commits to such a lofty project. “It makes no sense to make a down payment on a rail system if the rest of the financial needs have not been thought through and if there is no clear source of matching funds,” the report concludes. “The county simply cannot afford to gamble 20 years of transit funds on a system that has not been carefully designed and which has not been demonstrated to have a credible chance of successfully attracting riders.

“Other counties in California, notably in Los Angeles, have pursued similar strategies only to see total transit ridership decline even though total investments in transit more than doubled.”

In a recent interview, Cameron estimated that the rail project will experience major cost overruns that will lead either to a decision by county officials to issue pricey bonds or to drop parts of plan altogether.

Supporters of the rail system most often point to the South Bay when describing a passenger train service that is desirable, though that rail system is yet to be tested.

Sonoma County’s proposed rail system is comparable to the Stockton-San Jose line scheduled to start Oct. 19, says Arthur Lloyd, a board member of CalTrain (a commuter rail service on the Peninsula) and a retired Amtrak director. The line was going to have two trains in each direction daily, with a capacity of 3,200 passengers, but orders for more trains have been made before the trains have even started rolling.

“They went out to sell passes in advance and they are already oversold,” says Lloyd, a San Mateo County resident. “They started modestly and it’s just gone ape.”

“Incremental is the best way to start,” Lloyd adds. “I am absolutely horrified that some people say you can’t run a commute line on a single track. That’s what everyone starts with. Nobody will ride it? That’s pure unadulterated what-will-make-your-lawns-turn-green.” Lloyd throws in the caveat that the key to Sonoma County rail success may be convenient links with San Francisco, and even under the best scenario links from Santa Rosa to Larkspur are a long way down the line.

“[Rail planners] should talk about Larkspur if they have any brains,” he says. “The real market is San Francisco, and the best way to serve it is the ferry.”

Even if Measure B wins at the ballot box, rail advocates will face an uphill battle getting the passenger rail system implemented anytime soon. Sonoma County Conservation Action, which joined a coalition of business leaders and public officials to push the transit tax, is insisting that the rail system be given a priority. SCCA made significant concessions in its support of the sales tax measures, since thousands of tons of gravel for the extra freeway lanes will come from the Russian River, where gravel mining already has depleted the riverbed. It made that concession in the frim belief that Measures B and C offer the last chance for construction of a rail line in the county.

But the business community, which agreed to inclusion of the rail line, wants the extra freeway lanes built first. In the end, transit tax opponents say, the freeway expansion, with its predicted cost overruns, will use up a lion’s share of the sales tax funds, leaving the railway underfunded and too impractical ever to attract a signiicant share of riders.

Under the currently planned pay-as-you-go sales tax option, EDF estimates, the train won’t be on line until 2010.

Editor Greg Cahill contributed to this article.

From the October 15-21, 1998 issue of the Sonoma County Independent.

© Metro Publishing Inc.