10 Recommended Principles 
for the SMART Train and Pathway Project

Revised: January 18, 2011

The Marin County Bicycle Coalition has had an excellent collaborative relationship with Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) since its inception in 1999. Our intention is to continue with this collaboration to see SMART to construction of the train and pathway system and into operations as soon as possible. We offer these recommended principles as SMART is in the process of making difficult decisions about how to close the funding gap for the first segment of train and pathway from Railroad Square in Santa Rosa to downtown San Rafael. 

  1. It’s Always Been the SMART Train and Pathway System: The multiuse pathway has been an integral component of the SMART project since 1999. The project has always been identified as the SMART train and pathway – a system. The pathway will help people get to stations, it will function as critical maintenance access, and the desire for a north-south pathway to enhance local connectivity and station access played a critical role in why SMART’s Measure Q passed in 2008. Measure Q made a commitment to funding a 70-mile pathway system, and the expenditure plan included $91M for the pathway.  Many credit the inclusion of the pathway in Measure Q as to why SMART finally passed voter approval. After the recession created a funding gap for the project, SMART's General Manager Lillian Hames and MCBC’s Deb Hubsmith expressed a continued commitment to the pathway project in this April 2010 Marin IJ editorial: http://www.marinij.com/ci_14798798?IADID=Search-www.marinij.com-www.marinij.com. The dual nature of the SMART train and pathway project must stay intact, even as the project length is downsized. 
  2. Proportionate Construction/Funding for Pathway: The SMART pathway has always been planned to parallel the SMART train along the entire SMART system from Larkspur to Cloverdale. As portions of the system are now being phased from Santa Rosa to San Rafael, the pathway is also being phased. MCBC supports proportionate phasing and urges proportionate/simultaneous funding and construction of the pathway for each train segment of the project that is built. The construction should include the Class I (pathway) and Class II (bike lanes) system that was agreed to in the Measure Q expenditure plan and prior SMART documents. It is essential for the construction/bid documents that SMART plans to release in the Spring of 2011 to include final design and construction of the multi-use pathway along with the rail and crossings.
  3. The Pathway Already is Contributing $20M in Matching Funds: The pathway for the proposed 37-mile route from Railroad Square in Santa Rosa to downtown San Rafael (publicized at a cost of $39M) actually includes more than 10 miles of pathway facilities that will not be built or maintained by SMART, and are not included in that $39M figure. These separate facilities include the TAM-built and San Rafael-maintained Puerto Suello Hill Pathway through San Rafael ($12M), the County’s Los Ranchitos Road bikes lanes ($800,000), San Rafael’s Mission to Transit Center pathway ($600,000) and the 8-mile section of the Sonoma-Marin Narrows (which will cost $6-8M and which is not yet fully funded). This represents a total of approximately $20M for pathway costs that are not in SMART’s budget but are part of the SMART system – bringing the total cost of the 37-mile pathway to $59M. Despite these pathway segments not being part of the SMART project in a fiscal or ownership sense, they were included in the SMART Measure Q language which indicates a commitment to providing a 70-mile pathway. These 10+ miles of non-SMART-owned facilities, which will cost $20M to build, represent one-third of the overall pathway cost; therefore one-third of the pathway funding has already been provided for the SMART project.
  4. The MCBC is Committed to Helping SMART Raise Funding: MCBC has previously supported fundraising efforts and will continue to work with SMART to raise funds for the train and pathway system. We have already helped write several grants (TIGER II, EEMP, and others). Most recently MCBC alerted SMART to the opportunity for requesting Pilot Program funds from the County of Marin for a pathway segment, and we have told the County that SMART’s request is one of our top three priorities. However, it is also critical for SMART to put Measure Q funds toward the construction of the multi-use pathway.  
  5. Shifting Funds from Other Projects: MTC stated on December 15, 2010 that SMART should explore shifting funds from uncommitted funding sources and redirecting funds from stalled Marin and Sonoma projects. We believe that seeking additional funds should be explored with TAM, SCTA, and MTC before there are any further “cost saving” cuts to the SMART system. However, SMART should not attempt to take any bicycle/pedestrian funding that has previously been committed to Marin or Sonoma County projects to make up SMART’s $62M - $125M project shortfall (MTC’s funding estimate). 
  6. Other Cost Saving Items Should be Explored: As mentioned above in #3, the pathway has already taken a disproportionate hit on requirements for matching funds to build the pathway. There are numerous other “potential cost savings” for SMART that were mentioned at the November 6, 2010 SMART workshop including staging the construction of the operations and maintenance facility, eliminating the fiber optic line, deferring or eliminating stations that do not meet the MTC housing requirements, eliminating quiet zones, contracting out operations and maintenance, and more. We understand that it could also save SMART up to $15M/year to delay operating trains. For example, the project could be fully constructed by 2014 (to take advantage of the good construction market now), but if service is delayed until 2016, SMART could save up to $30M for needed capital expenditures, while retaining essential features of the SMART train and pathway system.
  7. Proportionate Treatment in the Counties for the Pathway: Only after exploring all possible uncommitted and redirected funding sources, and other cost saving measures, will MCBC be willing to consider additional cuts in funding to the sections of the pathway the SMART will build. The total cost of the pathway for the segment from downtown San Rafael to Railroad Square in Santa Rosa is $39M. If any cuts to this segment are proposed, the maximum amount should be no more than one-third of the $39M of SMART pathway costs, which is $13M total for both counties. We consider this a last resort, for the reasons stated above, but if it has to come to this, the cuts should be made proportionately in each county as follows:
    1. The Marin portion of the pathway cost (from Novato to San Rafael) is $13M of the $39M total cost for the pathway. If SMART were to cut one-third of the cost of the pathway, the maximum amount cut (which would be pursued through additional grants) should not exceed $4.33M. At least $8.67M of Measure Q funds should be used to construct two-thirds of the pathway in Marin. 
    2. The Sonoma portion of the pathway cost is $26M of the $39M total cost for the pathway. If SMART were to cut one-third of the pathway, the maximum amount cut (which would be pursued through additional grants) should not exceed $8.66M. At least $17.34M of Measure Q funds should be used to construct at least two-thirds of the pathway in Sonoma.

      If reductions are made to the $39M for the pathway, SMART should work with the CMAs and bike coalitions in both counties to determine which pathway segments will be built with the Measure Q SMART funds by 2014 and which segments will be deferred until additional grant funding can be found. A plan to raise these funds should be created collaboratively with the CMAs, SMART, Marin County and Sonoma County, and an MOU should be signed by SMART and the CMAs to ensure that the entire pathway system is built parallel to the train. As was stated previously, for the construction/bid packages being released this Spring, the pathway must be included. It is also essential for SMART to note that there are many other bicycle and pedestrian projects in the two counties which need funding. The Marin Pilot Program analysis detailed a $200M need in funding to complete Marin’s bicycle and pedestrian system; this did not include SMART’s pathway which was assumed to be fully funded through Measure Q.
  8.  Detail the SMART Project Elements Prior to Moving Forward with Bonding: Prior to moving forward to purchase bonds, MCBC urges SMART release a staff report explaining in detail all aspects of the proposed project pertaining to stations, the pathway and other rail construction elements. We urge that this be the subject of a public meeting with adequate time for the public to digest any proposed changes and ramifications for the first segment of the project, or proposed shifts in other funds. This process would ensure that all cities, both counties, and all stakeholders including the MCBC have clarity on all proposed project elements prior to SMART committing tax payer dollars and release construction/bid requests for proposals. This clarity on the project will also be necessary for determining cost and revenue assumptions.
  9. Timeline Needed: MCBC urges SMART to publicly release a timeline for how it intends to move the project forward during the next several critical months of January through March 2011; it will be important to include key milestones that will be decided at SMART Board and Committee meetings. We recommend that the timeline also include dates for decisions regarding:
    1. Identifying the final project elements, including new revenue and potential cost savings.
    2. Bonding decisions.
    3. The construction schedule, the release of the construction/bid request for proposals, and the components of that construction/bid document.
    4. The start date for operations.
  10. Working Together: The Marin County Bicycle Coalition appreciate SMART’s careful consideration of these recommended principles and looks forward to working together to get the train and pathway system up and running as soon as possible.

Contact:
Deb Hubsmith, Advocacy Director, deb@marinbike.org
Andy Peri, Advocacy & Outreach Coordinator, andy@marinbike.org