SMART Train

[jbfrenchhorn]

I know a lot of you, like me, are opposed to the SMART Train. Come join the Anti-SMART Facebook group. So far, there are only two of us.

[The Big Dog]

I'm not opposed to it per se. I'm in favor of the concept. I just believe that the SMART board, being run by the GGBHTD for all intents and purposes, is going about it all wrong.

[harpman1]

For the $$$$ needed to roll the Smart train, a fleet of limo's could be on call 24/7 & it would still cost less.

Unless one has a very densely packed population, big public transit systems are the least cost-efficient method of moving people.

But we will feel good about ourselves.

[jbfrenchhorn]

And the politicians can put it on the resumes. Watch. If this thing passes, it will be considered one of their top achievements. "I was instrumental in starting the SMART Train, which helps save money (yeah, right) and stops the global warming that is caused by all the dirty, wicked cars."

[harpman1]

Fix the roads; add lanes; watch congestion disappear.

Oh, I forgot. People suck. People w/cars are destroying Mother Gaia.

Never mind; wait for the bus.

[nacosta]

Im all for it. Its about time we started getting on the same page as the rest of the world. When Israel stops the Iranians from having nukes and we stop Iran from blocking the straight of Hormuz gas will hit 8$ plus and ya'll be begging for a seat on the train.

[jbfrenchhorn]

Jul 19, 2008 15:22:56 GMT -5 @nacosta said:

Im all for it. Its about time we started getting on the same page as the rest of the world. When Israel stops the Iranians from having nukes and we stop Iran from blocking the straight of Hormuz gas will hit 8$ plus and ya'll be begging for a seat on the train.

Maybe so. But even with SMART, it will still be impractical to use it to get to the rest of the Bay Area. I don't know about you, but I'm not usually that interested in going to Marin. I'm usually more interested in going to San Francisco, Oakland, and even San Jose. SMART will practically destroy the chances of getting some form of rail transit that goes all the way to the rest of the Bay Area, effectively cutting us off from the rest of the region. As someone on the PD forum said, why build a train from one end of the island to the other rather than to the mainland?

[ferrous]

Most Californians aren't willing to give up their cars. The added third lanes on 101 are too little, too late.

Rather than funding more money for a commuter service that goes nowhere (Marin County) wouldn't it be better to support getting the Railroad freight service back up and running?

[In 2007, major freight railroads in the United States moved a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on each gallon of fuel. This represents a 3.1 percent improvement over 2006 and an astonishing 85.5 percent improvement since 1980.

"That's the equivalent of moving a ton of freight all the way from Baltimore to Boston on just a single gallon of diesel fuel," said Association of American Railroads President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger.

He noted that thanks to railroads' fuel efficiency gains, since 1980 freight railroads have reduced fuel consumption by 48 billion gallons and carbon dioxide emissions by 538 million tons.

Hamberger pointed out that railroads are three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks, adding: “In fact, if just 10 percent of the freight currently moving by truck went instead by rail, the nation could save one billion gallons of fuel per year."

Moving more freight by rail does more than just reduce fuel consumption and pollution, he said. It also reduces highway congestion. "A single intermodal train can take 280 trucks off the highways. And because the average size of a truck is equal to almost four automobiles, that's the same amount of space that 1,100 automobiles would occupy."

Railroads are taking concrete steps to further reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

"Railroads and their suppliers have developed technologies that reduce the need to idle locomotives when not operating” said Hamberger. “They have developed new hybrid and "gen-set" locomotives that also reduce both fuel consumption and emissions in rail yards. And they are working to develop new hybrid locomotives and fuel cell locomotives that have promise to bring further improvements in both areas."]

www.aar.org/Pressroom/PressReleases/2008/05/RailroadFuelRecord.aspx

So rather taxing us on a dumb "SMART" train that might not get cars off the roads, building more lanes on our highways that only get more cars on the road, wouldn't it be better to support the shipment of freight on railways that reduce the amount of large trucks tearing up our highways, increasing our demand for foreign oil, and spewing their particulate pollutants into the air and into our lungs?