Planning for Reality: Solutions Smarter than the SMART Train

Until about a year ago I used to lead a blissfully ignorant existence - I bought into the thinking that transit was good, cars were bad and getting people to switch from cars to transit would help reduce climate change and be an efficient use of the taxes that I paid. I drove but felt guilty about not taking transit - as I had done for years when living in London. Then I started reading up on the subject, I became informed, and consequently I had the most sobering awakening. 

I discovered:

-  Transit generates more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than cars (except in the Northeast where trains to cities with centralized employment like Manhattan had very high average ridership) 

-  The true cost of cars, even including the cost of purchase, maintenance and building and maintenance of the highways that they run on is a fraction of the cost of transit

- If you think the cost of transit is high, then the cost of the SMART train is truly obscene

Here is how different modes of transit compare where considering their true cost per passenger mile:

Car: $0.23
Transit: $0.95
SMART Train: $2.12

How Were These Costs Calculated?

SMART: SMART doesn't have any valid ridership numbers - the latest Dowling Associates study numbers were deemed incorrect by SMART, TAM, MTC and the SMART board. So we have to look elsewhere. The closest comparable transit system is in Portland where there is a similar commuter train that like SMART feeds into a separate network that goes to employment centers. The Portland train costs $2.00/passenger mile to operate and collects just $0.12/passenger mile in fares. 

Transit: The user cost for transit was $0.24/passenger mile in 2011, with an additional subsidy of $0.71 totalling $0.95/passenger mile.

Cars: Cars last 18 years. On average they transport 1.6 passengers. Including all costs of purchase, operations, maintenance, repair, insurance cars cost 35c per vehicle mile (source: Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts Tables, table 2.5.5. US DOT Highway Statistics table VM-1). Then you need to add 1c per mile to pay for highways (table HF-10 from Highyway Statistics).

You may find AAA estimates the cost at 50c per mile but this assumes car owners buy new cars and replace them  every 5 years, ignoring that cars have an 18 year operational lifespan.

Smart Conclusions

Based on the above it would be cheaper to divert the cost of the SMART train to buy every passenger their own brand new Toyota Prius. The impact of the extra 101 traffic would be tiny. However it’s now become abundantly evident that SMART is a Trojan horse for high density housing - adding thousands of new Marin residents and their cars to 101. There really aren’t any logical arguments left for transit oriented development with its associated high density housing – two separate projects that Plan Bay Area has demonstrated are joined at the hip. This myth was thoroughly demolished at the May 30th Plan Bay Area debate (watch the video - it's long but good).

A Better Solution

We live in an area of great technological and business innovation. We need leaders who demonstrate these qualities and who will question the status quo that has green-washed folks into believing transit is the solution.
It’s important that people can find transportation so that they can commute to jobs. For low income Marin residents transportation makes the difference between having and not having a job. I’ve heard it said that car ownership can increase your chances of finding a job more than having a high school diploma and I believe it. Without a car you might be able to commute 10 miles on transit, changing buses and adding wait time. With a car your commute radius is widened -  you can get the kids to school and attend evening classes. For many access to a car may make it possible to work a second job or add a part time job to a full time job (a reality for many making ends meet).

Imagine if we could spend a little transportation money exploring truly cost effective solutions – such as providing transit vouchers to low income residents that they can use on services such as ZipCar and Lyft.

Imagine if there was a pool of Zipcars and available Lyft cars in the Canal district or Marin City that was trialed for a 6 month period. What if residents were surveyed and based on needs there were two sample groups – one provided with vouchers enabling them to use Lyft and Zipcars and another provided with the same amount of money to use for transit.  During and at the end of the trial participants could be surveyed to find out impact on:

• Time spent commuting
• Ability to find a (new) job
• Ability to keep a job
• Ability to find and secure a second job or part time job
• Additional benefits (getting to the doctors, accessing healthcare, visiting family)
• General happiness and quality of life

I would be willing to bet that those in the Zipcar and Lyft group would see substantial benefits versus the transit group. It's speculation. But surely worth a try.

Such a move would be a tremendous story for any elected representative to champion, it would help win my vote.

So when SMART comes around with it’s begging cup asking for another 1/4c of sales tax just to finish the shortened initial operating segment - and the tricky Puerto Suello Hill Tunnel (cost very likely underestimated),  followed by another 1/4c to get to Cloverdale (as promised for the initial 1/4c they already secured) lets really be smart - let's tell our elected leaders to scrap this boondoggle back to the drawing board and demonstrate some genuine innovative, progressive thinking. We can all save a lot of money, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce 101 congestion and we can make transportation more affordable for those who really need it.