SMART Financials to
The 2014 Financials are Phase 1 only and appear to
2008 includes Phase 2.
Phase 1 &
||2014(2012 - 2029)
2010 Workshop )
||Miscalculation of Stations Costs
||Phase2: SantaRosa-Clvrdale &
Extras that were not even in Phase2
1.1 or 1.5 billion
funding diverted to SMART
||Measure M Rail (Bond and Paygo)
Bridge Toll $1
increase 2004 ( Measure 2)
||ISTEA Funds +
SLPP + SCTA/ MTC Vehicle + misc grants + other
2000 Trans Congestion
Assistance 2014 diverted from GG
||Joint Development Lease
||Lease and Other
Operating Revenues (Grows at CPI)
||Total Reg., State, Fed.
& Other Revenues
||Earnings Rate on Cash
2 is Cloverdale to Larkspur
||Phase 1 is Santa Rosa
to San Rafael
2014 INCOME is consistent with 2008's and 2014's COST, we can assume the
total cost is $1.5 BILLION not 1.1 .
Also it appears they published before they were rejected
from $20mil. federal “Small Starts” program which it appears
they included -- they talk as if they already got it, - in the text.
And they finally have a realistic FAREBOX REVENUE $61 mil. ( down from
$132 in 2008).
(less, since the Transporation Authority of
Marin (TAM) had to bail them out)
Given the best case scenario of an average of
round trips per weekday 15,000/week x 52 x 13 = 10,140,000
roundtrips over 13 years (2016-2029)-- projected Farebox Revenues
of $61 mil. means the average ticket needs to be $6
The Fare Structure is based on zone travel, with a
$3.50 base fare and $2 charge for each zone line crossed. That equates
to an average overall fare of $5.25 with discounts factored in. Without
discounts, the average fare is $7.50.
The rate structure is projected to generate initial
annual revenue of $3.9 million,
about 13 percent of the agency’s operating
budget. Currently, about 85 percent of that $30 million
operating budget plus $16 million Bond Interest is covered by sales tax
from Measure Q, the voter-approved rail initiative passed by voters in
|Capital Costs (inc. EIR/EIS)
|162m $360m $548m
|net Interest Payments
They tell us that "Annual
Rail Fare Revenue will be $3 mil while operating cost will be $9 mil giving
an annual loss of $6mil".
But the table above shows the loss (subsidy) to be $10 mil.
1,392 Peak Time Boardings will make little dent
in the current 39,000 out-of-County daily commuters coming to work IN Marin.
But SMART will have redirected $590 million away from a comprehensive
Express Bus System & 101 Freeway expansion to Richmond Bridge.
Sonoma is nowhere near developed enough
to justify rail. Even if Sonoma were more
developed, the argument for rail would still be futile, looking at the
damning data for rail elsewhere in the country and the relative
cheapness of Hwy101 expansion HERE.
On Hwy 101 at
San Rafael - in
One Lane during the morning rush hour -
2,300 vehicles pass thru per hour. One Hwy101 freeway lane "conducts"
more than 25,000 vehicles per day. Compare that to the SMART rail prediction
of saving a maximum of 1,900 car trips per day. Put
Rapid Bus in that lane and you get
40,000 passengers per day. So you can see how MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE investing in the Freeway and an Express
Bus System is compared to any rail alternative. Lets not divert our our money away from a
far more cost effective way of reducing traffic congestion to a rail system,
that it has been admitted by SMART itself, will have an insignificant effect
on traffic congestion.
Sierra Club sponsored a debate between the PRO and CON factions of
The PRO argument amounted to no more than one statement: "If you care about
Global Warming you need to support SMART".
But it is the opposite that is the truth.
If you care about Global Warming then
you need to have voted against SMART.
For so much money would be diverted away from
a far more cost effective way of reducing traffic congestion,
(an Express Bus System utilizing car pool lanes),
to a rail system that will make
no significant change to traffic congestion.
Global Warming would have been more benefited by the
than by the relative increase in congestion from SMART rail.
This applies even more in Sonoma
Sonoma's traffic problems ,
especially future problems from relatively more development,
will be far more adversely effected by
diverting much needed finance away from
comprehensive Bus Systems
(think how many new clean and quiet buses
can be bought for
$548 million more
with bus routes that can be more flexibly changed
to meet that new development
than can any fixed rail system).
Each Household in Marin has spent $709
on average on SMART through June 30, 2016
Households in Marin: 103,882
SMART’s Sales Tax Income (FY 2016) = $34.8 M
Marin’s Share ( not Sonoma) = 36.6% = $12.7 M
= $122/year per Houshold (2016) = $709 since tax began April 1, 2009
over 20 years = $2,440 average per household
The poor pay over 10% of their income to SALES TAX compared to 5.4% for the
rich. = REGRESSIVE
increase congestion in downtown San Rafael and this will back-up traffic
onto 101 during the peak commute hours.
impacts will be more significant if they extend the rail
to Larkspur. Traffic on 2nd and 3rd street
will be impacted by crossing gates.
And it will take 6 subsequent traffic light changes before SEQUENCING takes
Did the MTC even consider these impacts when it reassigned $20 mil.
in RM-2 funds
from the Greenbrae Interchange
project to SMART? Under the general heading
“connectivity” MTC (via
Kinsey) rationalized making it much more likely
award the $16MM in federal funds. (Still waiting on this.)
millions of $'s continue to get diverted from more worthy (but less popular)
systems, that utilize hybrid technology and are currently
taking far more riders than
envisioned to ever take. Btw, what is the cost of
relocating the downtown
and who is going to pay for that? (This will be necessary if SMART
is awarded the federal dollars.)
This is years and
years of bad news for San Rafael.
What the public hasn’t yet realized is how brittle SMART’s
financial outlook is. No one will bail them out when the next
recession hits, reducing their key revenue stream and reducing ridership.
That’s when the real fun and games begin. Watch for the begging
for an additional quarter cent begins.
If the BOS puts on another tax
measure for transportation
it ought to be
opposed under the argument “these
people aren’t credible and will
do what they want, just like they did when the stole
$8mil. from Marin Co to bail out SMART.”
Will it be enough to keep them from obtaining a 2/3
They don’t have
money for shuttles --- they’ll be going after MC
transit district to re-route buses
(they won’t take many passengers and Diane Steinhauser
knows it) they don’t have money for stations: --
San Rafael will have to cough up the $$$ if they want to build
something different. They certainly aren’t
going to pay for San Rafael to redesign the
traffic signalling infrastructure. And we’re
still waiting to hear what cities will have to pay to obtain
Quiet Zones. Yet, they just drafted
a financial plan that concludes they have tons of extra dollars every year
The financial plan draft states that it "uses a fairly conservative estimate
of 3 percent annual growth in sales tax revenues." In fact, the plan's
assumption is anything but conservative, when compared with historical
experience. SMART has assumed sales tax revenues will
rise faster than the historical average.
SMART assumes Operating Expenses grow at the inflation rate, that there will
be no increase in:
----- the price of diesel and
between now and 2028.
This assumption is totally out of line with the
experience of other Bay Area transit operators. It's hardly
"conservative" to assume that diesel prices will NOT grow faster than the
general price level or that SMART staff won't get a wage increase between
now and 2028.
BOND INTEREST PAYMENTS
SMART is committed to paying back the bonds it issued in 2012 with a payment
schedule that increases over time.
By 2028, SMART is obligated to pay over $20 million, or
half of every sales tax dollar.
Sales taxes are highly sensitive to economic growth. The longest expansion
on record is just under 10 years. The Great Recession ended in June 2009.
This means a conservative assumption would incorporate two recessions into
the planning horizon.
The financial plan has included none.
Over 40 percent of sales tax revenues will pay off Bond Interest.
There is no plan for two likely recessions.