Reimagining SF Bay SMART Trains
By: Vern Scott
Tags: San Francisco Bay Area, Sonoma County, Rails, Light Rail, Marin County

Sonoma-Marin Area Rapid Transit (SMART) is ridiculed as the “train to nowhere” and risks losing ridership and funding. However, if SMART trains were run on the bridges and ferries, while cooperating with neighboring transit districts, it could be a direct ride to BART and/or SF/East Bay Urban Centers

SMART is sleek and exciting, but is currently limited to Santa Rosa-Larkspur, not linking with BART

There has been a great deal in the press recently about the viability of SMART and justifications for a sales tax increase to keep it running. In the same way California High Speed Rail may be a few technological increments away from competing with air travel, SMART would seem to be a few innovations away from getting people out of their cars for San Francisco and East Bay travel. It would seem that while raising North Bay sales taxes to make improvements, SMART would have to eventually shed its label as a “train to nowhere”. SMART has also generated it’s eighth pedestrian fatality, which is a rather alarming rate for its short history.

While most agree that mass transit travel is a necessity in this age of congestion, pollution, and global warming, we in the Bay Area have yet to reach the mass transit convenience levels of many European and Asian capitals, New York City and Chicago. Proximity to the Bay creates unique, but not insurmountable challenges.

The original BART plan in 1960 was hoping to run a North Bay line over the Golden Gate Bridge, which was shot down by the Golden Gate Bridge Authority (allegedly for political reasons, as they didn’t want to lose bridge revenue). This was tragic as BART was built using exclusive Right of Way with no at-grade crossings, which made it a speedier and safer option than the current SMART system, not to mention the critical San Francisco link, which by extension now links most of the Bay Area. Whatever North Bay taxpayers saved at the time they will surely have to spend many fold to implement an equivalent system today.

In an attempt to resolve this dilemma, I will first use the premises that commuters prefer seamless commutes (a minimum of transit changing conveyances between home and work, so as to keep one’s seat and not be bothered), SMART cars have as much right to the roadway as any car or bus (using Muni Metro logic) when funds are lacking, and some bold/futuristic thinking may be in order. Along these lines, SMART could greatly improve the viability of its system by doing three things, although each would be expensive and requiring Federal Grants well beyond the sales tax extension being sought, in addition to the cooperation of neighboring transit districts:

1) Allow SMART to run on the Golden Gate Bridge, either on a modified lower deck or in a traffic lane on the top deck (similar to the way some Muni Metro lines run with traffic). The lower portion of the bridge, originally envisioned to run trains the way the Bay Bridge used to run trains on the lower deck through the 50s, would need structural modifications to make this possible (after the failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 due to high winds, the Golden Gate Bridge lower portion was retrofitted with obstructing lateral-load bracing in the early 50s). Hopefully, once reaching SF, SMART could run on joint-use Muni tracks (with joint-use funding) to run down Park Presidio/19th Ave and join up with the N-Judah line, while someday hoping to reach the Balboa BART station or completing a loop by running on N-Judah line back to Embarcadero/Ferry Building. This option would cost into the billions, and have no hope of implementation without Federal funds or Muni cooperation. A stripped-down option would be to terminate SMART at Geary/19th and hope that a Geary Muni-Metro is someday built. Note here that SMART is the same gauge as Muni (4–8–1/2”) and theoretically compatible. (Brinklow, 2016),(Lytton, Rudick, 2017)

2) Allow SMART to run on ferries to the East Bay and/or Embarcadero, where it could possibly run on short tracks to Richmond BART or the Trans Bay Terminal. It is common for trains to run on ferries in some European and Asian countries. In time, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge could be modified to allow SMART passage. This would seem to be a relatively cheap option, and State/Federally-fundable. There is a portion of abandoned railroad right of way in Richmond that could possibly be used as a route to Richmond BART, or SMART cars could again run with traffic, like the Muni Metro. (Hennessey, Marshall, Bidder, Shipway, Geary, et al, n.d.)

3) Elevate some rail sections through Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and San Rafael, eliminating most at-grade crossings. Caltrain was having a similar problem with fatalities at at-grade crossings, which triggered Federal grants to build $25 million plus grade separations. Elevating substantial lengths of track would be a cheaper long-term solution, and hopefully the Feds would provide the money as a preventative. If not, look for continued fatalities at crossings, and slower service. This would not come cheap, but may be feasible with Federal funding. A relatively cheap option would be to reroute portions of SMART onto the Highway 101 median (note that BART has highway median portions on Highway 580 near Pleasanton, Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley-Oakland and elsewhere). This is a lengthy subject that could best be addressed in another article. (policy.tti.tamu.edu,n.d.)

SMART sales-tax arguments have lined up along the “Renew tax, it’s working” and “Don’t renew tax, it’ll never work” lines, when the truth is somewhere in the middle. There may be a chance for a relatively seamless SMART commute to the SF Transbay Terminal, Richmond BART, or even MUNI/19th Ave. in our future if we continue to innovate, fund with local and Federal dollars, and cooperate with other transit agencies like MUNI and the Golden Gate Bridge Authority. The alternative would be polluted and congested car commutes, out of step with the rest of Bay Area transit. If we abandon SMART now, we’ll likely pay a higher price in future environmental health and cleanup issues, lower productivity and quality of life.

Like this article? Read more in Vern Scott’s new book “Civil (Engineering) Disobedience”, available on Amazon.com