It seems that those in support of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District service will continue to repeat unproven claims that there will be a positive impact on traffic. When comparing the capacities of the rail cars to the vast numbers of people on the road in cars, the total impact will never be more than a drop in the bucket. I suspect that, even at the train service’s full capacity, the impact on Highway 101 commute traffic could never be much more than two cars per hundred.
Imagine driving up 101 and seeing a wall of stopped traffic. Then imagine seeing it reduced by two cars. All would agree that the improvement is negligible.
Meanwhile, taxpayers are asked to spend many millions of dollars to support the train and its track. These diesel-powered trains aren’t very environmentally friendly. I think shipping companies were the real support behind it. I suspect they wanted the rail line reopened for their own freight businesses.
As an invention from the 1800s, trains don’t really seem designed for passengers. Those gigantic steel wheels are built to carry rocks and timber. They aren’t necessary to carry humans. If this were truly a commuter line, then we could have opted for “light rail” trains. They cost less to build, less to run and would be under local control rather than the federal railroad association.
Instead of it carrying commuters, it is carrying shoppers back and forth from bedroom communities. I think the benefits for Marin County residents are close to zero.
I suspect the Disneyland Railroad carries more people per day than SMART ever will. I think the only benefits it provides are generous compensation packages for everyone on the payroll.
I will not be voting to spend more taxes for this boondoggle.
— Peter Newman, San Rafael
The vocational school program at Terra Linda High School is in need of donations to complete the setup as it continues to expand. This creative and long overdue program supported by the Marin County Office of Education embraces classes in electrical, automotive, plumbing, construction and other trade skills training for high school students.
I think the MCOE should do more to make changes that would never leave programs like this short. It continues to ignore public outcry over the ridiculous overlap of more than 10 separate school district superintendents. Most of them employ staff members. Major cities (with many more students) can do it with one superintendent. The salary of just one assistant in one of these duplicative staffs would fund this excellent program.
Leadership in Marin education needs to use some common sense. Why are school officials permitted to continue this abuse of the taxpayers’ money?
— Carol Lankford-Gross, Muir Beach
In a recently published letter, Mike Allen makes some good points about our national debt. I would like to add to the information and help paint a more complete picture.
When former President Bill Clinton left office, the debt was $5.73 trillion. He left a budget that was on course for a fourth surplus in as many years. Former President George W. Bush followed Clinton. Decisions made by the Bush administration turned those surpluses into deficits and ran the debt up to $10.63 trillion.
Allen’s letter did not mention Bush’s term. I think that leaves the impression that former President Barack Obama’s administration increased the debt by about $14 trillion, which is not true. After Bush, Obama’s debt increased about $9 trillion. That’s high, yes, but he had to contend with Bush’s tax cuts, his two ill-conceived wars and the continuing Great Recession. After Obama, former President Donald Trump ran the debt up to $27.77 trillion in only one term.
It’s also worth noting that former President Ronald Reagan more than tripled the debt during his time in office, increasing it by 186%. Former President George H.W. Bush increased the debt he inherited by 54%.
The national debt is a complex subject influenced by unforeseen circumstances, wars, tax cuts, pandemics, natural disasters and decision-making. Allen is right that we should not vote reflexively for any one party. But his implication that Democrats are most responsible for the national debt is debatable. If the U.S. is going to spend money when not forced to consider crises, I’d much prefer that it be spent on the needs of the majority of Americans, not the wealthiest 1%.
— Roberta Anthes, Fairfax
