Talk:Sonoma–Marin Area Rail Transit

Trains Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	June 10, 2019

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Sonoma–Marin Area Rail Transit.

Userbox[edit]

Wikipedians may publicize their SMART commuting behavior by adding a userbox to their userpage with the following code:

Code

Result

This user is a SMART commuter.

Usage

Thewellman (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating[edit]

This article appears to be in need of updating, as the election has come and gone and this article hasn't been updated to reflect the voters decision. This is why I am marking it with an update tag. Metallic95 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larkspur to ferry[edit]

Is the proposed Larkspur station 1/3 or .6 miles from the ferry dock? The articles currently lists both, so I'm changing both to "less than a mile." 71.132.130.143 (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but my guess is that the 1/3 miles measure is to the edge of the Larkspur ferry parking lot, and the .6 miles measure is to the actual ferry building. 75.101.11.20 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations[edit]

This article needs objective references. I'll try to improve my entries, too.

"http://www.sonomamarintrain.org" isn't an objective source of information. It's a taxpayer supported district mandated to promote increased housing density and train use.

Heck - they didn't even tell people about the average 2200 housing units for each station as required by MTC. --76.126.108.203 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations[edit]

This article needs objective references. I'll try to improve my entries, too.

"http://www.sonomamarintrain.org" isn't an objective source of information. It's a taxpayer supported district mandated to promote increased housing density and train use.

Heck - they didn't even tell people about the average 2200 housing units for each station as required by MTC. --76.126.108.203 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SMART homepage is primary information and needs to be refuted by other sources. --OctaviusIII (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Edits for Objectivity[edit]

I went over the page with what I think was a fine-toothed comb to weed out some biased language while keeping the information intact. There were a few things that just didn't fit, such as uncited speculation about how to better use the Measure Q revenue. In addition, I updated the sources to be more completely filled in and switched to mirrored Independent Journal articles where possible, given that the links will expire and the articles will go behind a paywall.

I'd love to get some citations, which I can't find outside of comment threads, on RepealSMART's assertion that it doesn't want to repeal Measure Q but just provide a second referendum on the question. --OctaviusIII (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Excuse my first effort as a newly registered user, but we've gone back once or twice on the issue of Delayed Start of Service. You give a number of reasons, each seemingly implying that but for one reason or another the train would now be running. But economic downturns or not, Positive Train Control is a tough nut to crack to this very day for SMART.

But my edits have concerned SMART's October 2016 failure to launch, officially based upon the Cummins engine fiasco. I have several references I can provide detailing that Cummins didn't feel the matter serious enough to abort SMART's launch, instead recommending that SMART address each engine as it came time for it's mid-life overhaul. If fact, since the Ontario engine fire, no other engines have failed (that I know of), validating the recommendations of Cummins. But SMART aborted their launch for other reasons that we both know. Contrary to this article, there was no recall, and the crankshafts were replaced one per weekend at SMART's train facility. You give a link supporting the idea of each car being recalled [22] but the linked article only mentions crankshaft replacement. The social media manager at SMART told me that people preferred the idea of new engines to rebuilt defective ones so they didn't work too hard to straighten things out ;)

This last bit is informational. I live near one entrance to the San Rafael Porto Suello Tunnel. SMART stopped running trains between it's last two stations (Civic Center and Downtown) for five weeks to excavate, repair and reinforce the tunnel entrance without reporting the landslide whatsoever to the press. Your link to the MarinIJ [23] article indicates that someone finally did ;) and the response of Mr. Mansourian at the next board meeting was that the landslide had NOT impacted testing. So you are saying it caused a delay when SMART says on record that it didn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennaxworthy (talk • contribs) 05:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing the History section[edit]

The History section now includes substantive sections that should really be elsewhere in the article - for example, track rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a strictly chronological section, briefly touching on things that are covered in more detail elsewhere in the article (particularly things that happened over a period of time, such as track rehabilitation). I'm planning (at some point) to enlarge the article, and when I do that, I'm planning to make the History section into what one would expect to find there - major steps in the life of the system (voter approval, building the first sections, and initial operations; the last of the three subsections would include setting fares and schedules, and hiring [if/where newsworthy], prior to the December 2016 expected starting date). Comments/suggestions are welcome. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, one thought to consider is that we should remember to not make it TOO extensive as to put off the more casual reader. Waggie (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haystack Bridge probably needs correction[edit]

Article currently reads "111-year old fixed span Haystack Bridge was replaced with a newer movable bascule bridge." I don't have a suitable source; but if I recall correctly, the old bridge was not fixed -- it was a swing bridge. Oaklandguy (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The one by Black Point ? Definitely not fixed, they drove a locomotive into the drnk there once because the bridge tender was off at the local tavern :) 203.160.86.124 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free public trial in June of 2017 and the free public trial of July of 2017[edit]

The 1st free trial in June was a fiasco. What SMART planned to do was take passengers to a Fair in Marin, inspect the trains to see how they handled the wait of passengers, and take the passengers back hours later. The website had the schedule for standard service after launch. Most would-be passengers were lucky because no train was there when they arrived. A few with bad timing found themselves trapped in Marin for hours. They returned after the last city busses, so had to walk home in the dead of night. Rumor is that heads rolled over that.

In July, SMART gave free trials to the public again. These went off without any problems, with a train carrying hundreds of passengers back and forth between Sonoma County Airport and San Rafæl and all points between with the correct schedule on the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:C120:E56E:DE7E:2384:2FFB (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter rail vs hybrid rail[edit]

@RickyCourtney: Per the FTA National Transit Database agency profile, SMART is commuter rail rather than hybrid rail. (Note that the NTD does separate out hybrid rail). SMART also does refer to itself as a commuter rail system, and I can't find any relevant sources calling it hybrid rail. I'm comfortable with just having this in the commuter rail list, and not the hybrid rail list. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have only peripheral understanding of rail systems, but looking at the Hybrid rail destination article, it defines how SMART operates quite precisely. Carries freight off-hours, commuters during day, diesel engines. I'm not invested in the matter, but it's a curious distinction. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the FTA recieves those definitions from the agencies themselves, so I admit, I was wrong, SMART does call itself commuter rail, although perhaps inconsistantly. That said, I agree that SMART fits the definition of a hybrid rail system perfectly. The operation is nearly identical to the new Arrow line or the older Sprinter in California, or the NJ River Line: the same tracks carry freight off-hours (temporal seperation), DMUs, service all-day but not necessarly "frequently." For that reason, I propose we leave it undefined. It's a rail line. Do we need to apply the label "commuter rail" or "hybrid rail"? --RickyCourtney (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]