The passage of Measure Q earlier this month lays the groundwork for creating a 70-mile commuter train system. It also presents the opportunity for North Bay leaders to engage in a first: regional transportation planning.

Whether those leaders—-and residents in both counties—-will grab hold of the promise and make it a reality is a challenge that will unfold during the coming decades. But one thing is certain: The conversation can proceed to the next step.

"It's a wonderful shift from arguing to implementing," says Marin Supervisor Charles McGlashan. He's been a longtime promoter of the rail system and is the current president of the board at the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District.

Measure Q was the last in a line of several proposals to raise the sales tax to fund rail transportation along the rail corridor that already runs between the two counties.

In 2006, Measure R, similar to the successful Measure Q, failed to garner the combined required two-thirds majority in the two counties that's needed for passage. The measure, like the one that passed this month, needed only a combined two-thirds majority. If votes in Marin fell below the two-thirds threshold, voters in Sonoma County could counterbalance that outcome by voting in high enough numbers to bring the combined vote count to above the two-thirds level.

In 2006, Measure R garnered a combined vote of 65.3 percent of the vote, just 1.3 percent shy of the necessary total. This month, Measure Q garnered 69.1 percent of the vote, pushing it over the top.

What happened? SMART opponents continued a strategy they used in 2006 to convince voters the proposed rail system was a too-expensive and an ineffective way to move people between the two counties, but they lost ground on a percentage basis in the election this year.

Some North Bay political observers say the opponents made a mistake by trying to whittle away at the Sonoma vote rather than spend more time in Marin. Others are saying voters rejected the opponents' message because the spike in gas prices represented a serious wake-up call for commuters in the North Bay. Although gas prices have plunged, the speed with which they shot up made a lasting impression on voters. In addition, a lack of alternatives from the SMART proponents convinced some voters to switch sides and cast ballots for SMART in 2008.

The high Democratic turnout in the presidential election can account for some of the increase in the SMART vote—-but not entirely. (Democratic voters were expected to cast more pro-SMART ballots than Republicans.)

"The execution was substantially better this time in terms of getting the argument out during the campaign," says McGlashan. He says SMART did a much better job this time in explaining the train-system proposal to voters. "The understanding of exactly what was being proposed was substantially higher among the electorate this time."

According to a post-election analysis, adds McGlashan, the number of votes against SMART "remained relatively constant" but votes in favor of the train system increased in virtually every Marin supervisorial district over the numbers posted in 2006. "That more than exceeds the explanation driven by [an outpouring of new [Democratic progressive voters showing up at the polls. It means, according to our analyst, that a lot of vote-switching happened."

The increase in votes for SMART in Marin certainly played a big role in putting the train system on the positive track. But the vote in Sonoma County also exceeded the total of positive votes cast in 2006. In that year, Measure R received 70.1 percent of the vote in Sonoma County. This year, Measure Q received 73.5 percent there.

What happened? After the 2006 squeaker, SMART immediately huddled and decided to go out into the towns and neighborhoods along the rail corridor to take the pulse of the people. A committee helped formulate a revised plan for the rail system, which now includes weekend service. Also, in 2006, SMART was rushing to get its environmental impact report approved, and that effort left little time for campaigning before the election. This year the pace was more relaxed, and measured, for SMART proponents.

Working with the communities along the rail line was a positive, says Lillian Hames, SMART general manager. She also points out that the bike and pedestrian path that will parallel the 70-mile train route proved to be a big positive for the pro-SMART forces.

The Marin County Bicycle Coalition played an important role in disseminating information about the benefits to cyclists. Chief among those benefits for Marin cyclists who contemplate a two-wheel commute is a bike route that parallels the train tracks and goes through tunnels the train will use. That means cyclists can cut through hills that may have been an obstacle previous to the creation of the bike path.

Hames has another reason for the increase in pro-SMART votes in 2008. During the campaign, pro-SMART forces filed a lawsuit against the ballot arguments the SMART opposition had written for election material sent to voters. Hames says she thinks that a significant number of Marin voters learned that SMART won five of seven arguments that claimed the opposition had written misleading material, and that made a difference.

"You had that independent verification" that at least some of the opponent's argument against SMART was unfair. "We took a risk" taking the case to court, says Hames, "but our board was adamant. They were tired of the lies."

A look at some Marin precincts in 2006 and in 2008 tells an interesting story. In 2006, 31 precincts posted vote totals less than 50 percent favorable to SMART. In 2008, that number had declined to just three precincts that posted totals less than 50 percent. And a look at Novato, south of downtown, presents a picture that seems at odds with the common wisdom that Novato residents were strongly opposed to SMART. In south of downtown, SMART garnered 73.3 percent of the vote.

Perhaps even more telling was the vote around Larkspur Landing. That precinct garnered 70.7 percent of the pro-SMART vote. That's significant because Larkspur had opposed the SMART initiative in 2006, largely on the grounds that it would create traffic congestion problems and parking nightmares.

What happened? In 2006, Larkspur officials were miffed because they said SMART proponents failed to spend sufficient time talking with them about the needs of their town and how the SMART station at Larkspur Landing would affect residents.

Between 2006 and 2008, SMART made that effort to work more cooperatively with communities, and while the extent of that effort may be debatable, the idea of participating in the SMART planning stages rather than obstructing the proposal for the train system struck a chord with some in Larkspur.

Dan Hillmer was a clear proponent of the old saying "If you can't beat 'em join 'em." Hillmer, who sits on the Larkspur City Council, said the town would be better served by working with SMART (and other transit agencies) to craft a regional transportation plan that would include Larkspur Landing, SMART, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, the Metropolitan Transportation Agency—and Larkspur.

If the southern terminus of the SMART train system was going to roll into Larkspur Landing, or at least near it, the town should be participating in the planning, Hillmer argued, rather than simply being obstructionist. Hillmer said it was better to have a seat at the table than no seat at all.

When it came time to vote on the City Council, Hillmer and Councilman Larry Chu endorsed Measure Q. The other three council members voted to take no position on SMART. Although Larkspur didn't endorse Measure Q, it didn't actively oppose it either, as it had done in 2006, when it was the only town in Marin to join the opposition. That represents something of a victory, say SMART supporters.

Within the 3-2 vote, some distinctions existed, says Hillmer. One council member, Ron Arliss, had expressed strong opposition to SMART. That left two council members actively endorsing Measure Q, one expressing opposition and two taking no position. With a laugh, Hillmer says, "That's a win."

Hillmer, says Hames, "has really shown a lot of leadership, when it wasn't the most popular thing to do." SMART already has agreed to work in a long-term planning process with Larkspur. "I think we came a long way in those two years."

Larkspur already is actively engaged in the long-range planning process. The rationale for moving toward SMART rather than stiff-arming it a second time was clear, says Hillmer. "The foremost reason is just being practical. There's often benefit to working together with people who face a similar problem rather than marginalizing yourself in a discussion."

Hillmer and others see the creation of SMART as a bold chance to create a true regional transportation-planning motif for the North Bay, which if successful will be historic.

For decades transportation advocates have said the North Bay needs transit-oriented development, a planning strategy that calls for housing and commercial development clustered around transportation hubs. The idea is aimed at preventing sprawl, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting other environmental benefits.

Larkspur Landing was supposed to be a model of transit oriented development, but it has never really reached its potential, say Hillmer and others. Planning for SMART can meld Larkspur's interests with the wider region represented by the Metropolitan Transportation Agency and Golden Gate Transit to create what could become a model of regional planning. At least that's the hope. "It's an exceptional opportunity," says Hillmer.

The idea of transit-oriented development is not focused solely on Larkspur, although the connection between the trains and the ferries makes it an obvious example. The SMART board recently approved in principle the Railroad Square development in Santa Rosa. That project, long on the city of San Rafael's agenda, will create housing along with a mixed-use component. And now SMART will serve the development with train service.

The development and the train service will enter a symbiotic relationship. "It will be living proof of what we're talking about when we say that the rail corridor can provide better land–use models for the future," says McGlashan. Novato and San Rafael also can benefit from the transit-oriented concept in their communities by concentrating additional development in the already urbanized corridor.

In Sonoma County, notes McGlashan, SMART will help ensure that the urban growth boundary remains intact in Cloverdale because the rail line will provide obvious opportunities for development that otherwise might have spilled out beyond the boundary.

Hillmer notes that now may be an ideal time to deal with the substantive issues of regional planning and transit-oriented development. Ironically, the precipitous downturn in the economy and the collapse of the housing market provides planners a rare opportunity. Because development pressure lessens in a recession (or a depression) planners have breathing room to spread out their maps and charts, time to ponder, discuss and formulate overall strategies. And now those strategies will include a train system, what McGlashan calls a transportation spine that will run from Cloverdale to Larkspur.

The one-quarter-cent hike in sales tax that Measure Q authorizes, which will kick in on April 1, will help pay for the SMART system and bike path, which when all is said and done is expected to top $1.1 billion over 20 years. But, says McGlashan and other train proponents, it's a bargain. Train riders will understand that when they have the opportunity to ride in relative comfort as they work on their computers and connect with WiFi, especially when gas goes on a skyrocket ride again. He notes that it's 10 times more expensive to build freeways than it is to build a rail line.

But SMART isn't going to roll overnight. There's much work still outstanding, and McGlashan says the SMART board has to be ready for some long meetings. One of the first items on the SMART agenda will be deciding whether to purchase light or heavy diesel vehicles. There are advantages to both, so it's not an easy decision. One thing that both versions of engine have in common is that they can run on bio-diesel. McGlashan says he plans to ride both versions to get the feel of each. It takes three years to build the vehicles, so SMART needs to get out of the station as fast as possible.

The schedule SMART has compiled calls for taking six to nine months to select the diesel vehicles. Next year, the agency will produce a strategic plan and be working on final engineering for the train line. The engineering task is schedule to run about 18 months. By 2013, SMART hopes to have its diesel vehicles. Actual construction on the rail line is scheduled to take place between 2011 and 2014, when service will begin.

"It's a big system to build," says McGlashan. It's also a system that will transform two counties along Highway 101, a freeway that no longer will be the only practical mode of transportation between two counties.

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.