LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Unsafe Sebastopol
Editor: I am a resident of the South Main/Willow Street
neighborhood, and it is not safe (“Making streets safer constant
struggle in Sebastopol” Sonoma West Times & News, June 23).
First, the pedestrians and cyclists need to actually push the
big, shiny bright button posted on both sides of the street. A much
larger sign with bright colors should be attached above each
button.
That being addressed, we need to have CalTrans, because it is in
their jurisdiction — I have been told multiple times — to change
the warning lights from Caution Yellow to stop red. This will
notify motorists of their proper response.
I know that the police have done several ticketing sessions
there, and I thank them for their efforts. Unfortunately, the
mindset of drivers, before and after installation of the new stop
light further south, is that they are already out of town, and
needn’t bother to notice mere pedestrians.
Over the years we have lived here, I cannot count the number of
times I have walked out in front of oncoming traffic with the
caution lights blinking furiously, and stopped traffic with
outstretched palm and direct eye contact so that the elderly, moms
with baby strollers, and just plain folks could finish crossing
South Main without fear of harm.
I wish to retire from that particular function. The request and
fix are both simple. Change the lens and keep Sebastopol safe.
John A. McDonald
Sebastopol
Who needs Infineon?
Editor: I was happy to read Sonoma’s West article about making
streets safer (“Making streets safer constant struggle in
Sebastopol,” June 23), and even happier to see the ongoing
construction to help improve pedestrian safety in crosswalks, it is
strongly needed. I don’t need to go to Sears Point to watch the
Nascar racers at Infineon: I simply walk down my block to Petaluma
Avenue (at Walker Avenue) and watch cars speeding by. Crossing the
street there requires great courage. Sometimes I drive the two
blocks to my office rather than put my life in jeopardy by walking
across the street. I wish I were joking, but I’m not.
Here’s another suggestion: Arriving from Sebastopol from the
west, on Bodega Highway, there are three permanent flashing signs
showing drivers how fast they are driving and what the speed limit
is. Approaching Sebastopol from the south on 116 there is not one
of these signs.
I suggest that permanent signs with flashing lights showing
drivers how fast they are driving be placed at two locations on
116: Near Discount Alley and at Palm Drive. I also think another
stop light before one gets to Highway 12 would benefit the efforts
to “calm” traffic. I suggest Walker and Petaluma Avenue for this
location, not that I’m biased or anything.  The nearest stop light
on the southern approach to Sebastopol is at Lynch Road and that
gives cars a nice open approach to the stop light at Highway 12 to
get their cars up to maximum speed (where are they going and what’s
the bloody hurry?)
These might, hopefully, slow down the “Infineon wannabes” on
Petaluma Avenue. But I’m not holding my breath.
Connie Kellogg
Sebastopol
Too much traffic
Editor: The proposed CVS location is downtown on a corner that
is at the intersection of two of Sebastopol’s busiest streets —
Pleasant Hill Road and Petaluma Avenue.
I’ve seen scant, if any, mention of this and the effects on
traffic, traffic jams, and waiting in traffic.
Already at this intersection, the traffic is often backed up
with longish delays each way, depending on the time of day and
whether a weekend or not.
Presently at rush hour, traffic coming west into Sebastopol on
Highway 12 is often backed up such that it often takes 15 minutes
to reach this corner. Similarly traffic, coming east on Highway 12
into Sebastopol, is often backed up from Luther Burbank Gardens and
sometimes The French Garden Restaurant or more. Already, it may
take 10 or so minutes to reach this downtown corner, a hub, where
CVS may be located.
To some extent it is the same on Highway 116 (Pleasant Hill
Road), coming north into Sebastopol. However, this delay time will
increase once the Fircrest Housing is completed. Imagine the net
effect, if CVS is permitted.
Robert Leverant
Sebastopol
SMART appeal
Editor: Thank you for a solid piece of journalism in “Repeal
SMART group takes aim at district over delays” (Sonoma West Times
& News, June 23). You represented the views of Repeal SMART
faithfully and devoted a fair amount of space to quotes from Clay
Mitchell himself while also presenting the opposing position
well.
It was educational to read Debora Fudge’s views in print. Her
comment about bringing jobs to the area can be argued against from
a perspective of how many jobs and how directly connected to SMART
train services they might be.
Where she really “fudges” the facts though is in her insistence
that SMART would reduce congestion on 101. SMART’s own ridership
estimates for as far into the future as 2035 indicate a maximum of
6,550 rides per day (assuming the full 70-mile line is built).
This is virtually nothing in comparison with even current
traffic on 101. As for building a fourth lane on 101, I don’t
believe anyone is seriously considering proposing such a thing, at
least not in the next 20 years.
We got along with two lanes for decades, and we will have to do
the same now with three. No matter how many lanes we have, SMART
will not be a significant factor in traffic reduction.
Fudge’s claim that funding for the second half of the rail line
could come from federal loans begs several questions: Will the
federal government be in any position to make loans of several
hundred million dollars when SMART has finished IOS? And will we
residents of Sonoma and Marin be willing to take on the additional
tax burden required to repay such a loan? Will it be just another
debt on the backs of the young people and their children? Or does
Fudge think the “loan” would actually be a federal “gift” funded on
the broader backs of taxpayers nationwide? In short, it is probably
more realistic to doubt accessible money sources for the second
half of the project than to assume that such funds will be
there.
The concept of using shuttles to take people from Windsor or
Cloverdale to the last northern station in the IOS points up
another ingrained inconvenience of the SMART train, namely that
unless one happens to live close to the line and has a destination
also close, multiple forms of transportation will be required.
Would anyone who wants to commute from Petaluma to San Francisco,
for example, find SMART useful when GGT buses are available? Would
someone who resides in Windsor and works somewhere in Marin County
(several miles away from SMART) prefer it? It seems
questionable.
Fudge also makes the oft-heard argument that since some tax
money from Measure Q has already gone into SMART, stopping the
process would be a waste of those dollars. The obvious answer to
that is that only approximately 1/10th of the tax have been
collected to date. Should we waste hundreds of millions (possibly
$1.4 billion or more)? Or should we pull up now and really take
stock before providing any more taxpayer money for something that
is not what we were promised back in 2008.
Kirstin Merrihew
Member of Repeal SMART