The Mummy meets the General Plan

The Mummy was buried alive.  That is the intent for Amador County expressed in the DEIR for the General Plan. We are to become a park for the Bay Area hi tech environmental elite and our job is to change their bed linen. Timber felling and gold mining would just get in their way. Amador County is a home rule county and intentionally not part of a MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) like much of California. Yet we are part of someone else’s regional plan in the proposed General Plan DEIR and it’s for their benefit, not ours.  

Page 2-18 discusses biological resources and special status species. And while humans are not special status species and our needs irrelevant, if the wrong bird flies over your property your project will need to mitigate itself into oblivion. Also endangered are vernal pools, the environmentalist jargon for seasonal puddles.  Mitigation measures for these travesties of normal, and hopefully productive, human life include the approval of several government agencies controlled by environmental extremists along with a new county permit process. We, and our future, are being buried alive.

While livestock and all animal husbandry are considered human impacts upon the environment, it seems ironic that the relatively non productive keeping of animals as pets is never considered. The number and variety of lizards around my Pine Grove home have all but disappeared given the profusion of house cats. Pets appear to be a protected class, mysteriously exempt from the rules that govern others.

The document continues with “Substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, a sensitive natural community” (2-19, 20) and “Substantial adverse effect on Ione chaparral, a sensitive natural community” (2-20, 21). While many seem to regard this sensitivity as vital, they ignore that it excludes us extraneous humans. These two adverse effects, and the ones that follows for oak woodland (2-21, 22, 23), all include conservation and related easements as mitigation measures. These land entanglement preserves now cover the United States like the aristocratic land tenure of the middle ages. So to use your land you now have to  donate some to interests opposed to yours. Every time a landowner consents to this coercion they increase the power of those who oppose them and the right of private property ownership for everyone. This power relationship reminded me of Karl Marx’s definition of the alienated worker whose hard work only makes his profiting “adversarial” factory owner more powerful.

Their discussion of the Ione chaparral includes the danger of airborne pathogens from new construction and their effect upon the present plants. As in the discussion of riparian habitat, they see nature as static. But plants in an area change. Nature is dynamic. It is called ecology. But given their overkill micro management DEIR they seem to deny creation and instead prefer to be their own gods. While some may take this as unkind, I say with the greatest compassion to the writers of this DEIR and especially to those who wrote the laws this document enforces: There is treatment available  for people afflicted with obsessive compulsive disorder.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Board of Supervisors Hearing

On 12/2/14 the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission held a joint hearing on the DEIR for the General Plan. The remarks I read into the record follow:

I am well aware that this overly detailed process is required by the state and that the mistaken choice of AECOM as the consultant was made before all or almost all of the present supervisors and planning commissioners took office. One look at AECOM’s web page makes it clear that they are the implementation cadre of Agenda 21 and the new world order. Their disregard for us ordinary people is blatantly apparent. Affordable housing outside of compacted cities or centers and employment opportunities determined by supply and demand seem outside their vision.

However, I live in the real world, and am fully aware of the time and money spent on this and the related documents. Therefore I understand that aside from some few feasible modifications we all may have to live with this. But putting that and the state requirements aside, I find the General Plan and the Draft EIR to be abominations. As I’ve reviewed the document I have posted my comments on both Facebook and on my blog, Outside the Ivory Tower. It will all be submitted to the Planning Department by the deadline.

But I wish to take this time to note two factors: First is the assumption that underlies all the reasoning of the DEIR. They believe that humanity is an intrusion upon the natural world and not an intrinsic part of it. The so called natural world is partly the result of human tinkering for possibly a million years. We have been, and are, in symbiosis with the environment. These are not opposing forces. I would also like to add that many in our community would consider this assumption as atheistic.  

The other factor is the copious lists of mitigation measures. While the consultants are just doing their job - and it is clear that the final trade off decisions rest primarily with the Board of Supervisors - I find this to be a potential laundry list for future litigants. They could simply say it was recommended to you, and you didn’t do it. Our present outbreak of  litigation fever may even be causing a paralysis of far greater danger than an overly restrictive General Plan.

Dracula Meets the General Plan

Just as the Frankenstein monster has no soul, Dracula survives by draining the life blood of the living. This is an apt metaphor for the Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures at the end of part 2 – Executive Summary of the DEIR for the General Plan. In my last posting, I discussed the environmental tragedy of some additional traveler conveniences along the Hwy 88 scenic corridor. Other impacts from that section will now be examined.

While nobody wants the vibrate night sky obliterated by artificial lighting, the plan (2-8) describes everyday occurrences as if they were criminal offenses. Several reasonable suggestions for mitigation measures are described, but they all would make having a business or owning a home more complex and costly. But while the plan decries nighttime lights, it proposes stores along a sidewalk for the Pine Grove town center with parking behind the businesses. This effectively doubles the amount of artificial lighting. It seems that ideological concerns for the European style town centers make their sometimes valid, if overstated, environmental goals moot.

Another significant environmental impact is the conversion of 307 acres of farmland (2-9, 10) to other uses including mining and public facilities. Certainly welfare offices take up less land than productive facilities that employ people. The hoped for normal growth of the economy now has too significant an impact and is advised to be mitigated with costly measures that help preclude it from happening. One of these is conservation easements. This takes more land away from private decision making and, over time, diminishes opportunity for those who come after us. If you add up all these easements and other similar land control schemes nationwide and place them upon a map, it looks like the aristocratic land tenure system of the Middle Ages, not the modern democracy we still think we live in.

The draft General Plan allows some conversion of forest land to other uses (2-11). Not surprisingly this is considered another significant environmental impact that should be met with mitigation measures such as berms, fencing, landscaping and building orientation. So if you want to live in the forest, you have to somehow live apart from it. This recalls the abstraction I noted in my prior installment, the direct opposite of our inherent participation in the natural world. The freedom that dies here is not considered, by their way of thinking, a significant impact.

The document continues with the significant impacts of construction-related emissions (2-12, 13) including everyday dust. They propose 15 mitigation measures such as suspending work when the wind exceeds 20 mph, a posted telephone number for dust complaints and the use of electric rather than fossil fuel equipment. Of course, there is no cost benefit analysis for these sometimes extreme measures. But the document writers are fulfilling the law and providing the cost benefit decision makers, generally the County Board of Supervisors, a laundry list of options. Herein lies the true danger of this document. Almost every one of the proposed or suggested mitigation measures is the basis for a lawsuit. The case is clear: It was recommended to you, and you didn’t require it.

Air pollution, defined as particulate matter, reactive organic gases and mono-nitrogen oxides, is also a significant impact if anything changes (2-14, 15). Ten mitigation measures are proposed under the title of “Implement Reduction Measures for Discretionary Projects”. It seems that your future place of employment or your child’s future home are discretionary in their point of view. Some of these measures are beyond the scope of what the County does. While there already is a thriving solar installation business in Amador County and the County has set a good example with the new county building, a new county only solar program is beyond County resources. The document suggests new solar over “unused… ground space” which at least at this point in the document amazingly has no environmental impact. Another measure is having businesses implement telecommuting and flexible work hours, both of which are beyond the purview of what the County does and probably beyond what the county should do as they clearly interfere with one’s prerogative to run their business or agency efficiently. This idea ignores the fact that most local enterprise is service-oriented, and that we do not have huge traffic jams with hundreds of idling vehicles. These concepts appear to be an outside cookie cutter consultant approach and little else.

Some of their measures are simply over the top in terms of cost benefit, with a significant downside of hassle and hostility such as: “Enforce and follow limits idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles.” Are we to have a sheriff’s deputy stand there with a timer? Are they to arrive at the enforcement location by bicycle to prevent further potential pollution?

Other mitigation measures include bike lanes on our roads and “Promote ‘least polluting’ ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.” While that statement may sound innocuous they are asking us to change our entire way of life, something I consider a very significant impact. If this Count Dracula document were to be literally implemented, our new lifestyle would be zombie-like.

These are a few highlights. More to come…

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

“Papa’s got a brand new bag”

This commentary isn’t about James Brown, the godfather of soul, but about having to pay for bags at grocery stores after the first of the year. When someone leaves the supermarket with a plastic bag that bag often contains four or five other plastic bags with produce, etc. Apparently those ‘inner’ bags somehow don’t count in this environmental equation. What can explain this leave of common sense? One can certainly conjecture politically progressive brownie points as an objective. Referring back to the pop culture word usage of James Brown: What bag are you really into?

In addition to the obvious nonsensical nature of this new law for those sincerely concerned about plastic bag pollution, it will cost consumers more money. And coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, this new expense is regressive, like so many environmental regulations, and unequally punishes those least able to pay. I remember when everyone carried their own cloth bags to the store having spent my early childhood in an inner city neighborhood about 60+ years ago. We were not affluent enough to give out free bags.

Given the depression, the war and some personal tragedies, my grandmother didn’t smile a lot. But one day she was beaming when I walked into her kitchen. She was washing out, to save, a plastic bag that some produce had came in. “Look what they gave me at the market for free!” she exclaimed in amazement at the prosperity we had achieved.

We have now lost that prosperity, and use other idioms to express what we are afraid to say.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Frankenstein Meets the General Plan

After printing out (one sided) the Draft EIR for the General Plan, I had a stack almost six inches tall on my desk. Others refer to this as “The 2,000 Pages”. All this is in addition to the General Plan itself, and to the Housing Element of the General Plan, which also must go through a separate EIR process. My first question should appear obvious: Is this expense of money and human effort justified?  Historically, the EIR processes followed the General Plan/Zoning process, so it got tacked on as a separate undertaking given the governmental bureaucratic point of view. But both the modern planning and conservation movements started about a hundred years ago in response to industrialization and rapid urbanization. Aren’t both the General Plan and the EIR about essentially the same thing: preventing mistakes? Do we really need two or more studies for the same end?

Ironically, this document - a program EIR - exists to “Allow reduction in paperwork” (1-2) and “Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic considerations” (1-2).  To accomplish this end, the document, despite being called “general”, is very specific. As an example, any development along the Hwy 88 Scenic Corridor would have significant environmental impacts (2-7). So a restaurant, general store, service station or a motel at the entrance to hiking trails would threaten the Sierra scenery. Most people would find that these establishments enhance their enjoyment of the Sierra because of their convenience. An earlier study done before the environmentalists prevented the Ironwood skiing area from reopening found that tourists don’t like Hwy 88 because it lacks these conveniences. Unlike the ordinary people enjoying the Sierra, but like the Frankenstein monster, this plan has no human soul. The environment is an abstraction where in all human activity is a threat. But humans have been shaping the environment and acting in symbiosis with it for probably a million years. Their detached attitude gives me chills. This is why Alternative Three-Restricted Growth is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative (2-5, 6).

However, all this specificity and the EIR for a General Plan process do intend to make future development less controversial since they are conceptually pre-approved (1-2).  Ideally, this should inhibit the relatively pandemic litigation now plaguing our small county. But the document states: “…unless new information arises that changes the impact analysis” (1-3), “later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before” (1-4) and “agencies may utilize this…” in “…approval of subsequent implementation activities” including such unsympathetic bodies as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Conservation (1-5, 6). The document also states: “…commentators should also focus on the document’s sufficiency in analyzing possible environmental impacts” (1-10). So anyone of the well funded environmental elite should have no problem suing and adding unnecessarily to our county’s expenses and growing anti-business reputation.

The seemingly benign goal of this entire effort “…is to accommodate population growth, housing and employment in an orderly manner” (2-1, 2).  But growth is never orderly. Look at history or into our own lives. We all have experienced periods of expansion (or defeat) followed by periods of consolidation. Orderly growth bears no relationship to reality; it is strictly an intellectual construct. Again, like the Frankenstein monster, or Agenda 21, it has no soul. The document also realizes the improbability of the plan with: “Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR” (1-3). The EIR for our General Plan is not about guiding growth, but rather from preventing anything from happening. Since anything one would do has an impact, its best to do nothing. Our General Plan EIR is not a plan for development but rather a prescription for paralysis.

Note: The citations given are from the document. As I read through this monster, I will post my thoughts since it seems improbable that they can summarized into a few paragraphs.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Do Forest Service Assumptions Make Sense?

This summer’s fires were a grim reminder of the need to clean our forests. Also, the futile efforts of half dead trees to stay alive uses up an unnecessary amount of our water supply. As announced in the local media just recently, the Forest Service is burning dead trees at various locations. Ideally, this material should go to a biomass plant for energy production, wood pellets for export and other possible uses. But inhibiting this possibility the Forest Service makes two assumptions that I question.

First, they say that hauling this stuff out of our forests doesn’t pencil out. The material doesn’t contain enough value to support individuals or businesses to do this. Given the need for a decent wage, benefits, depreciation on chain saws, a truck, etc they are right. But they are assuming that this is a full cost business. I submit that it works as a marginal cost business. Most of the firewood for sale in our county is produced as a marginal cost business. Enterprise such as this occurs when someone is out of work, between situations in their life or just wants to pick up some extra money. While an individual may not do this for very long, there is always a supply of new people taking their place. A retired person buying and selling knick-knacks from their home could be an example. The jitneys of the post WW1 period, where people with cars picked up passengers just before the crowded street cars arrived, is a classic example. These still survive is some cities, and have been resurrected in the form of Uber and the other new technologies disrupting the overpriced taxis. They are very worthwhile for their participants. Someone I know of recently made over $500 on a weekend evening in San Francisco. Given this context, I think that hauling biomass from our forests would work economically.

The Forest Service also states that the other inhibitor of economically cleaning our forests is the remote locations of the about to be wastefully burned material. In some situations this is undoubtedly true. But in how many real locations is this true? Given the American can do spirit this is only a challenge, not a problem. What better satisfaction is there in knowing that you did something that someone else told you that you couldn’t do? How many rusty tractors did we haul out of dangerous ravines in 1942 to feed our steel mills when our nation was under attack? We won back then, but have we given up now? This spirit of resignation that grips us today is seemingly given official expression when the Forest Service says too remote. Maybe we would all be better off in damp Atlantic coastal cities all still drinking English Tea and reading amusing books about the fall of Rome?

I certainly believe that there are many sincere people in the Forest Service, but there also appears to be some that think that documenting the situation for bigger appropriations next year is more important than cleaning out our forests now.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Newman Ridge at Ione City Council

A few weeks ago the City of Ione held a public hearing, as the Board of Supervisors had, to re-certify the EIR for the Newman Ridge project. Sondra West-Moore came up from Southern California to lead the project opponents. In her now standard melodramatic fashion, she attacked the project with distortions, misrepresentations and phony figures.  This time, however, people with real life hands on experience discredited every one of her contentious claims and those of the few other objectors.

One of the speakers related the story of how he was contacted by a wide spread search for a world class deposit of andesite ideally located by a railroad, and became involved in an earlier quarry on the site. Another speaker spoke of long trains of rock having moved safely along the track (I would add that those criticizing the track condition are ignoring the required regulatory inspections before freight increases can occur, as well as Southern Pacific’s liability concerns). One proponent noted that the prior plant and the two proposed are behind the ridge line, exposing the false and subjective assertion of “visual pollution”.  It seems that those protesting mineral extraction and manufacturing must believe that goods magically appear in stores.

A speaker that had done his homework cited West-Moore’s phony traffic figures by showing how she derived them from adding up different parts of the EIR along with confusion from the temporary construction phase. Another spoke of the insult assumed by those claiming danger from trucks passing by the elementary school by stating: “Those children are the trucker drivers’ children and grandchildren.” Since sympathy was presumed to be gained by West-Moore’s having her 90+ year old father there, hobbling on his cane in full veterans regalia, one attendee remarked that his father is the same age, also a decorated WW2 veteran, and strongly supports the project. The attempted theatrics failed. But reality returned when one speaker stated that these are jobs for our children and grandchildren. This saves our community and keeps our families intact.

When my time at the podium came, I related my weeks reading the EIR and the adventure of following the project opponents’ worldwide propaganda campaign. They changed the Supervisors and Planning Commissioners with being in the pocket of exploitive interests in a bias press release that, after a few internet repostings, became transformed into a news article. The companion petition gathered signatures from counties that some many people would need an atlas to locate. I also noted that having hot mix close at hand would reduce costs for the county road department. Concluding with the statement that I came of age in the 1960’s and had long ago internalized an expression of that time: “Tell it like it is, baby; tell it like it is,” I said that I consider the project opponents to be the pro-poverty lobby.

I spoke with many of those attending, including a gold miner, who thanked me for my presentation. Almost all of those in attendance were in favor of the project, probably because most of those at the hearing worked during the day. As hard working as our supervisors are, and with as many evening meetings as they already have to attend, we would all still benefit from having an occasional evening hearing that would draw a different demographic.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Around and Around We Go With Roundabouts

Communities across America are being coerced into roundabouts with ensuing controversy. Amador County has been no exception. Fortunately we have defeated all of them except perhaps one in Plymouth. They are being pushed by the Federal Government, which of course controls the purse strings. Roundabouts take up a lot of land, can be confusing to motorists-especially those new to an area, are dangerous for trailer trucks and homogenize us to look like Europe. I can’t imagine riding a bicycle through a roundabout. While they may be safer for pedestrians in some instances as the proponents argue, they are appreciably less safe for pedestrians in other situations. And they have the fatal flaw of being complicated and expensive to expand unlike the relative ease of change with our current signalized intersections. When they exceed rated capacity at some future date they will have created another unnecessary crisis.

Ever though you have to stop sometimes, like at a stop sign, they generally do move traffic along without idling behind a traffic light. For this reason, they have been deemed the way to go. While this need is primarily based upon the total fraud of CO2 feared global warming, it’s all to the good to reduce unnecessary vehicle emissions. But what if roundabouts presumed advantage proved meaningless? What if this same reduction in emissions were achieved without the extravagant costs and inconveniences of roundabouts?

I have read repeatedly, and fully agree with, the prediction that the next advance in auto technology with be new batteries, probably lithium ion, that allow idling without internal combustion. Certainly the experience with hybrids has paved the way. The major new investments of Tesla and others in battery production should drive down the price. How soon will it be before all new vehicles, and perhaps even retrofitted late model vehicles, idle at traffic lights with their engines off? Will it be soon enough to make most roundabouts sheer folly?

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Lynn Morgan says "Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too"

Lynn Morgan says Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

In my Lynn Morgan’s “Buckhorn Community Plan Effort and Her Ideological Beliefs” posted both on Facebook and on Amador Community News, I said that Lynn Morgan was a member of the Foothill Conservancy. Katherine Evatt, president of the Foothill Conservancy, replied on Facebook that Lynn Morgan was not a member. Since I have no reason to doubt Katherine Evatt, or my friend who was told by Lynn Morgan that she was a Foothill Conservancy member about two years, there is only one logical conclusion. Lynn Morgan dropped her membership in preparation to become an “unbiased” candidate and so called Upcounty advocate. But I doubt that her adherence to their beliefs has changed. This all smells duplicitous to me.

This same on the fence post attitude continues in her recent website statements on water policy. Since this is a severe drought year full of the gray skies from forest fires her prior ambiguous positions and procedural machinations on the gravity supply line, UpCounty fire hydrants, wild and scenic and water issues, in genera,l have come to haunt her. So she has developed a “please everyone” position that perhaps raises more questions than it answers. She refuses to directly support wild and scenic, and didn’t say if she did in its prior form, but asserts that if it passes, existing water rights and/or amendments to the bill will give us enough water for future residents. But the deal includes surrendering rights beyond those agreements. What about water for a biomass plant, expanded gold mining and expanded agriculture? She has made some controversial statements about curtailing agriculture during drought years on Facebook. Are future residents to sit in their well-watered homes and collect welfare since no water for employment possibilities exists?

She proceeds with “More information” about wild and scenic that supports it without stating it directly. She states that wild and scenic will prevent “large, outside urban water agencies from building new dams on those 37 river miles.” Does she realize that this is one of the two best dam sites in California, and is rumored to have Jerry Brown’s support? That a Devil’s Nose Dam could be a cost effective solution that prevents building several other dams at less desirable locations as substitutes? Is the phrase “large, outside urban agencies” supposed to make us feel that we, the powerless are now protected by this designation? Isn’t the opposite true, given generous foundation funding for wild and scenic promotion, and the environmental lobby in the legislature? Why does water development have to mean what she implies? What about PG&E or the county(s)? A local project could be easily financed by tax exempt project revenue bonds in today’s market. It could even be owned by county residents, and pay everyone an annual check the same way Alaskan oil revenues do. While I am not proposing any of these ideas, I am saying that those decisions belong to future generations, and that it is selfish to straight jacket them from dealing with future circumstances of which we have no knowledge.

Lynn Morgan has chosen to ignore the fact that the State designation with the compromises she seems to endorse, can become with the stroke of the governor’s pen, the much more restrictive federal designation. So almost everything she has stated is meaningless at the very least, but mentioning that likelihood is beyond her campaign persona. She partly supports her case with the 5-0 vote in support by the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. But that vote was for general support and not for SB119, and was engineered by Supervisor Chris Wright, former Foothill Conservancy president, in violation of their standard procedures. Since that vote, one supervisor has changed his mind and two supervisors lost their re-election bids. Certainly the vote next year will be different. While some Lynn Morgan supporters may not know this, she certainly does. This omission apparently meets her definition of transparency.

She continues with: “Wild and Scenic proponents include thousands of local residents and many local businesses as well as regional economic development organizations.” Who are these thousands of local residents? The petition numbers claimed by the Foothill Conservancy, but never seen, have been discredited several times. They are said to be cumulative over a decade therefore containing people who may have changed their minds and with possible serious double or more counting. Are these the thousands she is referring to? I really wonder who the tourist and regional economic development organizations she cites are. My suspension is that they are environmental organizations masquerading themselves under the guise of economics. A simple Internet search of Sierra Nevada + conservation shows so many of these groups that they seem to outnumber the trees, dead or alive. But a closer look reveals that they are often the same people financed by the same foundations. Could Lynn Morgan tell us who these groups really are?

She reminds us that dams could be built on other parts of the Mokelumne. If we were to build more dams, do we want three to five inefficient ones that also submerge more land or one efficient one on the best site?

Did she support wild & scenic before the current amendments? She seems to support it now with the possible amendments, but it’s all vague under “More Information”. But it seems apparent since she implies that it should have been accepted by decrying the Amador Water Agency’s participation in killing SB1199. While she bemoans what they spent on lobbyists, she ignores the vastly greater sums spent by environmental groups. Often these funds come from tax exempt “charitable” foundations and sometimes they are public tax money gained through the sue and settle scam. And totally forgotten are the millions lost to defend the Water Agency from environmental lawsuits. I am glad the water agency is doing its job and defending our water rights.

What she neglects to mention is that if wild and scenic doesn’t pass, nothing will change. FERC required discharges of impounded water to create a faux wild river will continue. If anyone proposed a new dam the environmental review and ensuing litigation will probably last longer than the lives of most people reading this.

As illustrated repeatedly above, does Lynn Morgan represent the straight forward leadership we want in Amador County?

Save Our Railroad plus Silence Newman Ridge Critics

Amador County’s freight railroad goes from Ione to Galt roughly along the alignment of Twin Cities Road. It carries just enough freight to remain open, but not enough to finance its improvement. Purchasing this spur from Southern Pacific, or entering into any sort of track improvement agreement with them, according to a Board of Supervisors discussion a few years ago, is prohibitively expensive. While this is understandable, it leaves us with few options. But maintaining this rail line is essential for the industries that currently use it and for attracting new industry. It is a far more efficient and far greener than diesel trucks. If gold were to ever be mined here again in large quantities, it would be shipped elsewhere for refining.

One of my primary reasons for supporting the Newman Ridge project is the significantly added rail traffic it will provide. That rail traffic, even on poor track that requires slow movement and several minute waits at grade crossings, along with added truck traffic are manageable. They are insufficient to stop the project, but they are inconvenient and, to some, unpleasant. Many trucks will travel through downtown Ione. The proposed Ione bypass or parkway eliminates this and was a consideration in the project approval. While this is a needed improvement - with or without the added project traffic, and its construction timing uncertain - it seems desirable to extend the track to the part of the project now dependent on truck access. It also seems desirable to upgrade the track so that trains can move more quickly and not tie up highway traffic.

I have a suggestion. It’s not a proposal, since I don’t have the knowledge and specialized expertise to call it a proposal. But it’s a valid suggestion that seems worthy of follow up. Why can’t this entire spur be purchased by a short line railroad company? There are many of them across the country, with some active in California. They are profitable and well capitalized. Could such a company purchase this orphan spur from Southern Pacific? Perhaps they have looked at it in the past, and are unaware of the new development along its route. If this spur was owned by a smaller, more responsive enterprise, could the county have more influence over its future? Could a new railway owner help attract more industry? Would they invest in railway improvements?

So I am asking the Amador Business Council, the Amador County Transportation Commission, the Amador Chamber of Commerce and any agencies or organizations interested to see if this suggestion could become a viable and doable proposal.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Lynn Morgan’s Buckhorn Community Plan Effort and Her Ideological Beliefs

In 2012, at the instance of former Upcountry Council chair Debbie Dunn, the then UCC chair Lynn Morgan leap frogged into designing the Buckhorn Town Center based upon our yet unadopted General Plan. Three UCC meetings were devoted to this project along with questionnaires, emails, etc. While many questionnaires were handed out, few people showed enough interest to actually attend the discussion meetings. But Lynn Morgan wanted to hire a consultant to format the survey data and without consulting with UCC or gaining their approval on the matter she hired one. While perhaps she held the naive notion that members would chip in, she ended up paying for the consultant herself. It certainly seems that her cause over-weighed other concerns. How she ran UCC clearly foreshadows her behavior in other potential offices.

The survey participants wanted a well organized community but were divided about whether the proposed design review committee should enforce a rustic or alpine style. They also had a wish list that favored and promoted certain businesses such as “natural wood products store(s)” rather than have the law of supply and demand prevail. Of course many of these enterprises, as desirable as they may be, would require government subsidy. This key element was left undiscussed. However, factors like those didn’t deter Lynn Morgan from presenting this Town Center Plan to Supervisor Ted Novelli and Planning Commissioner Denise Tober. But she never spoke to the Board of Supervisors about the Upcounty support for the Gravity Supply Line or for fixing the fire hydrants with their inadequate pipes.

I applaud her generosity for paying for the consultant and for her hard work. But this dedication also shows her adherence to a very specific political agenda. As UCC chair she avoided the wild & scenic issue. Perhaps afraid that the members would vote contrary to her liking, no wild & scenic petitions, pro or con, were circulated at UCC. But at the same time she inhibited support for the gravity supply line and favored the Fire Safe Council which refused to support the GSL.

She disallowed circulating a petition against the illegal fire tax because the petition heading denoted a political organization not to her liking. She also stonewalled UCC members’ requests to distribute materials objecting to the fire tax. Later she hemmed and hawed about informing fixed income seniors of their rights when their fire tax bills became due. Her website states: “While the state fire fee makes its way through the courts, push the state to spend the fees that have been collected in Amador County IN Amador County’.” She appears ignorant that the money has already been appropriated elsewhere or could be returned by court order. A firmer leader would oppose an illegal tax and realize that it is just the power of urban areas in the legislature, not in Upcountry’s interest and is a horrid precedent as well. Where is the LA earthquake tax, etc?

While it is common knowledge that Lynn Morgan supports impounded water discharges in drought years for white water rafter thrills and supports the wild & scenic designation for parts of the Mokelumne River, her website vaguely states: “Support continued recreation and increased tourism on the Mokelumne River.” But this statement could even mean the recreation and tourism opportunities of a new dam and lake. She also says: “Protect the county’s water rights and water resources for use by county residents.” What about future residents and businesses? Are we really clear on her position on wild & scenic position now? Other similar statements from her website are: “Direct economic development to town centers including...More retail services” and “Through the general plan update, focus development in towns and existing communities where infrastructure, services, and jobs are available.” This could sound like she supports the Dollar General store in Pine Grove, but we all know she does not.

Her website continues with: “Creating more opportunities for diverse citizen participation in the democratic process by valuing all opinions and points of view.” Anyone can speak at the general comment period before the Board of Supervisors, as I and many others have. There have been screaming matches and harsh words instigated by various vociferous individuals. In other jurisdictions, such behavior has led to arrest. But the Supervisors have always let everyone speak. Ms. Morgan’s words sound nice, but there is no problem to begin with.This is typical of most of her website statements.

Lynn Morgan’s glib positions are like one size fits all clothing which means it tries to fit everyone but in reality fits no one. While she says that she belongs to no “contingent” her belief system is clear. She is a member of the Foothill Conservancy that has a very specific agenda. Her record shows that she is more than willing to bend the rules for her beliefs. Is this what people really want?

I’m asking the undecided voters to ask Lynn Morgan for specific positions and hard answers to the nice, but essentially meaningless pronouncements on her website. Where does the money for the things she wants come from? What are the most pressing priorities for our county? Is turning Buckhorn into a smart growth, high density community that may replicate the European villages our ancestors chose to leave behind one of them?

It’s easy to see, for a newcomer or an outsider to political process, the present Board of Supervisors as “entrenched”. It’s easy to conclude that a fresh new face could be productive. But that is a superficial look. You undecided voters must dig deeper. Lynn Morgan represents an agenda against your self interest and that of our county. Our future depends on your decision.

A Story and A Memory

Some time ago, a friend told me a story that a friend of his father’s had told him. His father’s friend spent WW2 escorting POW’s from New York to their camps. As their train passed the extensive factories of New York and New Jersey, the German prisoner said to his American captor: “I know you are a patriotic American and I don’t want to be insulting, but if you have seen the industries of the Ruhr Valley, you will know that Germany will win the war.”

The American didn’t say anything, as the train’s probable journey took them through the chemical plants along the Delaware River and then Philadelphia. Numerous steel and coal towns of Pennsylvania followed before the blast furnaces of Pittsburgh. From there, they probably traveled through Youngstown, Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio. Both the American and his prisoner kept their gaze out the window at what was once America. South Bend and the mills of Gary, Indiana preceded South Chicago. Then the farm implement factories of Central Illinois, with St. Louis and Kansas City following. As they neared their destination of Fort Leavenworth, the German turned to the American and said: “I owe you an apology. America will win the war.”

What would this story be like if it happened today? We have de-industrialized. Catherine Austin Fitts, as both a former Washington and Wall Street insider, documents this story on YouTube and on her website. A few years ago as a planner in Sacramento, I was on a panel dispensing federal design grants. In what they saw as a good thing, the City of West Sacramento applied for a de-industrialization grant to tear down warehouses and grain elevators for condos and cafes. In the second quarter of 2014 our economy grew 4%, but 1.7% of that growth, or 43% of those dollars spent, were for imported goods.

But many people consider me an alarmist, or even a conspiracy theorist. They keep assuring me that we can have a sound economy and a secure nation based on ecotourism and the like. Better get in line for those jobs in the wild and scenic white-water rafting industry now.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

Did Lynn Morgan abuse her position?

Since Lynn Morgan’s political track record is based upon her four years as chair of Upcountry Council, it’s important to continue to examine that record. One of the issues before the council during that time was support for a Community Block Development (CBD) grant to improve Upcounty fire hydrants. These hydrants either do not work and/or drain nearby residences, causing inconvenience and costly repairs.

Also, they often have non-standard and incompatible pipe or hose attachment sizes. Since fire safety is essential most Upcountry residents want this situation corrected. However, there is a contingent in Amador County that believes that any improvement, even if remedial, instigates the evils of growth. Lynn Morgan belongs to that contingent.

Following a discussion of the grant process, Lynn Morgan sent out an email stating that no consensus had been reached at Upcountry Council. Apparently, this was to serve her radical environmental political agenda since the Upcountry Council had not yet voted on the fire hydrant grant yet. At a following meeting the council voted their support for the project and issued a letter of support. Without community support, these grants are hard to get. When asked about her erroneous emails, Lynn Morgan said that she had erased all of them. I can’t help but think of Lois Lerner testifying before Congress about her missing emails of political persecution. In the same vein, Lynn Morgan’s abandoned annual reports remind me of Hillary Clinton’s “What does it matter now?” statement about the dead Americans in Bengasi.

Her misuse of the Upcountry Council email list may also have served to alert others of the “no improvement that could induce growth” crowd about this impending decision. Apparently, her UCC email list went beyond those signing in at meetings to include those out of the county which many UCC members find wrong and those out of the UCC area which some members find wrong. So it appears that Lynn Morgan used or misused the UCC email list for her own political purpose and for those sharing her political bent.

Did Lynn Morgan file required Upcountry Council reports?

Lynn Morgan established herself politically as chairperson of the Upcountry Council during the four years before this year. Since the council is an official advisory to the Board of Supervisors, its bylaws require an annual report to the BOS. Apparently, Lynn Morgan did not file these reports. If she had they would be a matter of public record in the BOS meeting minutes.

At this past Tuesday’s BOS meeting, as an aside during the presentation of another required report, Supervisor Brian Oneto asked if prior years’ reports for the Upcountry Council had been filed. No one present had an answer. However, Brian Oneto noticed Sherry Curtis, the present chair and former vice chair of Upcounty Council, in the audience and asked her. Sherry Curtis said to ask Lynn Morgan if she had fulfilled this obligation or not.

Lynn Morgan arrived at the BOS after this discussion ended, but I assume that she became aware of it. I have not seen an answer from her anywhere, and combed her website for at least a plausible explanation or an excuse. None was found except for this statement: “Public service as an elected official is an honor, not a right-and it should be earned in an honorable way.”

So I am publicly asking Lynn Morgan to state why she didn’t file these required reports. This venue provides an accessible response platform. And if she didn’t file them, and has no reasonable excuse, what does this error of responsibility foretell about her possible tenure as a county supervisor?

Updates: Elizabeth Warren plus Titanium

A little over a year ago I posted Guilty of Fraud about Elizabeth Warren and her brainchild, the then new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). I stated: “Perhaps an agency with illegitimate powers, run by a fraudulently appointed director and designed by a fraudulent person is best suited to root out fraud from consumer financial products? Perhaps I don’t understand the wisdom by which Washington governs today?”

Despite its now brief tenure as a going concern, the CFPB is under investigation by the Government Accountability Office and the House of Representatives Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee where 32 CFPB employees have testified. Employees also filed 115 official grievances in 2013 alone with their bargaining unit, the National Treasury Employees Union. Described as a toxic workplace, the CFPB is rift with intimidation, retaliation, favoritism and cronyism. Black employees are segregated into a low level data entry unit known as the plantation. They have no promotional path from this unit, despite their often outstanding credentials.

Some unaware people might find it ironic that the Democrats during the House Subcommittee hearings accused the Republicans investigating racism of racism. But it is not surprising since the CFPB partly finances itself by creating racism where none exists. Foregoing evidence, they use “disparate-impact theory” to accuse banks of racism and blackmail them with threats of litigation and bad publicity for profitable out of court settlements. Those that thrive from racism must keep it alive. As a consequence those at the CFPB they have internalized (or reinternalized?) those sick attitudes. Apparently they are too arrogant to realize that the spiritual poison of prejudice is infectious.

This past June in Wild & Scenic at Pardee and Environmental Observations I posted: “The SR-71 Blackbird spy plane replaced the ill fated U-2 and served us from 1964 to 1998. It was 92% titanium. We had to buy this titanium from the Soviet Union through various foreign intermediaries. And while global demand for titanium grew by 60% from 2009 until leveling off in 2013, DuPont granted their titanium deposits near the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, totaling 16,000 acres, to The Conservation Fund. I call this treason.”

Also this past June, an F-35 Lightning II engine caught fire. Pratt & Whitney immediately suspended production and considered the likely culprit to be suspect titanium in a key component. This component has already been installed on about 150 aircraft. These engines are anticipated to cost us taxpayers a mere $68.4 billion over the course of the entire F-35 project, a joint strike fighter for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

Our defense and aerospace industries are dependent upon America importing 79% of our titanium needs. Most of this comes from Russia and often through third party enterprises. One of these was recently received a Federal indictment and is best described as a billionaire Ukrainian titanium gangster. Not surprisingly, Crimea and other places being contested between the Ukraine and Russia are titanium rich. But it’s easy for Washington to turn the other cheek as the body count rises, since we now import our spy satellite rocket launchers from Russia, along with many key minerals. Boeing’s need just for titanium alone has resulted in an ongoing investment totally $18 billion in Russia. At times my mind fogs over trying to remember who won the Cold War. I sarcastically hope that the Conservation Fund bird watching guides, as they hike over our domestic titanium resources, feel secure and also sympathetic to their unemployed neighbors.

Following that 1778 winter of sacrifice at Valley Forge, Alexander Hamilton observed that we have no blankets because they are made in England, and that we have no gunpowder because it, too, is made in England. He concluded that political independence is a weak position without economic independence.

We appear to have gone full circle, all 360 degrees, to where we started. We import almost everything.

We finance it through debt held by hostile nations. We pay more for milk because much of ours goes to China.

Copyright 2014, Mark L. Bennett

What is Lynn Morgan’s position on Dollar General in Pine Grove?

Lynn Morgan established herself in the community as chair of the Upcountry Council and her leadership role in defeating the takeover of the Buckhorn Market for a dollar store. While the controversy rages over Dollar General in Pine Grove, she has not taken a clear public stand on this issue while her opponent Ted Novelli’s support of Dollar General’s right to open in Pine Grove is well known and well articulated.

Her website states: “Work with local businesses to support their long-term viability ...Actively recruit new local businesses...” Obviously, these statements do not support Dollar General’s presence in Pine Grove, yet she has not taken a definitive public position. My suspicion is that her political base knows she opposes Dollar Genera, but that if too many of the former Mike Spence voters were aware, she wouldn’t have enough votes to win. So she maintains a public ambiguity. Does this illustrate the statement on her website: “I believe in transparency in government”?

Her website also states: “Work with the county sheriff to re-establish an upcountry substation.” She must be aware that this was ended some time ago because most of what happened were deputies racing down Highway 88 back to the county core cities. This wasted precious time along with fuel and money. What level of priority is this for our cash strapped county? What is her cost/benefit analysis for this possible service?

So Ms. Morgan, I am asking you to publicly and clearly state your position on Dollar General in Pine Grove, and to do the same on why an Upcountry substation is a priority over other needs for our county. What is Lynn Morgan’s position on Dollar General in Pine Grove?

Grant Dependent, or Under Our Control: Amador’s Transit Future

Recently I was appointed to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, an organization required by law for the process of receiving Federal funding. The appointment was made by the Amador County Transportation Commission. Two members, whom I had never met, voted against me presumably based upon my “ideological” reputation. They appeared to put partisanship above qualifications since I was vastly more qualified than the only other candidate.

Over the past several weeks I have digested the about 150 pages of the Amador County Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, 2014 and the Amador County Short Range Transit Development Plan, For Years 2014 through 2019. Both of these plans are excellent. I don’t say that to be patronizing or conciliatory, but rather because I have seen too many horrid plans. But however excellent these two plans are, with reams of data and thoughtful and workable solutions, they are both conceived (as would be expected) within a narrow frame of reference. My approach is different and delivers a more business oriented perspective to solving Amador’s public transportation needs. It also radically alters the proposed staging of improvements. But I only examine certain aspects of the plans where I have concrete suggestions. Other areas are left untouched.

My proposals contain the concept of seat turnover. Transit is only economically efficient when a seat is turned over several times between the two ends (terminals) of a route. This is like table turnover in a restaurant or merchandise in a store. Can you envision someone from Buckhorn getting off in Pine Grove to visit Pine Cone Drug or Dollar General and their empty seat being taken by someone traveling to the Rancheria (on a new routing)? Then that vacated seat is filled by someone leaving the Rancheria for Jackson? This is three times the revenue for the same expenditure of time and money as in the present service. Another concept is two directional travel. The plans gave little data in this area, but I assume that there are many near empty backhaul (deadhead) type runs in our system. Therefore, I will explore other ridership markets. It seems apparent that neither of these two concepts are included in the plan’s elasticity of demand calculations.

I believe both professionally and personally that the present leadership of Amador Transit is doing a truly outstanding job considering their funding and other constraints. My ideas are outside the realm of what they can do.

All quotations and other references from the texts will be cited by page number with the Human Services plan referred to as HS and the Transit Plan referred to as TP. Both of these plans are available to any interested member of the public.

Work was the reason for 30% of Amador Transit’s ridership (TP47). And despite the successful shuttle service in the Jackson/Sutter Creek county core 70% of all riders (TP47) said they don’t transfer between bus routes. While part of this is due to the no free transfers/separate fare per ride policy, much of it is due to the skeletal nature of the system that precludes certain transfer possibilities. An on board survey commentator wrote (TP Appendix A): “Can’t get early bus to Sacramento and can’t get back to Pine Grove on same day.” Not coincidentally, both these routes are considered for priority improvement.

Amador Transit riders are loyal since 75% said that they have ridden for over a year (TP48). While this clearly speaks to the quality of the existing service, it is also a warning against making any changes that would discourage existing riders. Occasional riders (TP48) include those 4.5% of riders who ride 1-4 days per month and the 3% of riders who ride less than one day per month. This 7.5 % total of occasional riders is not a bad number considering about 10% or slightly more would be considered normal in a large city system. Occasional riders are often those picking up their car from repair or going to meet someone and returning home in the other person’s car. However, in Amador County the occasional riders are probably mostly seniors running non daily errands or going to medical appointments. But this discussion is important because this latent occasional rider market is there, but needs more frequent and convenient service to ride. Of the general public surveyed 93% stated that Amador County should provide public transit (TP58).

Upcountry

The Upcountry area of Buckhorn, Pioneer and Pine Grove is served by Bus Route 2 which provides three daily round trips: am, pm and mid day. Volcano is not served. “...many Upcountry residents find the current bus schedule to be a barrier to using public transit” (HS29). “The current schedule requires Upcountry residents to spend a total of five hours of travel time in order to complete a round trip to Jackson” (TP92). The 25 or so daily riders (TP31) travel a route that covers 24 one way miles (TP84) at a cost of $28.61 per trip (TP30). This compares with a system wide average of $18.49 (TP30) and a low of $10.31 for the Route 3 service to Plymouth (TP30). 

This wide discrepancy of subsidy is grossly unfair and subsidizes Upcountry at the expense of others.  Due to this situation a fare increase is proposed for the UpCounty service (TP86, TP93). Needless to say, many Upcountry residents oppose this and objection has been voiced several times at Upcountry Council meetings. The plan makes clear that while fare box revenue will rise, ridership will decline (TP86). So this option contains an element of self defeat. Decreased ridership cannot demand increased service. But the two plans clearly document the need for more service now and in the future.

“Increased service to the Upcountry region is one of the most requested Amador Transit improvement suggestions. This is also a top priority for the SSTAC” (TP75). This same need is repeated in the human services plan (HS32). Both plans document an area of low income residents in Buckhorn (HS10, TP58) and concentrations of elderly people in Pine Grove, Pioneer and Buckhorn (HS9, TP58). While elderly is the definition they use, the real demographics reveal middle aged people becoming elderly, in place, and representing a possible increased demand for transit.

Some of this demand is met by the much higher cost DAR (Dial a Ride) service of which there are 36 ADA certified residents in the Pine Grove and Pioneer areas (TP75). Both plans advocate avoiding this higher cost service which doesn’t yet exist Upcountry by expanding the present bus service (HS30, TP44). Very apparent in the Upcountry area is another lack in the existing system, the inability of lower income high school students to attend after school (and after school bus) activities needed to pad college and scholarship applications (HS38, numerous comments in TP Appendix A). Many would consider this a civil rights issue. The present plan calls for adding an additional Upcountry bus run in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 (TP97) and assumes increased subsidy.

I have three interrelated proposals to attack these problems of Upcountry transit. First, we have the competing tax-supported system of school buses. We don’t need nor can afford two separate systems. In larger communities high school students ride only public transit. At present the school district bus system transports 2,000 daily passengers (HS21, TP34). Of these, 495 high school students and 288 grades 5 to 8 students live in the Upcountry area (TP18). This dwarfs the Upcountry Bus Route 2 ridership.

Presently, 24% of youth fare riders are Upcountry riders contrasted with only 9% of youth fare riders system wide. Amador Transit is presently acquiring 32 passenger buses. Given this situation I propose Amador Transit operate the school runs east of Pine Grove for older students. Depending upon their specific school destination, some students may transfer at the Pine Grove School as is currently done in the existing school bus system. Presumably the Highway 88/Pine Grove Improvement Project will fix the traffic congestion problem at the Pine Grove School. It appears that these additional school riders will give the Upcountry service sufficient critical mass to expand service, add additional non school riders and ameliorate the needs cited in the two plans. On the primarily school runs the 3⁄4 mile route deviations for ADA certified riders should be suspended (TP25). This should also address the possible concerns some may have about mixing the students and the disabled.

Also, East of the county core, and related to Upcountry service is the Jackson Rancheria, with no public transit service. It’s a major recreation destination, one of the county’s largest employers with 1,000 to 5,000 employees (TP7, 58, 71, HS12) and hosts the MACT clinic. MACT “...provides medical, dental, outreach, and behavioral health services for Native Americans as well as the general public” (TP37). Their health and dental clinics serve about 100 people per day (TP71, 90). The need to serve this destination repeats through both plans (TP44, HS31). The dental clinic is the only such low income clinic in the county (HS36). One plan provides the necessary discussion of alternatives to best serve the Rancheria (the shuttle from Highway 88 is not discussed here) and notes the problematic one mile distance between the casino and the clinic (TP71).

They rightly conclude that altering the existing Upcountry runs to serve the Rancheria via a five mile round trip to and from Highway 88 would increase travel times sufficiently to discourage existing riders and discard that option (TP74). So their preferred solution is a route between the county core and the Rancheria in Fiscal Year 2015-16 (TP97) which only operates 3 days per week to cut costs (TP90) but includes expensive dead head hours (TP73). This would require Upcountry riders to travel to the country core and then transfer to the separate service, repeating this process to return home. The separate service proposal “solves” the problem of access to the Rancheria. It’s probably the best solution given the present and proposed minimal service/ridership because the school bus riders are not considered. While it serves a need in isolation, it does not build a transit system. Productivity is limited to a one way fully seated load and revenue is limited by their single fares.

If the additional runs replacing the school buses are implemented the Rancheria could be served via the Route 2, Upcountry service. Seat turnover is achieved and unnecessary transferring is eliminated. The route should not be a time consuming off route and return to Highway 88 trip but rather continue via New York Ranch Road and Ridge Road to the county core. This may even take student riders closer to the surviving high school, if that situation occurs, than the current routing. However, which Route 2 runs take which routings need be a judicious selection process with the present commuter runs probably left unchanged.

Another solution presented for Upcountry Service was the Hopper (TP44) with a variant that went to Volcano (HS39). This concept of short lining, not traveling the full route, is useful Upcountry . Not all runs, especially with expanded runs, need go to Amador Station or even Buckhorn. This could be a factor in making that expansion more affordable. Volcano, of course, could be served on selected runs of an expanded Upcountry service. One plan discussion of the Hopper (TP44) implies an Upcountry circular ending in Pine Grove. While no terminal is suggested, the perfect location would be the new Dollar General store. But given all the other options discussed and the overall constraints, this idea is dismissed from the Implementation Plan (TP97).

I propose that passengers can shuttle between their homes and the bus stops in a shared taxi mode with few distance restrictions that starts with an expansion of the new volunteer driver program (TP44, HS31). System wide 13% of existing riders are dropped off (TP45).There may be security concerns here, but I assume that they are solvable. Riders getting off a bus at the scheduled times could simply meet a waiting vehicle. Those in their homes could request a pickup via the Amador Transit dispatcher or via a mobile device using a variant of the Uber technology now disrupting the established taxi industry. Eventually this could even evolve into a private sector service like the post World War 1 jitneys or the longer lasting “peso cabs” in some North American cities. This would solve the problem of those having mobility concerns or just living too far away (HS37). This does not include students that I assume would walk to their bus stop.

The two plans make thoughtful trade off decisions and meet specific needs with isolated solutions, dependent almost solely on increased grants, but they do not build a transit system that can be significantly more self sustaining.

Sacramento Service

Amador Transit operates an am and pm round trip to Sacramento. Like the Upcountry's Route 2 it is scheduled for commuter times and has a loyal ridership. And like the Upcountry service it is a skeletal service that leaves many needs unserved and lacks enough trips to attract more riders. However, it is the only service that takes people outside the county and provides a vital link to Amtrak and, via a transfer to Yolo Bus, the Sacramento Airport. This route also provides service to Rancho Murrieta and is subsidized by SACDOT (Sacramento County Department of Transportation) at about $70,000 per year (TP27).

Travel to medical appointments in Sacramento is a primary unmet need (TP44, 57, 58, HS31, 32, 37).  Of the general public surveyed 59% expressed a need for more transit service to Sacramento (TP57). The VA hospital in Mather was a frequently noted destination (HS27, 37, TP Appendix A). The Mather VA facility is accessible from Sacramento’s Bus Route 74 which connects to their light rail system. So this trip is feasible, even if time consuming and arduous for someone with medical problems. But the present configuration of the Amador Transit route involves backtracking, generally conceived of as time wasting. If there were more trips to Sacramento, some could be routed to the Sunrise Light Rail Station. This would cut the distance and time to the Mather VA facility and significantly lower the costs of additional Sacramento runs. More trips to Sacramento would also solve the UpCountry to Sacramento transferring problem and as with all plans that induce system interaction rather than isolated routes, incremental ridership could increase system wide.

Like the proposed relationship between service to the Rancheria and Upcountry , the Ione Route 7 service is geographically linked to the Sacramento service. Route 7 provides three daily round trips between Ione and the county core. It transports about 27 passengers per day at the highest productivity in the system (TP31) given its short distance and the need for service. Ione is one of the county’s pockets of elderly (HS9). But many of the current riders are daylong social service clients (TP76) with the current schedule possibly precluding shorter medical and personal business trips (TP76) as occurs with the present Upcountry service. And Mule Creek Prison, with 500-999 employees (TP7, 58, HS12), is not served by the present routing. Present riders from Ione have to backtrack to the county core to travel to Sacramento (TP Appendix A). However, increased service to Ione is not in the Implementation Plan (TP97) given the other priorities.

With the Sacramento bus service expanded and the commuter runs left untouched, all or most additional service to Ione should be via the Sacramento route. This will lead to seat turnover and serve new transit travel patterns. Also this routing would serve Mule Creek Prison. A possible scheduling would be the early am trips from Sacramento returning via Ione and eliminating some deadheading. However, this proposal is dependent upon Michigan Bar Road being considered a safe transit route. I propose that, like with the Rancheria & UpCountry service, the Ione and Sacramento services be considered as an organic whole. Since the Implementation Plan for Fiscal Year 2014-15 includes the Intercity Feasibility Study (TP97) required for funding of the additional Sacramento service, this linkage and its advantages should be included in that study.

All the plan discussions mention, almost exclusively, Amador County to Sacramento travel. Noexposition of Sacramento to Amador County travel occurs. Yet our county “....is heavily dependent on tourism...” (TP39). According to the 2010 Census, Sacramento County has 229,000 residents over 60 years of age. If only 5% of them took a bus to Amador County once a year that equals 46 round trip riders a day. If each of these visitors spent, in addition to their bus fare, $20 a day (a meal and some trinkets) that would add $230,000 to the local economy. Certainly this should be a consideration. Coupons from local merchants would add a psychological allure for some. Others may just enjoy getting out and having a ride through the countryside. Some attractions such as the County Museum involve uphill walks and some are distant such as the Kennedy Mine. However, walking tours of Jackson and Sutter Creek, even if self guided, would probably be appealing to many. Certainly ridership of this type would be looked on favorably by SACDOT in their subsidy decisions beyond their obligatory funding of Ranch Murrieta/Sacramento service.

I propose that the Amador Council of Tourism, the Chamber of Commerce, the various merchant associations, Amador Transit and all other respective parties form a working group, along with senior citizen groups from Sacramento, to investigate the possibilities of Sacramento to Amador County transit tourism. Can this working group get their findings into the next round of plans? How much would the financial equation change if every return trip from Sacramento except the last trip carried a fully seated load? While the Chamber is a private organization that receives County tourist funding, and other organizations are nongovernmental, Amador Transit and the Amador Council of Tourism are both government entities. In fact, the Council of Tourism is already located at the Sutter Hill Transit Center (TP33). Like the school bus system/Amador Transit situation, we the taxpayers and citizens also own both the tourism council and the transit service.

Conclusion

Will any of the proposals I’ve made work? I haven’t run any numbers. It’s quite possible that given increased ridership, even vastly increased ridership, will still require even higher levels of subsidy and make my suggestions unfeasible. But I will have succeeded if the perspective of the participants in this process is enlarged. The present plans are adopted, but hopefully my proposals are thought provoking enough to influence the next round of plans.

Some of our expenditures are not under our local control. The Amador County Local Transportation Fund spent $125,000 on Ped/Bike planning between 2004 and 2014. Presumably this was to meet State requirements. But it could have been better spent on transit and roads. 

Beyond funding, the “institutional framework” is another stumbling block. Many of the parts of government I’ve noted are very separate entities with their differing styles and organizational cultures. Certainly the fact that the school bus drivers are unionized and the transit bus drivers are not is a significant issue. But are we to be ruled by the institutions we have put in motion to provide us services or are we a self governing people? Is it not wise and efficient to best use the resources we now have, or should we just complain about what we don’t have such as transit subsidies to expand the system beyond its skeletal structure? Can we reach a critical mass of ridership for a more complete transit system on our own and avoid some high cost DAR and other social service transportation expenses? Has anyone forgotten that for reasons still not clear the school buses of New Orleans sat in storage during the Katrina evacuation? 

Over a hundred years ago Londoners faced a confusing, uncoordinated muddle of rail lines for their daily travel. The British upper classes that owned the competing railroads were dismissive of public demands for a unified system. So citizens groups got together and hired a man described as a foul mouthed, cigar chomping, pot bellied Irish American railroader from Chicago. He did what we Yanks would call "butt heads together" and created what is now known as the London Underground. Closer to home, some years ago citizens groups got the planners to discard their proposed express bus system in favor of the now existing Sacramento light rail.