This fight is far from over. We'll see what happens in the next few days, but Seattle's need for clean fast transit isn't going anywhere. If this fails, you can kiss rapid transit goodbye in this town for at least the next ten years.

The Moronrail is a project that would only serve a small few at the expence of all all and the majority of the disinterested!
However if someone want's the Moronrail - Let he or She invest their own money not mine...I'm voting it down and out of my pocket! Damn Liberals are always eager to use money that doesn't belong to them - and when things go wrong they are equally as quick to blame others as well!!!

I'm voting for the monorail...my biggest complaint about Seattle (a supposed "green city") is a complete lack of mass transit. Those who have lived in cities with mass transit understand...those who haven't, won't. Granted, I'd prefer mass transit for the entire region be under a unified, well run agency. Until then, I still refuse to show anything but support for just about any mass transit initiative that comes my way.

As far as the gas tax...seriously, it'll cost most people a couple cups of coffee every month. Businesses dependent on transportation will be more affected (think UPS/FedEx), but these businesses aren’t exactly hurting either. It’ll cost everyone much, much more to continue to put this off. What we are sometimes forgetting is that it will cost LIVES, not just money, if infrastructure upgrades are put off. Even if this gas tax doesn’t fully fund these projects, it’s enough to get them started and to get some federal aid that has been promised (but is contingent on the gas tax).

yeah for discussion!

i agree that the lack of mass transit is the biggest problem (with affordable housing coming in a close second) that seattle faces.

those of you that know me know i'm a tried and true liberal/progressive. if i wasn't in college up in bellingham, i would have voted for the monorail in the past. i voted against the recall this last fall.

however, i've decided that i don't think the monorail is the answer anymore. why?

• the design - i'm a true believe when it comes to urban planning. the sleak, small monorail we were shown in the original mock-ups is nothing like the concrete giant we're getting which, in many places, will be bigger than the original 1962 monorail. this is something that will change the face of seattle forever (or for a LONG time). i don't want a scar across this city.
• the financing - this thing is going to be expensive. the current financing isn't realistic. the fact that the monorail board hasn't given another option is disturbing and i find it arrogant. i'm glad nickels pulled his support when he did. also, there are other elevated systems (like light rail) which are much cheaper and more flexable.
• capacity - so, not only is this thing going to be UGLY and going to cost both arms and your leg (over a 40 year time period) but it isn't going to carry that many people. in fact, it won't even carry enough people to qualify for federal loans.

i'm a huge support of Sound Transit Light Rail and the more i learn about it, the more i feel it's the answer.

i hope the city pulls the plug on the monorail and finds a way to put more money into light rail all across the city. i don't how that could be done, but maybe King County or Seattle could start their own light rail which could connect to ST.

You're totally right on all accounts. I am disturbed about the current financing plan, mostly because it would limit future growth of the system (we'd be too busy paying off the old stuff to invest in growth). On the other hand, I don’t feel mass transit necessarily needs to directly pay for itself and can/should be subsidized throughout its use. The downtown economy would indirectly benefit from mass transit, which is good for everyone.

I'd also be extremely happy with elevated light rail (a la Chicago or Vancouver style); although that is as ugly as the worse monorail design you could come up with, especially after a few years of rust.

Capacity is an issue, but it's an issue that could likely be dealt with as ridership increases (build additional capacity, bigger/better/faster trains, etc)

Sound Transit has been a complete f*ckup, from what I understand (how many years has it been since they said go and I just now am seeing construction downtown…although I’m happy they’re beginning?), so I worry that when the monorail gets voted down we'll never have downtown mass transit...there will be too many nay say’ers saying the various agencies can't effectively manage it.

I know...they should just put me in charge ;)

I'm not so sure I'd say light rail is cheaper... in Seattle, it certainly isn't. The construction costs for the 14 mile green line are actually still a little cheaper than for the 14 mile central link. North link will be much shorter yet even more expensive, though it will serve more people. Keep in mind that central link has no water crossings, whereas the green line has 2 -- one couldn't cheaply run a light rail line over the West Seattle Bridge without cutting traffic lanes. Light rail also is very poor at climbing hills compared to monorail, which is a big disadvantage in a place like Seattle (think of the $350 million, 200 foot deep First Hill station). ST's cost advantage does not come from the technology but rather the fact that they actually have the money to pay for what they're building.

Capacity is more of a concern particularly with the single track across the West Seattle Bridge. Still, with the ability to run trains of 200 every 6 minutes, that's equivalent to an extra lane of traffic in each direction with cars using less than a 2 sec. following distance. A dual track system could carry a lot more people, and light rail even more (which makes it a better idea for a regional system we might want to eventually expand to Everett and Tacoma) but the monorail isn't going to be expanded south out of West Seattle, and if it has the capacity to handle the expected demand, this isn't such a serious problem.

On design, the common claim that this will be "bigger than the original 1962 monorail" is an exaggeration at best. The columns are going to be a few inches wider in one direction and a few inches thinner in the other, making it a little wider or skinnier depending on the angle you're looking at it. More significant in terms of visual impact is the fact that the columns will be twice as far apart and the tracks will be nearly twice as high, making them farther away and visually smaller.

I am disappointed that the board was so quick to rule out the possibility of putting a new tax package on the ballot. To me, it seems that financing should never be the deciding issue in a project like this -- it's either worth the close to $2 billion construction cost or it isn't, and if it is then it's worth coming up with the tax revenue to finance it in a reasonable way.

This is a frequent complaint and I’m glad it came up. People forget or don't realize that just because the first mass transit lines (whether it be sound transit light rail or monorails) may not go right by their house or employer, it will benefit everyone in the city through increased economic activity and better (or at least not worse) traffic all around.

We're going to reach a point (some might say it's already been reached) where buses, cars and roads can no longer be expanded to support increased jobs, economic activity and urban density. This would cause Seattle's economy to begin a period of stagnation that would be bad for everyone, even the conservatives.

what an educated answer. thanks for the input! i see you have real solutions to offer.

Light rail also is very poor at climbing hills compared to monorail, which is a big disadvantage in a place like Seattle

i'm not an expert, but i'm pretty sure i've heard multiple times that monorails can't climb hills well at all. do you have a link for that info? i'd be curious to read it, because i also thought that light rail usually has more power and could climb hills well. i'd be interested to learn more.

ST's cost advantage does not come from the technology but rather the fact that they actually have the money to pay for what they're building.

also, part of ST's cost advantage is that it will get matching federal funds because it acutally has enough people that will ride it to qualify. i think that says a lot about the monorail and how much it's worth.

in terms of what we're getting as opposed to what we were originally shown, i posted this example a couple months back when the monorail board first presented their design.

i think the concrete giant we're getting is a lot different that the sleek design which was first shown.

ST Part One was passed in 1996. They promised it would be up and running by 2007 and they'll make that goal now.

Of course they, short-sightedly (in my opinion), won't be making the stop at First Hill anymore, which would have apparently put them behind schedule again.

ST is a great example of a project which was going in the crapper which good public planning, a new staff, and bright ideas saved. At this point, the monorail board seems not to have taken their lead.

I don't know any public opinion polls on ST right now, but I think they'd probably be quite a bit better than they were in 1999 or 2000.

The nice part about light rail is that it can be elevated (where needed) and at ground where you don't need it.

And, rob, you shouldn't worry that nothing will get done. Light rail is almost 50% complete. It's going to get done. I think once people see it in action, it's going to get a lot of support and we can get the public to support expanding it rapidly.

how do you mean you can kiss rapid transit goodbye? ST Light Rail is already underway. in my opinion it's a better investment and a better system. ST2 will be on the ballot in the next or so 2 years, offering another expansion.

now, i don't mean to sound like an ST board member (i'm not), but i don't think that it's the rapture of mass transit in seattle if the monorail gets canned.

actually, in my opinion it's going to be the savior of mass transit.

I am hopeful that once ST is up and running people see how great it is. I'm really, really glad they're making it to the airport (how silly was it to not make an airport stop?).

Assuming the monorail does get voted down, what is stopping Sound Transit from expanding their plans to include other Seattle neighborhoods, in addition to the I-5 corridor currently under construction? I'm not up on the various transit agencies and what their mandates are...

I will never say the MBTA is the most well run organization on the planet, but check it out...bus, subway, commuter rail and boats all part of an integrated system. This is my big dream for seattle :) http://www.mbta.com/

Oh great, now I suppose you want me to do my research and use actual facts or something.

On climbing hills, power is not the issue here, traction is. Monorails use rubber tires on concrete, whereas light rail uses steel wheels on steel tracks, which isn't good for climbing hills, at least not if you're dependent on the wheels for propulsion. I tried searching to find where I had read this, and found one other article making this claim and nothing contradicting it, but nothing I would consider an authority and no specific facts on how well either climbs hills, so I'm not actually sure how much better monorail climbs hills.

I do remember seeing these pictures you posted and the article in the times, and I was surprised, not by Cascadia's drawing, which looked a lot like what I picture when I think of a monorail, but by the other picture, which struck me as Gehry's version of a monorail, metallic and curvy, each column a postmodern sculpture. But then if that's really what was promised, I guess I can understand the letdown. I haven't lived in Seattle very long, so I missed the hype. I know they also got rid of landmark stations and went with open air stations like those on the Vancouver sky train, which clearly aren't good enough for a beautiful, hip city like Seattle. Most of the new light rail stations will be open air and nothing too fancy, and where it is elevated it won't be particularly sleek, but once it's up and running we'll be happy it's there. I really don't think most people will mind the monorail once it's there. Maybe it's just me but I don't think that drawing looks bad at all.

If it is cancelled I do hope ST looks into ways to serve other parts of Seattle than the one corridor they're currently working on, but it won't happen anytime soon. Assuming we get the funding soon, it will be over a decade before we have light rail to Northgate, and their phase 2 planning has focused on extending the system to other cities, which makes sense given that their concern is regional transit. The city concil is currently looking into alternatives for the green line corridor (see here, though oddly enough they don't appear to be looking at light rail.

Checked out the Seattle City council proposal to look at alternatives, especially in light of the Viaduct falling down.

I wonder, if the Viaduct is going to get rebuilt anyway, why not tack a light rail line onto it? It could be an additional lane (or in place of a lane), on top or underneath the new Viaduct. If the Viaduct is so important to our regional transportation plan then perhaps it makes sense to include light rail. I'm sure the cost of building in light rail along the new Viaduct would be insignificant when compared with retrofitting it later.

Think of all the neighborhoods it would serve... say it linked up with the current light rail being built somewhere between SeaTAC and SODO...then follow 99 through (and with stops in) SODO, downtown, belltown, queen anne/seattle center all the way up through/past greenlake. How cool would that be? It could also link up with the proposed green line (no matter what is used to build said green line, looking like light rail after this primary...)

A transportation planner would tell you that the reason not to tack a rail line onto the Viaduct, a freeway, or other major stretch of highway, is that light rail, monorail, and subway are an outgrowth of the pedestrian mode. The idea is to put this human-level transit mode into areas where people already use the sidewalks. The potential users are already there, and major changes to the pedestrian environment need not be made.

Highway 99 is very much not a pedestrian environment. It's a place for cars and freight. Putting a rail line through requires lots of anti-pedestrian work, like putting in sky bridges* and starving the natural pedestrian environment of its pedestrians. In any case, WSDOT has a bus rapid transit project (to which I can't find a link-- argh) in the works right now that will be more appropriate for that environment.

A number of transportation types opposed the Monorail on the basis of the 2nd Ave. alignment-- 2nd is more of a vehicle and freight corridor, according to them, and a different street would have been much better.

The sort of route you're talking about, that connects all the important bits of the city, REALLY needs to be done. Really. Just not on Hwy 99.

*Sky bridges for pedestrians are, perhaps counterintuitively, a bad thing, because they take pedestrians off of the sidewalks below. This reduces pedestrian volume, which is key for safety in crossing the street (drivers are more likely to see and respect the rights of 8 pedestrians, rather than 1) and from crime. They also take potential customers away from retailers, when retail is one of the key components to creating a livable urban environment. And sky bridges allow municipalities and property owners to abdicate their responsibility to the community, of keeping the sidewalks in good repair and free of obstacles.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/index.html#races

looking at the SMPA race (pos. 9), the future doesn't look good for the monorail:

Seattle Popular Monorail Authority, Pos. 9

Dick Falkenbury 9,358 24%
Jim Nobles 15,478 40%
Cleve Stockmeyer 13,197 34%

Jim Nobles is running basicially to shut the monorail down.

These are all good points and now I'm a bit on the fence. But, given that i'm not an urban planner, just an urban person... mass transit, almost by definition, can't be at street level. If light rail has to compete with cars at intersections it will fail. There's already a fairly successful waterfront trolley that follows the viaduct (yes, at street level, but it has to stop for cars which makes taking it during the morning commute a bit of a pain). By throwing light rail on the first deck of a new Viaduct you get rapid access to the waterfront, market, ferry terminals, etc, for cheap.

Yes, Portland and a few other cities have light rail at street level. But, given the outcry from Seattle businesses and developers over the proposed monorail blocking their views as well as traffic and parking impacts, is it really viable to run light rail down through the retail district? Is anyone really going to say, let's turn 1st Ave over to mass transit?

I really hope we don't end up settling for only dedicated bus "rapid lanes". It won't be as efficient as true mass transit and will give conservatives something else to complain about ("why should that lane be just for buses and HOVs blah blah blah").