Seattle Press on Line - Ten Reasons Why Sound Transit Should Build a Monorail

Seattle Press Editorial

Ten Reasons Why Sound Transit Should Build a Monorail

Nov 30, 2000 -- Now that Sound Transit has publicly admitted it doesn't have a clue about how to build a rapid transit system in the city for a reasonable cost, it's time to take another look at the monorail.

Sound Transit rejected a monorail option early in its planning process, without a really good examination of the possibilities. Actually, a monorail system could solve many of the problems that sunk light rail.

1. It's safer.
Fewer people will die because of accidents involving Sound Transit trains. In over a century there have been no recorded fatalities on the world's monorail systems. But every year several people die in San Diego, Portland and Los Angeles trying to cross train tracks. Children play on train tracks, drunks fall over them, cars stall on them, fools try to race trains through the gates. A monorail has an exclusive, inaccessible track. It can't collide with other vehicles. It can't run over people. We don't know how many people a Seattle light rail system would kill, but monorails haven't killed anybody. Light rail's safety record is "horrifying," according to nationally known transit consultant Andrew Jakes.

2. No tunnels needed.
Monorail can climb hills. The rubber-tired, high-traction cars can mount grades of greater than 12 percent. No budget-busting and environmentally hazardous Capitol Hill or Portage Bay tunnels would be needed; no 200-foot-deep elevator shafts.

3. Less construction disruption.
Monorail does not require the demolition of stores and homes during construction. Three lanes of traffic were open on Fifth Avenue while the existing Seattle monorail was being built. In the Rainier Valley, the light rail plan would have destroyed 300 homes and commercial buildings. Monorail can be built with nearly none of the wreckage and disruption caused by light rail. There would be no trainloads of dirt to move.

4. We'll keep the bus tunnel for buses.
One of the most alarming aspects of Sound Transit's light rail plan was that it would take over the bus tunnel for trains and kick the buses back out onto the busy downtown streets, resulting in potentially permanent gridlock.

5. A monorail will not cause congestion.
Monorail adds a new layer of infrastructure to the city. Light rail brings no net addition to overall traffic capacity, because most of the track takes roadway away from cars. With monorail, you don't lose any existing street capacity, and you greatly increase total capacity.

6. Monorail is flexible.
It can make tight turns, change grades, go through or around buildings. Unlike light rail, it can go almost anywhere.

7. Small footprints.
Monorail's impact on existing residential and business neighborhoods is very slight compared to light rail. In the Rainier Valley, light rail would have closed several cross streets and taken an entire lane of traffic from Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. Monorail's elevated structure has less than one-fifth of the "shadowing" effect of an elevated light rail system.

8. High capacity.
Monorail's capacity for moving people is at least as good and perhaps better than any other train system. The monorail in Tokyo, Japan moves 20,000 people per hour, runs at a profit, and is expanding.

9. Financing options.
Private investment could well be attracted for building a monorail in Seattle. Indianapolis is building a monorail entirely with private money, on public right of way, at no cost to taxpayers.

10. Faster construction.
Monorail construction is far simpler and faster than light rail construction. Monorail parts are prefabricated and interchangeable. The pylons holding up the track contain only about half the bulk of those used in Seattle's existing 1962 monorail track system.

Sound Transit has squandered the public confidence and support it had when 56 percent of the voters approved the regional transit system. They need to do some hard thinking and hard work to show that they are worthy of continued public support. There should be an end to the secrecy and obfuscation that surrounded the budget-busting bids on the tunneling project. Obviously Sound Transit didn't seriously consider monorail technology. They said that it wasn't proven, that you couldn't have switches, that it wouldn't work. Well, it does work. In Tokyo, Sydney, and cities all over Europe it's been working for over a century, and the technology is better than ever. Seattle deserves a monorail. And we deserve a fair, honest and open planning process from Sound Transit.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!


David Spitsen	Dec 04, 2000	Seattle	barista
I, as a citizen of Seattle who voted for the monorail twice, believe the Sound Transit should really listen to the People. I have recently read about the Boone monorail/freeway idea. I feel the monorail would benefit us all....


George Schrader	Dec 07, 2000	Panama City, Fl	Arborist
Monorail certainly has some large advantages over light rail and I can readily see why one would choose such a transport system. However after reviewing alternative transport systems over the past few years, there seems one consideration that remains relatively unknown. "Integrated transport" its a bit like monorail only its far better in every way. After all our communities are plagued with not one but a large number of growing transportation problems. Wouldn't it be smarter to choose a transportation system that answers as many of these problems as possible. The Integrated Transportation System I have been studying shows the ability to resolve a great many transportation problems. The system is designed to replace todays highways and appears to have a comparable cost, but also serves as a superb mass transit system too. It is a modern highway system. Uses no more than current proven technological applications whose implementation shows the clear ability to not only end accidents but to remove congestion all in the same stroke. Our highways are long over due for an overhaul. Its time to deploy some technological improvements beyond pavement and signaling attemps. An elevated guideway can transport our vehicles in an unparralleled safety and convenience with far greater speeds and flow rates. Sadly this highway design has existed since 1970 but still lays unrecognized for all the potential well-being it contains. See the sites below for more details! - George schrader@digitalexp.com 32401-2425 "Sustainable Society" web page http://members.delphi.com/geeoh "Sustainable Development Forum" http://forums.delphi.com/m/mydelphi/mydelphi.asp?sigdir=SustainableDev InTranSys -(Integrated Transport System) http://personalpages.tds.net/~cimarron/ Its relatively impossible to have an accident as all vehilces are traveling in the same direction and reliably regulated to travel at the same exact speed. Automation removes human error, increases speeds, and removes the distances maintained between vehicles. 2 lanes in an automated environment can effectively accomplish 18 lanes of highway vehicle flow rate. Huge difference in structure requirements.


Richard GIllmann	Dec 11, 2000	Issaquah, WA	Software Developer
Right on! Your editorial pegs it right on the nose. When Sound Transit was up for a vote, I went to the Seattle Library and looked up the public files on Sound Transit planning. Despite the clear interest of Seattle voters in monorail, it was dismissed in a single paragraph in an obscure section of the documents. Rather than seeking a public dialog, as they should have, Sound Transit just rammed through a pre-determined solution. Seattle got rid of light rail decades ago. We need to move forward, not backward.


Dick Burkhart	Dec 29, 2000	Seattle, WA	mathematician
Much of your editorial on Sound Transit's light rail appears to be based on the kind of baloney from certain monorail advocates that has become so notorious. It is also significant that nowhere did you mention cost or community acceptance. Why did Sound Transit choose light rail over heavy rail and monorail? Two of the biggest reasons were cost and flexibility. That's right, contrary to your claim that light rail lacks monorail flexibility. The only alignment advantage monorail has is steeper grades; otherwise light rail can go anywhere monorail can, carrying as many people or more, plus it can go down city streets -- at much less cost than monorail. Nor does this increase congestion, as you claim, since light rail is typically put on streets with enough right-of-way to maintain the existing traffic, as in Rainier Valley. Here it is expected that the light rail will actually reduce congestion by improving the flow, using traffic light synchronization. We also expect significant safety improvements over the existing accident rate due to blocking of some left hand turns and cross streets together with many new traffic and crosswalk lights. We also expect a much more positive impact on business than either heavy rail or monorail. Letís consider cost. Well over $600 million in bonds were recently sold to build a 3 mile extension of the Las Vegas monorail. That is over $200 million a mile, far in excess of the $35 million often claimed by monorail advocates and definitely more than the $170 million a mile in year-of-expenditure dollars included in Sound Transitís now well-padded cost projection. The reason, of course, is that light rail can balance expensive tunneling with much cheaper at-grade and aerial construction. Monorail can lower costs by having fewer stations, but the reality is it wonít be any cheaper than aerial light rail with the same passenger capacity and number of stations. As for private investment, the Elevated Transportation Company tried to find it and couldnít. This is not Las Vegas. How about community acceptance? Itís one thing to vote for it in the abstract and quite another to say, yes, we prefer monorail to tunnel on downtown streets, down the middle of Broadway, and on 15th by the UW. All of these neighborhoods could have opted for elevated light rail but didnít. In theory monorail may have a small aesthetic advantage (no overhead wires), but in practice it seems to depend a lot more on the architects ñ some Japanese monorails are even downright ugly. Rainier Valley also rejected an aerial alignment, in this case in favor of at-grade. The alignment chosen by Sound Transit is superb, based on many years of community input. We can now regret the political compromises and wishful thinking back in 95 and 96 that led to a severely underfunded light rail. But the most of the costs are now well known, so the new financial plan is sound. And as far as moving Seattlites, proposed alternatives, such as free buses and freeway monorail, donít even come close. They look more like clever ways to hijack urban dollars to serve suburban commuters. Weíre on the right track, so letís build it.