Seattle Press on Line - People's Monorail vs. Politicians' Light Rail

People's Monorail vs. Politicians' Light Rail

By Patricia Stambor

Jan 11, 2001 -- Sound Transit's new, expanded budget is now running $1 billion over original projections. This "reality supplement" will of course will be followed by millions more, first for the inevitable "cost overruns," then for the certain-to-be-discovered "unanticipated costs," which will lead to "litigation expenses."

Promoters of light rail sound desperate in their most recent attempts to remind (or convince) a skeptical public that this is what they voted for. "They deserve our best efforts to build a system as promised," according to Dave Earling, chair of the Sound Transit board.

Sound Transit may have finally admitted that it has made mistakes, and learned some valuable lessons, but many voters don't understand how this happened. We didn't expect escalating costs, or an extension of the finish line (from 2006 to 2009), or a foreshortened rail line--and it's not acceptable. We're all beginning to see the blight at the end of the tunnel.

As light rail tries to dig itself out of a hole, Seattle's monorail is starting to take shape. It may have slipped our minds amid all the railroading in the presidential election, but last November we voters approved Initiative 53, requiring the Seattle City Council to spend $6 million to seriously study a monorail system.

However, Peter Sherwin, author of I-53 and manager of the successful monorail campaign, worries that an unwilling City Hall may once again be dragging its feet. Depending on who you talk to, the city's legal department either reluctantly or cautiously took its time writing a charter that puts I-53's mandate into legal language. Sherwin questions the need for a new charter, and suspects that lawyers' tricks could weaken the Elevated Transit Company (ETC)'s authority and further compromise a legitimate monorail study.

The ETC's Tom Carr is more patient with the city's pace. So far he sees no reason to suspect that the city is not acting in good faith, and adds that the ETC recently voted to accept the city's proposed charter, which will be soon be followed by $20,000 in startup funds.

Understandably, city officials are concerned about possible legal challenges and accountability for the $6 million, which will be spent by a self-selected, all-volunteer citizens' group. The ETC is responsible for, among other things, determining monorail routes, identifying appropriate technology, developing a financing plan, and recommending an appropriate form of governance for a new transit system. A daunting task to perform within a two-year period. May we dare hope that a group of dedicated citizens can do a better job planning for the monorail than professionals did for light rail?

For now, the only city councilmember who seems to be responding to the will of the voters is Nick Licata. In mid-December Licata gave the monorail a jump-start by hiring former legislative assistant Matt Fox to prepare a preliminary report identifying businesses and neighborhoods that might be affected by possible monorail routes. Perhaps Fox's report--which, along with the ETC's charter, can be seen online at www.elevated.org--will serve as a gentle reminder to Licata's colleagues that a monorail study is back on track and ready to roll.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!


Matt Saunders	Mar 02, 2003	Houston, Texas	High School Teacher
My comment concerns the real issue of these rail systems. If the systems are built to resolve traffic problems, then why are we building light rail systems that complicate traffic. People will continue to drive cars and traffic will become a bigger problem. Time is short. We don't have 20 years to solve the problem. Yes, monorail is elevated, but people would use it if it is faster and holds greater value than the light rail. The public sees the picture much clearer, because they deal with the problem every day. They aren't out to spend their tax dollars unwisely. After living in Las Vegas for over a year, I saw the great advantages of monorail. The technology only gets better with time. They had a monorail at the airport and between the hotels and it is being built to solve the traffic problem. If you put a train on the road you don't resolve the traffic problem. Somebody in Vegas knows what they're doing. Also, a monorail can come down to a lower level. The monorail at the airport in Las Vegas, went up and down. A monorail could go to a lower level outside of the city and could attach to the buildings at a second or third floor in the downtown area. This could be very convenient. In addition, think about the subways in New York, people have to go up and down to different levels. The technology and the vision could allow a monorail system that works be implemented in a incredibly short time. I give all thumbs up to the monorail system.


Jessica Labensky	Mar 10, 2003	Seattle, WA	student
I THINK THE MONORAIL WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO IMPROVE SEATTLE'S TRAFFIC. BECAUSE IT TRAVELS ABOVE TRAFFIC, AND WILL GET PEOPLE WHERE THEY NEED TO GO FASTER. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LIGHT RAIL WILL INTERFERE WITH SEATTLES TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT IS FLOWING WITH THE TRAFFIC. IM ALSO INTERESTED OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK BECAUSE IM DOING A RESEARCH PAPER FOR SENIOR PROJECT AND NEED HELP. THE TITLE MONORAIL VS. LIGHT RAIL: WILL IT IMPROVE OUR TRAFFIC?


FRANCIS J. ACANFORA II	Nov 05, 2004	SHORELINE	STUDENT/ CHEF
THE MONORAIL WILL RUN ABOVE GROUND, HOWEVER THE LIGHT RAIL IS CAPABLE OF OPERATING ABOVE AND BELOW, AS WELL AS AT GROUND LEVEL. TAKE THE CURRENT MONORAIL SYSTEM FOR EXAMPLE. WHOLE IT RUNS ABOVE GROUND, IT STILL CAUSES A DEAL OF CONFUSION ON ITS SHORT PATH. HAVE YOUEVER TRIED TO CHANGE LANES TO MAKE A TURN ALONG THE CURRENT ROUTE? THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES. I TOO AM WRITING AN ESSAY ON THESE PROPOSED SYSTEMS AND WOULD LIKE TO COORESPOND WITH YOU. WHILE MY IDEAS ARE MORE CONCRETE, YOUR INPUT WOULD HELP ME TO SEE THE ANTI-THESIS OF MY EVALUATION.