The current route for U-Link is far superior — and it’s a done deal as construction is already underway.

Things had to work reasonably well for the $11B figure to hold true — that was the problem. And even then, that $11B only bought a stripped down system on the technical design side (people tend to remember the junk bond financing plan, but the SMP cut just as many corners on design too).

Besides the fact that you seem to misunderstand the nature of internet comment threads, incorrect comments are a wonderful opportunity to correct the record.

Better that incorrect perceptions be brought into the open and corrected than allowed to fester in darkness. I’m ignorant enough of the monorail that I’ll probably never post on it, and I learned a lot from your reply.

Mind you I still advocate for a waterfront streetcar because I believe it would be a nice amenity and connect the waterfront, to the rest of downtown and other transit. But just because there is a freeway and busy arterial there doesn’t make it a good place for transit lines serving other parts of the city or region.

You may be right a tunnel under the ship canal might have been less expensive than a bridge but that is hard to know without a decent analysis of both alternatives.

I suspect if Link ever goes to either Ballard or West Seattle the alignment will be very similar to the Green Line.

Also you’re forgetting the large number of “suburban” riders Northgate will serve and that going North from there along I-5 has far better ridership than most of the other suburban lines.

True transit lines that connect activity centers together tend to have the best ridership, but you are distorting that into something that just doesn’t make any sense.

It’s really not a crazy conspiracy theory when folks say that local electeds drove a stake through the heart of the monorail. We have never treated any other public project in that fashion, and we’d all better hope no one ever treats any future streetcar or light rail expansions in the same way!

I’ll grant you there were a number of local electeds and movers and shakers who were trying to kill the monorail from before the first initiative qualified for the ballot until the plug was finally pulled.

The fact that many who were promoters of the monorail or who served on the board had set up a false Monorail vs. light rail fight didn’t help the monorail win many friends in high places.

Still I’d hold Ron Sims, various members of the city council, or some influential property owners more responsible for killing the monorail than Nickels. Sure he didn’t give it the level of support he gave Sound Transit when it went through crisis, but since the SMP wasn’t really his baby (in the sense ST and Link are), why should he?

The ETC/SMP and it’s board had some big self-inflicted problems as well. One of them being they drove off political support that would have been helpful later when the project hit the rocks.

That said, the best thing to do at this point regarding the monorail is to learn the lessons it can teach and move on.

The Greenline Monorail was not the best route, not even close in terms of ridership, nevermind its high cost. Seattle politics are completely divisive. This doesn’t seem to me to be a situation that occurs as much spontaneously as intentionally. I figure Seattle City Hall needs a clean sweep.

The State DOT will fight to keep them for auto traffic just like the current issues with East Link taking the I-90 Express Lanes. You’ll have to start the EIS process from scratch as the alignment would have completely changed. That alone will add years to the timeline before any construction can begin. The Record of Decision for North has already been issued. We can’t afford any more delay.

“Transfers to better serve UW, Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard would work better from I-5.”

As a UW student I strongly disagree. Basically you want the station to be placed in the freeway median far from where the people, jobs, and activities actually are. That’s a poor location for a transit station in a dense area. A station on I-5 is not within walking distance of the UW campus, UW Medical Center, Husky Stadium, and the Ave shopping district. That’s where all the ridership is and where all the current buses run. Transfers to the 44 for Wallingford and Ballard can be done a few blocks east of I-5 on NE 45th at the Brooklyn Station in the heart of the Ave.

http://www.seattlepi.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=13640

http://blog.seattlepi.com/realestatenews/archives/163320.asp

Think of it this way: Light rail should generate ridership in both directions. If Seattle increases density, ridership will be heavy in the direction toward Seattle in the morning commute hours, but little ridership the other direction except in the afternoon commute. When regional growth directs density to both ends of a light rail line, this balances ridership, not too much in the commute hours, not too little during other hours and in reverse-commute direction. It also reduces the very need for long-distance commuting.

Just building density where it already exists (inner-city Seattle) will only increase the demand to travel downtown and all through the metropolitan area. Think about it.

My premise is still basic. Suburban areas need development to reduce the very need for cross-county commuting and general travel more than inner-city districts like Capitol Hill and UW.

My next premise is more complicated. Transit lines must integrate. Shifting bus riders to rail is not the same as ‘new’ transit riders. Yet, this is how the ridership figures for Link to UW are estimated. The most central location for a light rail north are the Express Lanes of I-5, which was their original intent. Transfers to better serve UW, Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard would work better from I-5.

I find the expression “done deal” offensive. You don’t want a done deal when you’ve still got options. Done deals aren’t always good deals.

I wish people would keep their mouths shut if they don’t know what they are talking about…

The reason the $11B financing plan existed is because some folks — like the Mayor — demanded to see a “worst case scenario” plan; as in, if all the cost overruns occur, and no other support is given, and there’s no sales tax forgiveness, ad infinitum.

Or I could cite as an example the reason for there being only one bidder instead of the three we originally expected. It wasn’t because of some “flaw” in the project, or some poor planning. The project was vetted by world experts on such things. We only had one bidder because local politicians — like the Mayor — required any bidders to also put up a $200 million bond to remove all columns and station parts in the event the project could not be fully financed. Bombardier refused to submit a bid unless that requirement was removed because it tied up too much money and put them at too much risk over issues beyond their control.

I ask again, could you imagine if shit like that applied to the Tunnel proposal? Or to Link? Who do you think would have built light rail if they had to put up a bond to remove all the tracks from the streets if it ran out of money? And do you think Link would be here after ST’s financial problems if they had not been allowed to basically just continue collecting taxes and delay construction?

It’s really not a crazy conspiracy theory when folks say that local electeds drove a stake through the heart of the monorail. We have never treated any other public project in that fashion, and we’d all better hope no one ever treats any future streetcar or light rail expansions in the same way!

Transit systems must integrate. There’s no avoiding it. The Waterfront route cold serve downtown and the South Lake Union route could serve Seattle Center with necessary, convenient and desirable transfer systems.

A tunnel under the canal was less expensive. It had to go down only about 60′ whereas the bridge had to be 110′ high and much longer. Right of Way aquisition was less expensive because it required less property condemnation.

Transit systems must integrate. There’s no avoiding it. The Waterfront route cold serve downtown and the South Lake Union route could serve Seattle Center with convenient and desirable transfer systems.

The monorail design I submitted to Sound Transit, ETC and SMP during 2001-2003 was a set of single-track circulators. They served the Waterfront, Pike Place Market,, Belltown, Denny Triangle,, Sports Arenas, International District,, First and Capitol Hills,, 4th Ave at the Library and Westlake Mall,, Convention Place Station. Both circulators converged at Seattle Center. Double-track regional monorail lines entered this pair of sigle-track circulator lines and travelled through. I started with one circulator line estimated to cost $500 million. The 2nd circulator monorail line was equal in length but had 3 less stations. It too was estimated around $500 million. Together, these 2 monorail circulator lines had about double the ridership of the Greenline, for half the cost.

The real tragedy of the monorail debacle is that that taxing authority was pretty much Seattle’s one chance to build mass transit on our own. I wouldn’t expect the state to give us that opportunity ever again.

Just imagine what the SMP taxes could be paying for in the way of streetcars, Link expansion to Ballard or West Seattle, ETB expansion, BRT, or even just regular bus service expansion.

Hopefully the legislature can be convinced to allow a local option MVET for transit.