The private company Seattle Monorail Services is proposing a fare increase to use the Seattle Center Monorail. Fares would go from $3.50 to $4.00 for adults, $1.75 to $2.00 for youth, and $1.75 to $2.00 for reduced-fare riders. This is substantially higher than what King County Metro charges to ride the bus and Sound Transit charges to ride Link light rail.
| Full | Youth | Reduced | |
| Monorail | $4.00 | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| Metro Bus | $2.75 | Free | $1.00 |
| Link Light Rail | $3.00 | Free | $1.00 |
| Seattle Streetcars | $2.25 | Free | $1.00 |
The Monorail is not an amusement park ride. It is a vital part of our public transportation system. For people who live in Uptown it is quite often the fastest way to get downtown and thus to the heart of our public transportation system. There are hundreds of people who work inside the Seattle Center as well as a public high school.
Seattle Monorail Services should adjust its fare structure to match King County Metro. Rides on the bus are FREE for youth, $1.00 for reduced fare riders, and $2.75 for adults. Setting the adult fare to a flat $3 would be appropriate as well, given that it costs that much to ride Link and it will probably cost that much to ride a Metro bus soon.
It is also quite reasonable to charge more for those not using an ORCA card. Regular users — especially low income users — would get a standard transit fare while tourists (those more likely to pay with cash or credit card) would pay more.
Standardizing fares to the level of a Metro bus would likely cost the privately owned Seattle Monorail Services a little bit of money. It would also cost the City of Seattle some money as well. This could be made up any number of ways. One would be to charge the standard (Metro) fare for the streetcars (instead of the current discount). Others include raising the cost of parking or concession fees inside the Seattle Center. Transit riders should not be asked to pay such a high burden.
The public is invited to comment on the proposed fare increase before a deadline of October 21, 2024 by emailing valancy.blackwell@seattle.gov.
Decisions on which form of public transit to take somewhere should be based on what gets you there quickest, not minimizing fare costs. Nobody gains when somebody slogs it out to Kent on the 150 because Sounder is too expensive, and nobody gains when somebody rides the bus to Seattle Center because the monorail is too expensive.
Nobody likes to see prices go up, but I’m not against this fare increase.
It’s only a 15% bump, compared to Metro’s proposed 10% bump. The difference just isn’t that great, and the monorail is already more expensive than the bus. So any effect of the price differential is already baked into everyone’s daily travel patterns.
Plus the monorail really isn’t critical transportation infrastructure. Ya, it’s fun. Ya, it’s nostalgic, ya, it’s unique. But as transportation it really isn’t critical. It’s just too limited.
And there are other Metro options on this route, including RR-D.
the monorail is already more expensive than the bus.
Correct, and it shouldn’t be.
Plus the monorail really isn’t critical transportation infrastructure.
You could say that about the streetcar. You could say that about various buses. You could even say that about Link. Sure, it is faster to take Link, but for most trips you can just take a bus (something we’ve all learned the hard way lately). There is no good reason to charge so much more for the monorail than for other forms of transit.
I can think of some arguments for the Monorail to continue to charge more than Metro. 1, It’s mainly for tourists, like the SF Cable Car. 2, It doesn’t have sales tax revenue to rely on, like Metro does, so it can’t afford to cut fares. 3, The Monorail is a unique, aging system that is going to require more and more maintenance as the years go on, so it needs to be well-funded to extend its longevity. 4, in every year of its existence, the Monorail has charged more than the local bus for the same trip.
“Seattle’s and Metro’s general budget deficits are far larger issues that can be discussed in open threads. Clearly, the city and Metro need prioritization plans, and to address specific revenue sources or cuts that would be tolerable”.
This statement is from Mike Orr in response to a post I posted on raising Metro fares. My first two questions were whether anyone knows how much total profit the agency operating the Monorail makes each year, and its profit margin, but got no response.
I then responded to a poster’s comment who argued the City of Seattle should not only operate the Monorail but subsidize the fare in order to lower the fare, (although it was not clear to me that the city operating the Monorail would save any money over the outside agency including profit).
I think Seattle’s general budget deficits are directly on point for Seattle based transit like the Monorail, or a plan to subsidze fares (Mero’s funding is mostly county wide). The Seattle times has an editorial today, Seattle’s JumpStart tax revenues are for housing, not balancing budget | The Seattle Times.
The authors write,
“The Harrell administration has done the difficult and thankless work of combing through the entire city budget, identifying inefficiencies department by department. Despite these efforts, the savings generated were minimal, leaving the mayor with few options to address the current general fund deficit [$260 million in 2025 and another $250 million in 2026]; he proposes diverting funds raised by the JumpStart payroll tax that were intended for affordable housing”.
“Major cuts to the general fund would compromise services and infrastructure that we rely on daily. However, diverting funds from affordable housing cannot be a permanent solution. The continued reliance on JumpStart to balance the overall city budget is unsustainable and undermines the very purpose for which it was created”.
Harrell’s plan to divert $260 million from the Jumpstart payroll tax will only cover 2025’s budget deficit. Harrell will have to find another $250 million to balance 2026’s general fund budget deficit. So in reality diverting the Jumpstart tax originally designated for affordable housing to the general fund will be a permanent solution unless other revenue sources or cuts are found.
A prior Times’ editorial complained about Harrell’s proposal to cut the rent assistance program by around $2 million (or nearly 40%) which helps prevent homelessness in the first place.
So the question, as will be every question going forward with large general fund budget deficits, is whether one expenditure is more worthy than another because you can’t have both.
In this case, the question to the public would be whether it is better to subsidize and lower fares on the Monorail for tourists and Kraken fans or fund rent assistance or affordable housing, unless the proponents can come up with some other budget cuts Harrell did not find.
Seattle’s JumpStart tax revenues are for housing, not balancing budget
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-jumpstart-tax-revenues-are-for-housing-not-balancing-budget/
I think Seattle’s general budget deficits are directly on point for Seattle based transit like the Monorail
OK, but then why are the streetcars discounted? For that matter, why only focus on transit riders?
It’s mainly for tourists
No, its not. You are thinking of the Seattle Waterfront Shuttle, which is free (https://seattlewaterfront.org/free-seattle-waterfront-shuttle/). Oh, and last time I checked riding the elevators are free even though the waterfront is mainly for tourists. They should charge a couple bucks, since you can always just walk.
But if it is “mainly tourists” then just charge more for those without ORCA cards. Your argument doesn’t make sense. Somehow giving ORCA users a discount would cost the city a ton of money and yet the only people who use the monorail are tourists. Are you saying tourists all buy ORCA cards? Seriously?
It doesn’t have sales tax revenue to rely on, like Metro does, so it can’t afford to cut fares.
Sure it does. It is just part of the city budget (and a teeny-tiny part of it). There are dozens of ways in which the city could raise that kind of money (e. g. raising the cost of parking). One would be to raise the fares for the streetcar (so that they are all the same). It is quite likely that would garner enough money to offset the monorail. Your argument is really bizarre. We should have a discount on the streetcar but charge more for mass transit that is actually faster than riding a bus. That makes no sense.
The Monorail is a unique, aging system that is going to require more and more maintenance as the years go on, so it needs to be well-funded to extend its longevity.
OK, but that has nothing to do with fares. The company that collects the fares does not pay for fixing it. That comes from the federal government (and to a lesser extent the city).
in every year of its existence, the Monorail has charged more than the local bus for the same trip.
So what? That doesn’t mean it was a good idea. At the very least this idea is outdated. The area around the Seattle Center has grown considerably. So too has the Seattle Center itself (e. g. there is a high school there). Traffic has grown as well. The last thing we should do is encourage people to drive because riding the monorail is expensive.
“Seattle Center Monorail is one of the best modern-day examples of a true public-private partnership. Owned by the City of Seattle and operated by Seattle Monorail Services (SMS), a private company, since 1994. We accomplish something that very few transportation systems in the country have: taxpayers pay none of the Monorail’s operating costs. SMS covers the Monorail’s operating cost through ticket sales, and in fact, returns revenue to the City of Seattle every year through this partnership. The City’s share of the net operating income is used to help underwrite public programming and administrative costs at Seattle Center. Additionally, a portion of Seattle Center Monorail farebox revenue is used to help cover equipment upgrades and construction costs.”
https://centerspotlight.seattle.gov/2024/09/04/seattle-center-monorail-fare-increase-proposed/
Kraken ticket holders get to ride the monorail before and after the game for free. If the fare is lowered, the subsidy from the Pledge is lowered.
“With each Kraken and Storm ticket, fans would receive a free pass on Sound Transit, Metro and/or the monorail, a benefit not available when the Sonics were still in town. This year, the arena added the perk to concerts and other events.”
https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/05/123532-power-kraken-seattle-monorail-ridership-spikes-hockey-games
Those slogging it on the 150 to Kent are mostly doing that because Sounder does not run then, and Link + 161 is sometimes less reliable. When Sounder is running, the fare for low-income riders is the same $1 whether they take Sounder or the 150.
Contrast that to monorail vs, the E Line. Those who can’t afford the monorail take the crowded E Line or another bus, saving $1.50 per round trip, or soon $2 per round trip.
ST got it right by holding the poor harmless to its need to make a fare revenue goal. Unlike the monorail, they did the Title VI analysis, which led them to the math that what they were doing would not only improve ridership, but also revenue.
The monorail propaganda boasts that reduced-fare riders will continue to get a 50-percent discount. I suppose that is supposed to be some consolation to the reduced-fare riders who will have to rethink their use of the monorail.
The 50-percent discount is only a thing, temporarily, at Pierce, Everett, and Kitsap Transit, none of which connect to the monorail. The $1 portable regional reduced fare is also a thing, and almost certainly less temporarily, at these agencies, along with Metro buses, the streetcars, all ST services including Sounder, and soon very likely Community Transit.
When ST raised fares 50 cents on Sounder while implementing its first ORCA LIFT fare, I wholeheartedly championed the change.
If the monorail were raising regular fares 50 cents while dropping reduced fares to $1, completing the $1 portable reduced fare among all land-based services in the ORCA Pod, I would totally be happy about that.
Instead, I am having to consider boycotting, … not just the monorail, but also the Seattle Center.
“Those slogging it on the 150 to Kent are mostly doing that because Sounder does not run then, and Link + 161 is sometimes less reliable.”
Link+161 takes much longer! The 150 takes an hour more or less depending on the time of day. Link takes 37 minutes, the 161 takes 28 minutes, and there’s a 5-30 minute transfer. Transferring requires going east on the bridge over Intl Blvd, and then if you’re going to Kent, west on the Intl Blvd crosswalk to the southbound bus stop, so that’s the minimum transfer time. If the 161 is half-hourly and you just miss it, too bad, should have taken the 150.
We’re veering off topic, which is hard to do with rail.
My point is that a reduced-fare cardholder can ride Sounder all the way from Everett to Lakewood for $1. The $2 fare the monorail is going to charge for this category is extremely high compared to all other land-based public transit services.
SMS and the Seattle Center may not have realized the rest of the region was moving to $1 reduced fares. Now they know. Now they can go back to the drawing board and rethink the reduced fares
The streetcar is cheaper than the bus? I had no idea.
The streetcar fare is still $2.25 regular fare, and $1 for riders with an RRFP or ORCA Lift card. Youth 18 and under ride free, just like with every other public transit service across the state, including Amtrak.**
The $2.25 regular fare was set to match the (lowest) fare on Link. As of August 30, the lowest fare on Link is now $3. Raising the streetcar fare to that now would make it more expensive than a Metro bus ride.
If the streetcar fare were switched to match Metro immediately, the cost of updating fare signage twice might outweigh whatever paltry extra fare revenue it collects.
Maybe it would be good to incentivize riding the electric streetcar over taking up limited seats on Metro route 40 (which uses hybrids).
** The monorail accepts youth ORCA card payments as free. Youth over 5 without such a card are currently charged $1.75, proposed to increase to $2. And they have turnstiles, so the fare is actually collected.
I thought children were free on the monorail. I’ve been just taking them through the turnstile with me on the same Orca tap.
Under 5 they are free. Youth is free with an ORCA card*. Otherwise youth fares are $1.75.
* This is somewhat buried on the fare page. See this page https://www.seattlemonorail.com/ride-with-us/ and select the “ORCA” tab. In the fine print there is this:
Youth (ages 6-18) with a valid Youth ORCA card will receive $0 fare upon tapping their card at the Seattle Center Monorail.
I got a response from the Seattle Center.
They said no Title V analysis is necessary because the monorail does not receive federal funding for operations, maintenance, or construction. Can it be verified that the City is not getting federal funding for capital improvements on the monorail?
They also claim the increase is necessary to maintain their profit on operations and maintenance. There was no mention of funding Seattle Center programs or large charitable contributions.
Whose profit?
The Seattle Center’s?
Or Seattle Monorail?
The OP reads that the profit all goes to the private company but I’d have to believe they are paid a contracted amount for O&M and any additional revenues beyond that are going to the Seattle Center aka the City of Seattle.
I’m not that worried about requiring a youth ORCA card to get free fare on the monorail, so long as the vast majority of those paying the youth fare are tourist families from out of state.
And though I would be delighted to have the monorail join the Metro/Link/STExpress $3 fare party, I am concerned that a lot of subsidy from events at Climate Pledge Arena would disappear, though I have not looked at the subsidy structure in detail.
I would also find it unfortunate if the monorail dropped honoring the Subsidized Annual Pass in favor of slightly reducing other fares below the current proposal. And I thank the Seattle Center for honoring the SAP.
If the $4 fare goes through, but the reduced fares are dropped to $1 to align with the region, I’d honestly be happy with that outcome.
A few days ago, the comment section was sounding the alarm on Metro’s approaching fiscal cliff. No mention of a Seattle Monorail fiscal cliff, however.
Because there isn’t one.
That’s the problem I have. Why should the organization that isn’t facing a revenue shortfall lower their fares to be more inline with the organization that is facing a revenue shortfall? That doesn’t seem like sound financial advice. Plus, it’s backwards. “But, Sam, Metro only gets a fraction of their revenue from fares! Half comes from the sales tax!” You just made my point, strawman. The Monorail is much more reliant on fares than Metro is.
I’ve seen advertising on the monorail recently. They used to not allow it.
This is veering off-topic. Comparing applies and oranges belongs in an open thread.[Ed: The comment scope is expanded, see below.]The Seattle Monorail Services is a private company. If they really think they can’t make a profit without raises fares then prove it. Open the books and let us see the numbers. The reason they haven’t is because they aren’t making that claim. They aren’t pretending to be struggling. They are simply asking for the right to make more money.
The Seattle Monorail is owned by the City of Seattle. Just because they hired a private company to operate it, doesn’t mean the books should be closed. I would think that should be public information the City of Seattle could release if they wanted to. And it would be useful information to have to form an opinion on whether or not they should raise, lower, or keep the fares the same. I’m fine with them having higher fares than other local public transit agencies. It’s a unique, aging line, that’s going to cost more and more to maintain as the years go by. Eventually, it’s probably going to have to scrapped, like Memphis’s Mud Island Monorail was back in 2018 (seen in the movie The Firm). It, I believe, lasted only 36 years. But, yeah, open the books. What’s the Seattle Monorail’s fare recovery like? What’s driver pay? What’s the CEO’s pay? What’s the profit? What’s the life expectancy of the line? What are maintenance costs? Those things shouldn’t be secrets.
I agree with Sam, especially considering that the 2019 finances show 20% local and 80% federal taxes as the source for capital funds:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2019/00023.pdf
(I looked at 2019 because the last time I brought up the use of federal funds for the monorail, the suspicion was it was Covid relief related).
This is also why I corrected the statement about ownership: if it were entirely privately owned, there probably wouldn’t be $408,000 in taxpayer funds going towards capital expenditures.
It would also be interesting to know exactly what is being paid for by whom. Eg: are replacement tires considered capital expenses and paid for by the taxpayers, or are they considered an operating expense and paid for out of fare revenue by Seattle Monorail Services?
The 2019 looks like they didn’t quite cover their operating costs from fares, and so they used some of the capital funds for operation. This means taxpayer funds would have been used to operate it, to a very limited extent.
@Glenn — Here is a more recent report: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2022/00023.pdf
Under “Capital” (which the federal government and city pays for) it lists “Revenue Vehicles”, “Systems and Guideway” and “Facilities and Stations”. As I see it, this suggests that the company basically just pays people to drive it back and forth, handle the money (and manage those workers). This makes sense given the overall budget (which is fairly small). If they do have mechanics they are basically just doing the equivalent of changing the oil. If they need new tires it falls under “capital”. (At least that is what I gather.)
Does anyone know what the profit and profit margins are for the company operating the monorail? I assume the city puts the contract out for bid.
My other question is whether the city concluded operating the Monorail would cost the city more than utilizing an outside agency even with the profit. City workers are very expensive, and generally anything the city does including build affordable housing runs at least 1/3 more than if the private sector does it. The city may have concluded that even with the operator’s profit margin it costs the city less than if the city operated the monorail itself which actually reduces fares.
The city could subsidize monorail fares out of the general fund, but the city is estimating a $260 million deficit in 2025 to the general fund and additional $250 million deficit for budget year 2026.
Harrell is proposing the city close the 2025 deficit by using head tax (Jumpstart Seattle adopted in 2020) revenues that were originally promised for housing. Harrell now claims the revenue from the head tax exceeds estimates so he really isn’t raiding head tax revenue or affordable housing, but then why did he and the council place a $970 million housing levy on the ballot if the head tax was bringing in so much revenue for affordable housing, especially with so much affordable housing built under the MFTE about to convert to market rate housing because it will reach its 12 year expiration period?
Using this budget trick Harrell claims he is balancing the general fund budget without cuts and without tax increases, which mathematically is impossible. At the same time, much of Seattle’s declining tax revenue causing the 2025-2026 deficits is due to declining business tax revenues, and other cities like Bellevue don’t have head taxes (or budget deficits).
Harrell has not identified how he plans to close the 2026 general fund budget deficit, assuming he is re-elected. My guess is by using revenues from the transportation levy, if it passes, to fund cuts to SDOT’s general operations so he can again claim he is closing large budget deficits without cuts or tax increase, when in fact he is doing both.
You really can’t balance budget deficits without raising taxes or cutting expenditures. For decades Republicans have tried to claim that eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse” would balance deficits which it never did. Democrats have claimed government spending would generate and increase tax revenue (Republicans claim the same about cutting taxes) but it never happens.
The fares on the Monorail are a tiny, tiny issue but reflect much larger issues Seattle will have to face due to declining business tax revenue. Just like raising fares on transit, raising taxes on business has a diminishing return, and today Seattle’s business taxes are becoming negative revenue sources as the head tax is equal to or less than the decline in other business tax revenue and businesses are leaving Seattle or going to work from home.
I doubt the city could operate the Monorail for less than the private operator including the profit, but even if it could it can’t afford anything that increases budget deficits like subsidizing fares that in reality will come from the head tax for affordable housing and transportation levy because those are now subsidizing the general fund.
The city’s promises about how the revenue from the head tax would be used have been broken. So will the promises in the Housing Levy that will go toward what the head tax was suppose to fund. So will the Transportation Levy whose vague project list will really go to funding cuts to SDOT.
Sometimes I think some on this blog don’t understand this, or want to ignore it. Seattle is entering a period in which tax revenue is around $250 million each year less than expenditures due to declining business taxes.
Fares on the Monorail are irrelevant, but indicative of the hard choices to come, which for 2025-26 are getting voters to pass very large levies for housing and transportation and then using those funds to effectively fund the general fund and claiming that is neither a tax increase or cut to expenditures.
If only, and if only cuts to waste fraud and abuse offset tax cuts, and more government expenditures or tax cuts actually increased tax revenue more than the expenditures. Or cities unlike the federal government didn’t have to balance their budget each year (except for bridge repair and replacement).
Metro used to operate the monorail, so that could be an option again. I don’t remember when or why it was switched from Metro. But we shouldn’t change the operator hastily: we should consider it as a long-term issue and evaluate the tradeoffs.
Ross’s article and comments suggest ways the city could replace SMS’s contractually-agreed profit without dipping into general taxes. I assume it would only be done that way.
Seattle’s and Metro’s general budget deficits are far larger issues that can be discussed in open threads. Clearly, the city and Metro need prioritization plans, and to address specific revenue sources or cuts that would be tolerable. I’m not knowledgeable enough to have particular opinions on what those should be; that’s what politicians and experts are for. Once we have a prioritization ladder, then we can look at what the Monorail’s position is and whether it should be reprioritized higher or lower.
The current mayor and city council will doubtless be less enthusiastic about preserving/increasing transit service or density than the last council was, but we knew that.
You seem to be heading toward cuts. I naturally want to preserve and expand transit service (Metro, not filling in WS/BLE’s gap) and would say transit is essential to a well-functioning city and making it competitive.
Companies decamping to Bellevue to avoid taxes is a problem with the companies themselves. Jeff Bezos and Amazon have long been tax-allergic. We shouldn’t base our policies on companies that don’t want to pay their fair share of the infrastructure they depend on, which includes transit, education, and housing for their staff and everybody.
Right on, Sam. All well said. A little sunlight is a great disinfectant.
Way off topic, but…
A head tax is a flat tax everyone has to pay. It is no wonder there was rioting when the UK temporarily passed one.
The chamber likes to call employer taxes “head taxes” to confuse the public about the nature of the taxes. Anything they call a “head tax” is probably worth keeping, and bears little resemblance to a head tax.
Fares are not irrelevant to those who can least afford to pay them. That’s why raising the reduced fares to a 100% upcharge over all connecting services is such a crass thing to do.
The rest of us can afford the 33% upcharge, but everyone, except youth with a youth ORCA card and SAP cardholders, would pay a flat $1 upcharge.
That sounds closer to me to being a “head tax” than the employer tax the chamber has been incessantly trying to get rid of.
It’s not that the monorail can’t collect enough money to operate its full service, it’s that it wants to maintain a certain profit margin for its for-profit owner. That’s like when Uber jacks up rates for its investors. Metro doesn’t have a for-profit owner: its mission is to provide transit mobility because that’s good for the county overall (who owns it). The monorail is in an in-between state because there’s disagreement over whether its mission is general transit or just a tourist amenity, and the addition of a for-profit operator.
“… it’s that it wants to maintain a certain profit margin for its for-profit owner.”
Quibble: it wants to maintain a certain profit margin for its for-profit operator. *Ownership* is public.
Sorry, I intended to write operator.
As I noted above, I don’t understand where statements like “profit margin for its for-profit owner.”
There is a for-profit owner that contracts to operate the monorail. Typically these companies are paid a set amount for Operations and Maintenance.
I would not expect that this particular contract is set-up so any fare revenues above and beyond operating costs go back to the private company. They most certainly are going to the city.
I did find it odd that part of the response to Metro’s fiscal cliff was raising the regular fare to $3 … in fall of 2025.
Raising the fare in spring of 2025 would make it feel more like they really mean it about the fiscal cliff. What’s the hold-up?
Raising fares in the Fall right before a county council election? Toxic.
It’s how Metro has always done rate increases. The fiscal cliff is not now, it’s in a few years when Metro’s reserves run out. There are bureaucratic rules for public hearings and outreach, which take months. Especially to reach non-English-speaking communities who may not attend regular hearings because they don’t speak English. Metro now prefers to consolidate major changes to once a year in September, and it just missed September 2024.
Metro gets a relatively small amount of money from fares. Increasing it a quarter really won’t help much.
@Sam,
There isn’t a monorail financial cliff because the monorail is well run.
The monorail cost $923.52 per hour per train for operations, using the 2022 expense sheet Ross pointed to (it’s given as per vehicle hour, but each train has 4 cars, so you have to multiply by 4 to get the real cost.)
This seems quite expensive for the very simple operation they have.
Sure, there’s custom parts, but none of that should be stuff that gets replaced as part of normal operations. Traction motors should be a standard NEMA frame size, and while the rubber traction tires wear out they should be something reasonably common. Door operators should be something fairly commonly available from WABTec or something. The bridge plates at Westlake are highly unique, but trying to get those maintained is probably a capital expense anyway, and thus taxpayer funded.
The monorail is not a train. It is an articulated one-car consist.
Are you talking about Link’s operating costs?
@Brent White,
I’m not sure if Glenn’s math is right or not, but it hardly matters,
If Glenn’s math is right then it just shows why we should all support this fare increase. Expensive, boutique, and antique systems take a lot of money to operate and maintain. If we don’t want to subsidize the operation of such systems, then we need to let fares be set high enough to cover costs. It’s pretty simple.
The only other option is to set fares low and subsidize the operation with government funding. That could be done, but the big question is where does the extra money come from?
Probably the easiest solution would be to just take a chunk of the existing Seattle TBD funding and divert it to the monorail. Doing such a thing would blow a small hole in the Metro budget, but Metro is a large organization and could probably find some fat to cut to cover the loss.
Of course it would move up Metro’s day of reckoning with their financial cliff, but they don’t seem to be too concerned about such things right now.
It’s not my math. It’s the transit database report,. If you read the report, note that the cost reported to the Federal Transit Administration for the monorail is for 8 “vehicles” and that totals ≈ $230 per vehicle per hour, depending if you are looking at the 2022 numbers (Ross provided the link) or 2019 numbers (the link I provided). So, it’s per monorail train car, and you have to multiply this by 4 to get the cost per monorail train hour.
Unless they made a mistake in their reporting numbers, and reported the cost per train hour as the per vehicle hour, but reported the 8 vehicles by mistake?
This is the 2022 report:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2022/00023.pdf
If we don’t want to subsidize the operation of such systems, then we need to let fares be set high enough to cover costs.
Who said we don’t? We subsidize East Link, even though people got along just fine with out it (they took the buses). Same goes for the streetcars. Using your logic we would raise fares to $10.00 if necessary just so that we don’t have to subsidize either system.
Sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying transit should be free, but it shouldn’t be a huge burden either. This is especially true of low-income riders.
The only other option is to set fares low and subsidize the operation with government funding. That could be done, but the big question is where does the extra money come from?
I covered that, but let’s dig into it a bit deeper.
Assume for a second that Metro raises their fares to $3.00 and Sound Transit lowers their bus fares to $3.00 as well (both are expected by the end of next year). Since Link charges the same, this is the standard transit fare in Seattle.
Now consider the streetcar. Right now they charge $2.25 for an adult. That means a 75 cent discount (for adults). The monorail charges an extra 50 cents (that they want to raise to a dollar). Thus the subsidy for the streetcar is similar to the extra fee for the monorail. As it turns out, the monorail and streetcars (combined) carry roughly the same number of riders. Thus it is quite possible that by simply raising the price on the streetcars you cover it.
Now consider the other part I mentioned. The agency could charge more for those that don’t use an ORCA card. If — as people suggest — most of the people who ride the monorail are “just tourists” then it is highly likely a lot of the money comes from cash and credit cards (not ORCA cards). Thus the company still gets plenty of extra money (by charging $4 for adults and $2 for youth) while regular riders — and most importantly low-income riders — pay the same standard price for transit.
It is quite likely that the money from cash and credit cards along with the extra money from raising streetcars is more than enough to cover the cost of standardizing fares on the monorail for ORCA users. If not, then the cost to the City of Seattle — or the Seattle Transportation Benefit District (STBD) — would be minimal.
It is worth mentioning that the cost to operate the monorail is minimal. The private company raises about five million dollars a year and spends a bit less than that. This means dropping the ORCA fare to the standard amount would probably cost around a million dollars (and less if most people pay cash/credit card). Raising streetcar fares would likely cover it, and if not we are talking a few hundred thousand (if that). At most it works out to less than 1% of the STBD budget.
The cost to maintain it is probably a lot more, but fares don’t pay for that. It is completely separate — it is important to not conflate those issues. If something breaks or a train needs new tires, the company won’t pay for it. They aren’t stockpiling cash just in case something happens (and neither is the city). Money to repair the monorail comes from the federal government and to a lesser extent the city.
It would also be useful to know what’s costing so much. Sure, it’s specialized equipment. So are steam powered tourist railroads, and this is expensive even by those standards.
Liability insurance can be a significant cost, so maybe that’s it?
1) Perhaps the City has six spare monorail vehicles in storage somewhere? They still only use one at a time, most of the time, and two when ridership justifies it. The federal government expects a spare ratio. But the Seattle Center specialist told me SMS gets zero federal funding for operations, maintenance, or construction. And yet, it is SMS employees doing the maintenance.
2) The monorail no longer accepts cash. Before it accepted ORCA, it only accepted cash. That’s an example of how stubborn SMS is about change. Perhaps the campaign to get the monorail to accept ORCA saved it.
3) With $3.50 fares, I limit my monorail trips to going to events. $4 won’t change that. But failure to align the reduced fares with the region’s $1 reduced fare will put me back in the mode of refusing to spend any money at the Seattle Center (since both the Center and SMS are trying to maximize their respective profits off of monorail fares). A $3 fare would entice me to take a lot more monorail trips. SMS would get a lot more fare revenue from me with a $3 fare than with a higher fare.
4) Regarding the streetcar fares … think of all the poor Capitol Hill riders who could only afford a $2.25 fare to go downtown. The 49 is a premium service. If they can’t afford it, they can take the FHSC down to Japantown. You’re welcome, Sam.
Seattle’s plan to cut tenant services in half would be disastrous
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-plan-to-cut-tenant-services-in-half-would-be-disastrous/
“We subsidize East Link, even though people got along just fine with out it (they took the buses). Same goes for the streetcars. Using your logic we would raise fares to $10.00 if necessary just so that we don’t have to subsidize either system”.
Well, that is a bit hyperbolic. East King Co. subsidizes East Link. Not “we”. Due to subarea equity, uniform tax rates, and expanding ST revenue I would argue the ST 3 projects suggest too much of East Link is too heavily subsidized. This kind of tax subsidy has led to some questionable projects based on dollar per rider like Issaquah Link, except the subarea has excess ST revenue to spend.
I would also argue the region spending $152 billion on Link through 2046 is too much as that tax revenue comes at the expense of other needs that taxes subsidize, from education to housing to Metro, and the four other subareas are not in the same financial situation as East King Co.
I agree the streetcar fare should be raised, but not to subsidize other transit. Based on ST’s farebox recovery rate of 15% I don’t think a $3 fare from Lynnwood to Federal Way makes sense, because you know ST is covering the difference between the assumption in the levy of 40% farebox recovery and the current 15% by deferring long term O&M, which is just a tax on future users. Every other transit system does the same hoping some government entity bails them out at the end.
The difference is Seattle is facing very large budget deficits for the foreseeable future due to a loss of business tax revenue (property tax revenue stays the same although it will shift from offices to residential, and there will be less exempt new construction). Harrell claims he can’t find any meaningful cuts in the general fund budget, will raise taxes $2.5 billion in two years through the Housing Levy and Transportation Levy which only increase housing costs, and last year raised non-CBA staff pay pretty significantly. Meanwhile Seattle is having to offer $50,000 signing bonuses to hopefully attract police officers.
Public safety is always the first priority so I can understand Harrell’s budget concentrating on public safety so heavily, especially since he hopes to lure the work commuter and shopper back to Seattle because increasing business tax revenue is always the least painful way to balance budgets. There are some very painful cuts in his budget, including, “Seattle’s plan to cut tenant services in half”. Personally I think preventing homelessness through rent assistance is the most efficient way to prevent homelessness and would rather spend money on that than subsidizing the Monorail or Streetcar.
Harrell’s plan is to reallocate the JumpStart tax from affordable housing to the general fund, which unfortunately has to allocate so much money to public safety to try and reverse some tragic mistakes the prior council made. But that only works through 2025. 2026 is an entirely new budget deficit. I am sure Harrell if reelected plans to reallocate housing and transportation levy money to cover future general fund budget deficits because he is incapable of a serious restructure of Seattle’s budget and operations. Plus Seattleites have gotten so use to budget surpluses from rising business taxes they cannot bring themselves to consider any expenditure cuts and think everything should be free or heavily subsidized, especially their special interests. It doesn’t help that Seattle’s rapid increase in tax revenue from 2010 to 2021 led to a very inefficient city government.
Seattle needed a transformational mayor. Harrell is not it. Genial but like a twig in a stream with no control over his direction.
Going forward Seattleites will have to deal with budget cuts to some painful programs throughout the spectrum. Harrell can continue to increase taxes on property but with property taxes already shifting from office buildings to residential that is going to increase the cost of housing across the board. Business taxes have already reached the point of diminishing returns if increased. Most of those cuts will be necessary to fund employee costs and public safety, which is unfortunate.
So the future is not about where else to subsidize but whether this cut is better than another. I agree that Harrell could take revenue from the TBD or Transportation Levy to subsidize the street car or Monorail although I don’t think either is the best place to spend those limited funds.
Personally, I think the streetcar and Monorail are two of the least worthy things to subsidize. At least compared to the painful cuts Harrell is implementing even though he is raising taxes $2.5 billion on property owners and renters, and raiding the JumpStart tax for affordable housing which is just a cut to expenditures.
The fact we are debating subsidizing the Monorail tells me some on this blog are not ready to accept the new budget realities Seattle is facing.
“Perhaps the City has six spare monorail vehicles in storage somewhere?”
The transit database data sheet doesn’t list any as such.
Vehicles operated in maximum service = 8
Vehicles available for max service = 8
Spares ratio = 0%
@Glenn in Portland,
There are only 2 monorail vehicles, and there have only ever been 2 monorail vehicles. They are called the “red train” and the “blue train”.
Each vehicle has 3 articulations and therefore 4 segments, but the segments are permanently attached in an open gangway style and cannot be operated independently.
Additionally there is no switching on the monorail or offsite storage for extra monorail vehicles.
So I have no idea what they are talking about when they say “8 vehicles”. If they are counting each segment as a separate vehicle then that would yield “8”, but doing so would be sort of nonsensical – like counting the arss end of a Metro artic as a separate vehicle from the front end.
But the main takeaway from this is that the monorail has been well run under SMS management and this fare proposal deserves our support. And it is only a 15% bump anyhow.
The monorail receives zero (0.0) operating subsidy from Federal, state, or local sources, yet has 100% farebox recovery. Profits are split between SMS and the city.
A lot of that profitability comes from the monorail being more tourist attraction than real transportation. It’s sort of like taking a ride on the Seattle Great Wheel, which is also profitable and has a $20 per trip “fare”.
And BTW, where is the faux outrage over what they charge to ride the Seattle Great Wheel? $20 is pretty steep for a ride that takes you basically nowhere.
The monorail makes a profit so we should raise prices? What kind of sense does that make? If anything the fact that they make a profit suggests the fares are too high. Consider these three forms of public transport:
Monorail: $4.00 adult, $2.00 low income
East Link: $3.00 adult, $1.00 low income
Streetcars: $2.25 adult, $1.00 low income
These are all very similar. In all cases you can catch the bus instead. One reason people take them is because they are more fun to ride. The monorail — the most expensive option — is the only one that makes a profit. Clearly monorail riders are getting ripped off.
The Seattle Great Wheel isn’t part of the transportation system.
I’m not at all convinced the numbers show a well run operation.
The $574,000 the monorail received in operating funds from the federal government doesn’t suggest “monorail receives zero (0.0) operating subsidy from Federal, state, or local sources,”
@Glenn in Portland,
It’s in the document that also references the confusing 8 vehicles statement that you’ve been citing:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2019/00023.pdf
From the doc, operating funds from government sources are $0/$0/$0 and farebox recovery is 100%.
I can’t speak to what happened during COVID-19, but those times are hardly a proper benchmark to judge normal operations.
And the system has received some capital funds from various government sources, but that isn’t unusual and the amounts are small.
So I see no reason not to support this fare increase proposal. We all know that costs have gone up over the last few years, and a for profit operation like the monorail will need to increase fares to keep up. It’s just math.
And I fail to see why anyone would propose changing a well run operation with 100% farebox recovery to operate more like a not so well run operation with 8% farebox recovery and a looming financial cliff.
Shouldn’t we be working on making Metro better and not on making the monorail worse?
The monorail got 100% of it’s operating revenue from fares…in 2019.
So I see no reason not to support this fare increase proposal.
The reason is obvious: Keep the fares the same. Or are you are saying we should raise the fares on East Link and the streetcars to $4.00?
And I fail to see why anyone would propose changing a well run operation with 100% farebox recovery to operate more like a not so well run operation with 8% farebox recovery and a looming financial cliff.
I’m surprised you feel that way about Sound Transit and Link. I guess if you feel like an agency has to make a profit then just about all transit sucks.
With Ross’s approval, the comment scope of this article is expanded to include Metro’s fiscal cliff and fare increase, how much the Monorail and Metro’s revenue issues have in common, and any similar issues with local transit agencies. But please don’t get into long Link extensions here: that’s a big issue in itself and numerous comments would overwhelm the article.
I really don’t see why the monorail operator has to be “profitable”. It has no investment in the infrastructure or vehicles for which it deserves a Return on Investment. It’s just a bunch of people who take tickets, maintain and clean the trains and pay the drivers. These are mostly quotidian tasks (not the train maintainers who have to improvise everything) requiring only bog-ordinary skills. There’s no “value added” by the people who “run the Monorail”.
So force the ticket prices lower and lower, until the (probably family) business that is getting some sort of “sweet deal” from the City bails, and then give the contract to a non-profit with a contractually limited CEO salary level. Heck, give the contract to a collective of Monorail buffs. They’d probably do a WAY better job preserving and running it than ANY “for profit”
The monorail is specialty technology. SMS knows how to operate and maintain this technology. There are few others who do, and would be willing to do it for a living, working with a City trying to make its own profit off of the system.
It isn’t just SMS that makes a profit. The Seattle Center does too. The fact of them making a profit is not evil.
If SDoT were to take over operations, I fear the monorail would have a rather short remaining life. Same for Metro. Better to stick with the operator we know, that has kept the monorail running for decades.
The most specialized knowledge needed for the monorail would be things like replacing contact shoes, motors, tires, and doing the mid-life overhaul items. Some of these are probably handled by Seattle Monorail Services, since the city is the owner, it seems like some would be handled through the expensive and cumbersome city of Seattle bid process since the city is the owner.
It’s costing $833 per operating hour per train, which seems to me is a price high enough worth asking if this is the best solution.
“SMS” doesn’t “know how to operate and maintain this technology.” Its employees know, and employees are portable. As I said, there’s no “value added” by having capitalists running the show; there’s no “capital” at risk other than public funds for rehabilitation.
It makes a slight profit but it’s not like some giant amount of money. It still receives state and federal funding for capital projects and repairs.
I really don’t see why the monorail operator has to be “profitable”.
Agreed.
They are simply contractors. Rather than pay the employees directly, the city pays a private company to do the work. But rather than pay a company we give them (most) of the fare revenue. But the federal and local government fund all of the capital expenditures. Their “operations” consist mostly of driving a train back and forth and taking tickets. If there are problems with the system they ask the government for help. It is like paying a crew to clean a building. If there is a leak in the plumbing it isn’t their responsibility to fix it.
The funding mechanism is largely irrelevant. Even if you think it is best to go through a third-party agency to operate the monorail there is no reason that the money has to come from fares. The city would simply pay them directly. Given that, it doesn’t matter whether it makes a profit or not.
Consider the RapidRide A. It is quite possible that if fares were raised to $5 that it would make a profit. We could split it off into its own agency, run by its own third party company. Is that a good thing? No, of course not.
Either you view this as a completely different mode that should charge extra or you don’t. Everything else is just implementation details.
The more I think about it, the more I like the “Monorail buffs” idea, which just came to me while I was writing. I bet that there are fifty folks who live in the City — mostly guys but maybe not entirely — who are retired or independently wealthy and would love to tinker with the old technology if they in turn they got to run the trains every so often for special events. Sure, keep a core of the younger mechanics from the existing organization and hire a couple of mid-level managers to supervise a staff of station and train cleaners, but let the interested volunteers run the “enterprise”. Obviously, keep the existing train drivers and pay them well. They’re not just “bus drivers”; they’re a very visible member of the City’s tourism staff.
This sort of thing doesn’t work for 99% of what happens in society; money is the primary motivator for most activity. It requires a goal that captures peoples’ imagination and interests them in a creative way. It <iwould work for this, because The Monorail and Seattle Center are deep parts of Seattle’s self-image.
Yes, yes, call me a lunatic, but this is a PERFECT vehicle for a motivated volunteer-guided “agency”.
I agree that the parallel to RRA is a good example. There’s no need for the actual “operations” (including maintenance and betterment) to make a “profit” for ANYone, including the City. It’s a major tourist draw, and that helps spin off cash everywhere around downtown.
Does the monorail get revenue from Seattle Center parking?
This is what’s said about subsidies on their web site:
“When you park in these facilities, your parking fees go to support Seattle Center’s free programs, beautiful grounds, and gardens.”
The parking clearly should be helping to pay for the monorail too. It’s considered “part of Seattle Center” just like the grounds are.
There are about 2500 spaces between the two major garages. The rates are quite high — so adding $1 or $2 per vehicle will barely be noticed.
If the pricing could result in just $1 per space each day, that would generate over $900K in revenue annually. Assuming 5000 average daily riders paying an additional 50 cents (the full fare proposal listed here), the revenue generation would be very similar (over $900K more annually). And if the pricing could result in $2 more per vehicle daily, the full fare could shrink to $3.00.
Yes, there are a bunch of ways in which the additional money could be raised. Parking would be one.
I see the Seattle Monorail website finally added links from its front page announcing the proposed fare increases, now that the Comment period is closed.
And we still aren’t on the media release list for all things monorail despite my repeated requests. Other media got the release and regurgitated it. I found out because I search the website every so often, for lack of trust in their openness.
I dug up the last contract between the city and SMS that I could find. A ten year contract, signed in 2014, with options for extensions (it must have been extended).
https://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2014/fullcouncil20141215_53a.pdf
I was incorrect in my earlier replies, the City is paying SMS out of ticket revenues, a highly unusual arrangement.
What is SMS receiving as “profit”?
*5% Management Fee out of Gross Income
*33% of Net Operating Income, with the other 67% returned to the City.
It seems that Net Operating Income is falling as increases in expenses outpace revenues, and a fare increase is needed to satisfy SMS’s bottom line desires, but also to increase revenues flowing back to the City.
Yeah, the Wikipedia page that I referenced (for the monorail) mentions that. The county used to run thing, but now it is run by a private company. The company gets their money from fares. If they make a profit they split it with the city.
During the worst of the (still going) pandemic, how did the monorail survive? Was it getting federal funding just like all the other businesses?
Would it really have cost SMS that much to do a Title VI analysis on its fare proposals?
It seems to me one possible reason for the need for the fare increase would be to cover the loss of a federal grant that would have been part of the pandemic funds. However, the process seems quite opaque.