Seattle Axes Monorail Project 524
Sokie writes "This afternoon the Seattle City Council passed a resolution advocating the terminiation of the Seattle Monorail Project. This follows a recent recommendation by the mayor that the project be scrapped. Lacking city support, the project looks to be dead and the city council will request that the state legislature formally terminate the project during their next session. City councilman Richard Conlin noted that the $1 million per week tax collection required by the SMP would be enough to eliminate fares on the city's bus network."
Not suprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Seattle's downtown doesn't need one (Score:4, Insightful)
New York would need one, if it weren't for the subway. I bet the council got the idea for a monorail from watching Batman Begins. They saw Gotham City had one, and wanted one too.
Sorry I don't have a Simpsons joke to share. So my work here is done.
Re:Monorail... (Score:3, Insightful)
Public Transit is Critical (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Toronto resident I can get by without a car, just about anywhere in this city, even most of the outlying regions, can be reached quickly via rail (and sometimes a connecting bus), its not perfect, but most times my transit time is less than 30 minutes. When I visit New York City its even better, a GREAT public transit system.
Yet if I visit Jacksonville, Housten, Atlanta (hell just about anywhere in the south) I HAVE to rent a car, public transit is poor or non-existant. Yet they wonder why they have smog issues, and traffic congestion? Ever wonder what the south would be like if they had rail? They can't build subways (water table issue) but a monorail or just plain old above ground rail system would go a long way to improving their quality of life. Oil prices too high? Take the train, its cheaper.
Yes, because everything is a conspiracy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pressure from oil interests? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monorail... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that the monorail was a good idea.
Speaking of that (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pressure from oil interests? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Monorail fixation (Score:3, Insightful)
And before eulogising about "mass" transit around Aichi, we're talking about an expo that had people queuing up to 8 hours to get in, 2-5 hours at exhibits and stations. Mass transit is exactly that: move a lot of people quickly and transparently. Mass transit isn't supposed to be a destination in and of itself, it's supposed to be a tool. Right now, big stupid engineering still does a way better job most of the time. Tonka-toy engineering is cute, but it's a vanity.
Re:Not suprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pressure from oil interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, historically it was the Detroit auto industry which did sabotage many light-rail and metro systems throughout the US, in cities which were growing in the early 20th century, such as Atlanta and Los Angeles. How did they do it?
By donating buses whenever a municipality began planning rail, and thus encouraging those cities to pave more roads (and create a market for cars.)
Evil? Not per se. Blindly self-interested with bad long-term consequences, such as sprawl? I think so.
Sound transit is Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that really 'just fine'?
Re:Monorail... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cities just aren't cost effective.
This is a big problem in california where there is so many huge cities (60 over 100,000 people) and not a much rural population.
Far as this, well a mono-rail screams money pit. But thats not to say mass transit is bad. If a mass transit system is done right it will be a boon to the area. Since construction of freeways and other roadways can be scaled back. Even when running in debt, a proper mass transit system is much cheaper then continually building more freeways, high way, and repairing them, expanding them.
Unfortunently most good forms of mass transit (trains, subways, trolleys, pedestrian/biker only pathways) get way under funded and under designed so they don't cover enough area to be worthwhile. I always love how city boards cut such projects back so hard, so then the rail system becomes a 3 mile stretch to no where, and then people attack mass transit for being a waste.
I would use mass transit (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I love driving and own a 5spd and do most of my own car work, but sometimes it would be nice to be able to get drunk at a bar, stumble onto a train and get off only a block or two from your apartment.
Atlanta has a rail and subway system, Marta, but it doesn't really blanket the city all that well. I have a friend who lives down there and it's a 20 minute drive to work, even in the thick traffic, and 45 minute train ride with two transfers.
I really wish the rail era in this country didn't die the way it did. It would have been nice during the Interstate construction , if they had placed two high speed rail tracks in the median. I realize the Interstates were designed to move troops and also be used as a stage to land airplanes, but I think both could have still been accomplished with an integrated rail system.
I like the way Chicago's rail system is setup. Their rails run in the medians in the Interstate and they even have train stations in the medians with pedestrian bridges above them connecting them to the streets.
A good mass transit system (keyword good; well designed) with a fair ticket price or monthly passes is a really great way to help reduce pollution, unclog traffic ways and it lets you read a book or play with your laptop on the way to work. The trouble is we're a country conditioned to use cars and we like control, so many people will continue to drive those gas hogging SUVs with just themselves and five empty seats on the 20min drive to work every morning.
Sumit
Re:Pressure from oil interests? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on. That is just bullshit. You think no one ever thought about the long-term view 50 years ago? Sure they did. However, these people were:
a) frequently ignored (as they are today)
b) frequently wrong (predicting the future is an inexact science)
-a
Liberal slashdot logic (Score:1, Insightful)
Law 2: Secular Progressive local government is *always* good.
Therefore,
If I have a secular progressive government, and I say I want to build mass transit, ANY level of waste, fraud, and abuse is tolerable. The results don't actually matter! I can keep wasting money and go get more every year, because I say the right keywords in my speeches.
"We need SOCIAL JUSTICE"
"We need to fight THE OIL MONOPOLY"
Now, open your wallets again, you stupid serfs!!
Re:Monorail... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fiction that a lot of Seattlelites like to believe. If you actually look at the distribution of tax intake around Washington state, you'll find it's the suburbs that are bearing the brunt of the tax burden. While our state's businesses like to complain about needing tax relief, their tax load is quite light when compared to that of the state's individual taxpayers.
I for one am glad to see the monorail die. We don't need a bunch of half-*ssed transit systems - we need one overarching system that actually meets the Puget Sound region's needs (note: not just Seattle's).
Re:Monorail fixation (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. The problem with these kinds of projects is that it preys on the general cluelessness of the masses. This is the thought process I think most people go through:
-There is a traffic problem -Something must be done to fix the traffic problem -The monorail is indeed "something" and carries people -The monorail will therefore fix the traffic problem
Everyone so far has been talking about noise, cost, whatever. The main issue that I see is the one of CAPACITY. At the time the people voted for the monorail it was a "secret" as to how long the platforms will be. Doesn't sound like a huge deal at first glance, but look again. There is a limit to how often you can take a train through a station. It has to stop, the passengers get on/off, and then it has to start. I understand that you're optimistically looking at 2 minutes, but realistically looking at more like 3 minutes or so. The second variable is station length. The longer the station, the bigger the train, the more people can get on and off for each station visit. Therefore, on the most critical limiting factors in capacity is the station length. But it's a fucking secret when you have to vote on it? Consider that this is NOT Las Vegas or Disney world. You cannot make the station length the length of 3 city blocks - this is DOWNTOWN and so the stations have to be smaller.
Yes, they published capacity figures of X thousand people per day. As far as I recall, those figures were for the entire DAY and not realistic in terms of rush hour and getting to and from work. This isn't Disney World - we're talking rush hour here. What I want to know, and what I've NEVER been told is:
-How many people can this monorail between the hours of 7am and 9am to get INTO Seattle? -How many people currently, on the proposed monorail route, get into Seattle during that time window? -Is the difference between those numbers actually significant, or are we just spending a shit load of money on something that only 2% of commuters will use? Or is it 30%?
Someone give me the answers, please! And give me the answers 5 year ago before I have to vote on this issue.
Many thanks.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monorail! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Public Transit is Critical (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent compared to nothing at all, maybe.
I live on Queen Anne. If I want to go to the U District, it takes an *hour* by bus, or ten minutes by car.
I work near REI in downtown. The bus to there only runs every 30 minutes, is frequently late, and is so slow that during rush-hour traffic it's actually faster for me to walk.
Years ago I dated a girl who lived in Bellevue, and it took me almost two hours to get there on the bus. TWO HOURS. I could be in CANADA if I drove for that long. The county made that even worse when they "decentralized" suburban routes, because now I couldn't even take a single bus there. It would be at least one, and possibly two transfers.
Which brings me to my next point - transferring buses is a nightmare. None of the schedules match up, so when I took the bus I'd end up waiting 10-20 minutes every time I'd transfer. The stupidest part is that the bus drivers REFUSE to wait for e.g. people getting off a ferry. So when I lived on Vashon Island, I would get off the ferry, see the #54 at the bus stop across the street, see it drive off, then wait half an hour for the next one. Conversely, ferries refuse to wait for buses (unless they're the special commuter buses that run during rush hour), so if the #54 going *to* the ferry had to let someone in a wheelchair off with the ludicrously slow and loud elevator, everybody on the bus would miss the ferry.
The worst part was when the entire system got cut back when one of Tim Eyman's initiaves passed. You used to be able to take most of the buses in the city 24 hours a day. When I was in high school, I used them at all hours to get around. Now, many of them stop running around midnight. If you want to go out on a Friday or Saturday, be ready to take a cab home thanks to that.
Finally, Seattle's buses are filthy. Any of them older than a few years smell like an unwashed homeless man, and if they're older than a decade they will probably smell like piss too. I ran a kleenex along one of the handrails in one years ago, and it turned black.
I got a car last year, and I've never looked back. It *is* possible to have good public transportation - Vancouver has it, and I had good experiences when I visited SF and Portland - but Seattle doesn't.
Re:Mostly right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monorail... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you actually look at the distribution of tax intake around Washington state, you'll find it's the suburbs that are bearing the brunt of the tax burden.
Part of that's because we have places like Medina and Chilton hill or whatever, where houses start at around a million and driving a car made before 2000 is a ticketable offense. Seattle has a lot of poor/industrial areas, but that's changing as the city recovers from whatever knocked it on its ass in the 70s (new resident myself).
One thing worth mentioning: we have no trouble getting around inside the city. It's the traffic across the lake that sucks. That and whoever decided that I-5 should be 2 lanes in the city core should be shot.
Re:Airport not covered (Score:2, Insightful)
Light rail is being paid for radically differently. The cost to build the monorail (exclusive of financing) isn't all that bad: IF you had the same financing THEN it would look better. Of course, we live in a world where light rail is getting breaks the monorail can only dream of....and highways get financing rail can only dream of. That monorail junk bond plan really was the pits though, yes.
Unless the airport you are going to is Boeing Field (which currently has exactly 0 major airlines) then, good luck carrying your bags from the (currently planned) light rail terminus to SeaTac airport. Personally I wouldn't want to carry my bags that many miles but then many people are in better shape than I.
BTW: My car tabs, just for the monorail, cost 20x more than the year before. I STILL want to see the darn thing get built.
Finally, I want to see light rail do OK. I am just bitter about not having both...or rather EITHER! Area light rail is extremely late, are we up to a decade late yet?
Re:Christ on a stick! (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, taking a walk around the stadiums reveals they're the only buildings in good repair for several blocks around.
Re:Monorail... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you compare the total costs of a single town of 5,000 to another single town of 1,000,000, then and only then you are correct. However, if you break those costs out per person, then you are incorrect.
As for the fewer roads argument, that is just false. If you spread a million people into 200 towns of 5,000 people each with a distance of 30 miles between each town, then you are going to spend a fortune creating a network of roads to connect all these people together. You'll end up spending far more than if those million people lived close together such as in a large city.
Who needs a larger police force - the 600,000 people in Washington, DC or the 600,000 people in North Dakota? Who has a greater need for firemen and paramedics - 900,000 people in San Jose or 900,000 people in Montana?
It is far cheaper to provide services to a million people if those people live close together. If you break those people up into towns of 5,000 and spread them apart by 30 miles each, then it is far more expensive to provide those services. That's because you have to pay the initial fixed cost for 200 separate police departments, sheriff departments, fire departments, etc, etc. A large city pays those same fixed costs, but spreads the costs over their entire population. On top of that, large cities can then get by with 1-2 police officers or fire fighters per 5,000 residents. However, no town the size of 5,000 people could get by with only 1-2 fire fighters. Look up economies of scale.
That's why farms use wells and propane.
But then you need people to drill the wells and service the pumps. Those people and their equipment cost money. And you probably need at least one in each of those towns of 5,000. So, that's at least an additional 200 people and their equipment you have to pay.
As for the propane, you need a network to get the propane out to people. Large trucks can get the propane out to individuals. Well, those trucks come from a central location nearby. Assuming that they're not from the big city, then you have a hub out in the middle of nowhere. Which means, you have to spend the big money to build a pipeline out to the middle of nowhere. That all costs big money, which they're not going to get from the few people they service.
Prev: Virtually anything done in a city is cheaper per person than it is in rural areas.
You: Municipal services? What is the cost per person of salaries of city employees alone in New York City vs the the metric for residents of Wyoming?
You're comparing the most expensive cost of living (NYC) versus one of the least expensive cost of living (Wyoming). As such, your example is not correct given that their salaries are based on the cost of living versus percentage of income paid to municipal services. On an absolute basis, New Yorkers may pay more per person than someone in Wyoming for the same municipal services. But then, New Yorkers pay more for everything than people in Wyoming. But, if you look at the percentage of income paid to municipal services of New Yorkers versus residents of Wyoming, the people of Wyoming probably pay more.
If you want to bring up that kind of argument, then I should point out that those municipal workers in New York are also paying more in taxes than people in rural areas. That's simply a result of them getting paid a higher salary.
Removing the cost of living argument, then it is always cheaper to provide services to people clustered together rather than spread apart.
Prev: Urban taxes pay for the network of roads and highways that make suburbs possible.
You: Nope... ever see the tax rates of suburban houses spike to pay for the new influx?
Re:Monorail... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)