|
Friends of the Monorail | 2/5/12 |
|
|
Friends of the Monorail | 2/5/12 |
Monorail agency officially dissolves; cost taxpayers $125 million
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- 1/18/2008: The authority's last meeting was a final financial accounting. All 33 properties the authority bought had been sold, all lawsuits settled. The authority closed up shop with $425,963.07 in the bank, which the board voted Thursday to give to Metro for bus service in the communities that would have been served by the line.
The Stranger, blog entry by Josh Feit -- 12/17/2007: For those of you that live in Ballard or West Seattle and work downtown, how long did it take you to get to work today?
Mourning the monorail; looking ahead
West Seattle Blog -- 12/15/2007: So on this Opening Day That Wasn't, you might wonder, what's next for mass transit in West Seattle, considering that Sound Transit light rail isn't pointing our way? Some interesting ideas can be read on the Sustainable West Seattle Transportation Action Group blog; regarding more concrete plans, two public meetings are set in West Seattle next month for the "RapidRide" bus plan (both dates are on the WSB Events page).
Andy MacDonald, Blogger at Sound Politics -- 12/15/2007: For five years I've kept that magnet on my fridge, waiting for our glorious transportation future. Now that the day has finally arrived, where is my monorail ride?
The Big Blog, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- 12/7/2007: Not many pieces of history are stuck to refrigerators.
New request for monorail documents is likely
Puget Sound Business Journal -- 11/30/2007: The Washington Coalition for Open Government is considering submitting a new request for records the agency had refused to release, citing attorney-client privilege.
Seattle Weekly -- 11/14/2007: Dead but awaiting final rites, the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority apparently will be allowed to take some of its most treasured internal documents to its grave, as a King County Superior Court judge recently tossed a lawsuit seeking disclosure of the agency's records.
Suit delays shutdown of monorail agency
Authority accused of violating public records laws
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- 8/17/2007: In the lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court, the coalition argues the monorail authority violated state public records laws when it refused to release "the vast majority" of 1,007 documents requested by the coalition citing attorney-client privilege.
West Seattle Herald -- 5/29/2007: For private businesses, the law provides a roadmap for shutting down the monorail and creates finality and certainty to Seattle taxpayers that the Seattle Monorail Project no longer exists. It also protects taxpayers from any liabilities and obligations that may arise once the agency is dissolved, and for this reason, the current board of directors remains in place, eliminating the need for and cost of elections for board seats.
Shit’s in the P-I: Who Is Queen of the Viaduct Haters?
The Stranger, blog entry by Dan Savage -- 2/13/2007: And getting back to the monorail: All reasonable people everywhere agree that the failure/assassination of the monorail was for the best. Because now that we’re faced with tearing down the viaduct and living without it out for years—at least five, maybe seven, could be longer, regardless of what we build in its place—the last thing Seattle needs is an efficient mass-transit system carrying people from West Seattle to Downtown and back. I mean, really! What were we monorail supporters smoking?
Failed Monorail project's legacy may be a denser Seattle
The Puget Sound Business Journal -- 2/9/2007: Spurring interest, the sales coincided with a time of unprecedented institutional investment in commercial real estate. Then, too, the public agency's exercise of its power of eminent domain enabled Seattle Monorail Project to assemble certain parcels into larger sites, which has made redevelopment more feasible in some instances, under new owners.
Local News Highlights: The Last Weeks of the Seattle Monorail Project
KUOW -- Local News Highlights -- 1/17/2007: After almost five years, the Seattle Monorail Project is nearing its end. State lawmakers are expected to pass legislation that will allow the agency to legally close it’s doors. Then the S.M.P. board will meet one final time to end operations. KUOW’s Derek Wang has this look at the transit project’s final weeks.
WHERE ARE THE MONORAILS?[video]
AutoChannel.com -- 12/16/2006: In 1997, Dick Falkenbury authored an initiative to 'build, operate and maintain' a forty mile monorail system hat ould span the city of Seattle in a huge "X". With a handful of volunteers and no support, the initiative gathered 18,500 signatures while spending only $2,000--and it won the first election. He served as a volunteer as a member of the Board of Directors without missing a single meeting for six years. In these six years, there were two more successful elections for the monorail in Seattle, and a fourth election approved a tax on vehicles to pay for the project. Inexplicably, the staff padded the contract to the point where 14 miles of monorail, with interest, would cost $11 billion and the Seattle voters rejected the project. Had it come to fruition, it would have been the only transportation system drafted, planned and implemented by the citizens of a city.
Seattle Center's future begins in nod to past
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- 12/1/2006: Jan Levy, executive director of Leadership Tomorrow, and co-chairwoman of the committee, said the new group will continue the work of its predecessor, the Mayor's Task Force for Seattle Center Sustainability.
Retro-named panel to make plans for World's Fair site
A running Monorail puts holiday shopping on track
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer -- 11/25/2006: "When the Monorail doesn't empty people into our escalators, we have fewer pedestrians," said Roger Fredericksen, the owner of Millstream.
In Seattle, a Dream From the Past Has a Hazy Future
The New York Times -- 9/25/2006: And during the four decades after the fair, the Seattle Center Monorail, elevated and alluring along its one-mile course to the fairgrounds from downtown, became something more than just a mighty cool mode of getting humans about: it was an aerodynamic dream from the past that symbolized this city's romance with the future.
Seattle Monorail: Transit bargain?
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board -- 9/5/2006: A contributor to the Seattle P-I's online "Soundoffs" weighed in with this: "There is zero possibility that we could replace this transit corridor with any different transit system (or road construction) that would move as many people for $4.5 million. ... Let's also compare the Monorail with the South Lake Union Streetcar that the mayor so proudly supports: SLU Streetcar -- $50 million, 1.3 miles, expected to carry 350,000 passengers in the first year; Seattle Center Monorail -- $4.5 million, one mile, regularly carries 2.5 million passengers annually (when running)."
A Case of Voter Overkill
The death of Seattle's monorail plan is a telling tale
Governing -- April 2006: I suspect the Seattle monorail would have been a great asset to its city and region if city leaders had allowed it to live. But that's not the only reason I believe Mayor Greg Nickels and his allies in the business community made a mistake when they helped kill the populist transportation project last November. In working to shut down this grassroots movement, Nickels and allied business leaders were also shutting down democracy and civic engagement. And in the long run, that's more important to a healthy city than any specific transportation project.
| Share Your Thoughts |
| Join the FoM YahooGroup! |
|
Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by mmgitman on 2/16/06 |
Reply | |
|
Okay, you're aware of House Bill 2871, Ed Murray's bill concerning RTID-replacing regional governance, the one that could dedicate the monorail MVET to "nonmonorail transit." It hasn't passed out of the House yet, but it could by Monday. Here's where things get complicated, and I'm not even sure I'm recounting it right. Murray's bill would allow Sound Transit to go to the ballot on its own, rather than as a combined measure with a potentially lousy RTID (or post-RTID plan). However, House Speaker Frank Chopp apparently is afraid of seeing a tax vote in 2006; he doesn't want that to be a campaign issue in swing districts. So there's a good chance the bill in its final form will bar Sound Transit from going it alone this year. The way things stand now, Sound Transit could go to the ballot on its own -- and do so this year. I believe that, as transit supporters, we should want this: - We don't want to force voters into a Hobson's choice with a combined ballot measure: if you want transit, you'll have to vote for roads too. - Conversely, by letting Sound Transit go it alone this year, the regional package that eventually replaces RTID is forced to be transit-friendly on its own, rather than by piggybacking on Sound Transit, if it has any hope of passing. The roads supporters are really put over a barrel. - Finally, it looks like Sound Transit is ready to go to the ballot this year, and why wait any longer to start making commitments to mass transit? Besides, we all know that transit measures do much better in even years than odd years. So, rather than get into the minutiae of "support this bill or that bill or don't support this bill or that bill" when these are such moving targets, maybe the best message for these state legislators right now is this: Hands off Sound Transit. Don't restrict Sound Transit's options. Where did I get all this information? Well, today was "Transportation Lobby Day" in Olympia, and I got a chance today to ask Murray to his face about that "nonmonorail transit" stipulation in 2871. He explained that it was necessary for the bill to pass because there was such animosity against monorail in the state legislature. Who knows if he isn't just passing the buck when he says that? He also said he has never been a monorail supporter because Seattle is a city concerned with views and monorail columns get in the way. Even monorail opponent Dick Burkhardt remarked today that he thought the "nonmonorail" requirement set a bad precedent. You shouldn't be limiting your choices before you do your studies. John Coney also spoke up in favor of removing the "n" word. The more you hear about these machinations, the more Machiavellian Ed Murray seems. Who knows what he's trying to accomplish or even if he's setting all this up to fail? Some interesting Murray quotes: - He's trying to "strike a delicate balance to try to move several issues forward at the same time" -- "several issues that are at conflict with each other." - "I'm trying to create a train wreck in central Puget Sound on purpose." ?? - "I hate RTID. RTID was shoved down our throats. I would like to kill RTID if I had my druthers. But I don't have the votes to do that." I actually felt more at ease today talking with my State Senator, and well-known monorail foe, Ken Jacobsen. Ken's on board with the "hands off Sound Transit" theme. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by bill_11hanson on 2/17/06 |
||
|
--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Gitman
-----------cut----- ballot to mass -----------cut------ ease today talking with my State Senator, and the "hands off Mitch, we already made a huge commitment to Sound Transit. It isn't like we have been waiting to make commitments to mass transit. In 1996 we committed to pay hundreds of millions in taxes every year to ST, forever, and we made another big committment to SMP. ST's system was supposed to be up and running this year (light rail from the U-District to the airport, etc.) The whole Phase I system was supposed to cost $3.9 billion. Do you have ANY idea how much ST already has spent? soundtransit.org does not say what ST has spent in total, or what the present value of the contracts it has signed (including bonds) is. Is any further scaling back of the Phase I plan going to occur before the system starts operating? ST's board can do that at its will (it drops promised stations, changes routes of the line, etc.) Excluding operating costs, but including YOE debt service costs, how much is the truncated Phase I system expected cost? Just curious if you know . .. Why the hell should we vote more tax money to ST? It is sitting on a pile of cash and investments now worth about $1.3 billion. It sold over $450M in sales-tax backed bonds last January, and it has all that cash on hand. I'd say we need a few more hands ON ST, and a LOT less "hands off." Here's a suggestion: let's see if ST can finish the light rail line. That is supposed to be done in a couple of years. If it can finish something big, and we like it, then it can ask for more taxes to expand the system. Sound good to you? Makes sense to me. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
RE: Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by chadman_98126 on 2/17/06 |
Reply | |
|
Not an inappropriate requirement/ask. To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.comHere's a suggestion: let's see if ST can finish the light rail line. That is supposed to be done in a couple of years. If it can finish something big, and we like it, then it can ask for more taxes to expand the system. Sound good to you? Makes sense to me. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
Re: Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by mmgitman on 2/17/06 |
||
|
Bill, I have to concede you're right, just like the Seattle voters were right when they voted the SMP out of existence. In fact, I'll even raise you one. I believe that the Sound Move campaign lied to the voters in 1996; they deliberately lowballed the cost of light rail in the wake of previous transit plans' defeats at the polls. If I understand correctly, you're proposing that Sound Transit go to the ballot in 2009 or 2010. Well, I'm afraid that option is not available to us. Here are the options that are: (A) Sound Transit Phase Two goes to the ballot alone in 2006 or 2007. (B) Sound Transit Phase Two goes to the ballot together with a regional transportation package in 2007. Up or down, all or nothing. So which would you rather see, A or B? And what is your advice as to when, how, or even whether we should provide a mass transit link between Seattle and the Eastside? Should our elected leaders be thinking, "Well, you know, we should really be holding off on starting mass transit to the Eastside for political reasons"? Like any red-blooded American, I'm a staunch believer in the private sector -- in the power of Darwinian capitalism to deliver goods and services for the best possible value. But there are two big things that only government can do, and yet these two things expose all the worst inefficiencies and even corruption of government: major public works projects and wars. In the early years of the Civil War, the Union effort was terribly mismanaged. So should our response have been to call a four-year moratorium on the war and let the Confederacy do whatever they wanted in the meantime? Maybe that'll teach those boneheads Lincoln and McClellan a thing or two. Or should FDR have been more transparent about his efforts to bring the United States into World War II? Bill, you're right, I'm right, but I'll tell you what, I'm not really interested in being right. I'm interested in seeing density and grade-separated mass transit in Seattle, and in NOT seeing more suburban sprawl. On 2/17/06, bill_11hanson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by bill_11hanson on 2/17/06 |
||
|
The good news is that we are not fighting a civil war, and the nation is not put at risk if we wait to see if ST can complete Phase I before throwing more money blindly at it. Where on earth did you come up with that "choice no. 1 or choice no. 2" stuff. How about we see if ST can complete phase I, and see how much that cost first? I don't care how much of a grade-separated transit fanatic you are, and we all want transit alternatives, at some point the cost just flat gets too big. You and I may have different pain tolerances for cost, but it is not a non-issue as you seem to suggest. You think they lied in 1996, but you don't know/care what those promises actually are going to cost? A religious fever has taken over your senses, Mitch. Jump in some of that cold Lake Washington water this afternoon -- that should bring you back to thinking about how all grandiose transit plans need to be based in reality. ST has not proven to anyone it is a reality-based organization. When those light rail trains are running, and the costs can be accurately presented, then we will be able to evaluate whether that agency is worth a hoot. Now we simply can not tell. It is not wise to throw money at that agency now in the hope it will do better next time. Let's hold ST to getting its train system operational first, and then tell us what the cost is up to that point, and what else it will have to spend, before just giving it another blank check coupled with the right to reduce the scope after it starts collecting taxes for an indefinite period. Getting a rail line to the east side may make sense, but the world is not going to end if we wait a couple of years to start. There are many more important transportation system improvements that need to happen around here. ST is not some kind of savior. Look, if ST can't even say what it has spent up until now, and what it is going to cost to complete Phase I, or even what Phase I will end up looking like by the time the board stops paring it back, we really have zero idea whether we should be entrusting that agency with bigger "plans" going forward. I mean, what's the rush? Let's see if it can deliver on Phase I and what the cost of that is. Who knows, maybe ST is totally full of **** and there is no way light rail trains will be running UW-SeaTac in 2009. Wouldn't you feel you had been bushwacked then for voting ST more taxes/more light rail back in '06 or '07? I would. Face it, they are a long way from proving they can pull off building a new transit system from scratch. What would be wrong with making them prove they can do it, and then showing what it costs, before handing them the keys to this region's pocketbooks? You've got to admit, all their promises to voters about the biggies -- timelines, routes, station locations, COSTS ? turned out way, way wrong (and never in good ways). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by garylambda on 2/17/06 |
||
|
Well guess what, good transit to the Eastside will create more sprawl not less. Why? Because it will reduce the amount of time necessary to get into town, meaning you can live farther away. Only land use reform will fix the sprawl issue. Just look at Atlanta, which got our '68 rail line. They have horrible sprawl and a rail line and the worst traffic on the East Coast (2004 I think was the last time I saw the numbers on this.0 I'm will Bill, lets see them finish this project first then I can tell how much more I've been lied to or not before I give them any more money. And so far the track record sucks. And Roger before you jump on me about the "under bid" costs on LINK, tell me what the operating subsidy per ride is on their BRT, and Sounder, and Tacoma LINK. And then compare it to the national subsidies. I don't expect it to pay for itself but I do expect that we can run these services for about the same cost as other cities. -Gary- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
Re: Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by mmgitman on 2/17/06 |
||
|
Gary, there's one point you make on which I can kind of agree with you: "Only land use reform will fix the sprawl issue." I would rephrase that a little into: "You can't prevent sprawl without good land-use policies." Good transit is another necessary ingredient. Fortunately, we already have the Growth Management Act. As for your statement that building transit to the suburbs only encourages sprawl, I bet most academics who have studied this would find that statement puzzling. Here's the specific problem: You write: "Because it will reduce the amount of time necessary to get into town, meaning you can live farther away." The suburbs were originally conceived as bedroom communities, but now because of the way the suburbs/exurbs have evolved, suburbanites and exurbanites across America don't even go into town, except for a special occasion. They live and work in the 'burbs, and they depend entirely on their automobiles to get around. On top of that, here in this region thanks to a legacy of poor land-use planning, there are probably at least as many people who make the reverse commute to the Eastside as make the traditional commute to Seattle. Face it, Microsoft ain't moving downtown anytime in Bill Gates' or Steve Ballmer's lifetimes, and I'm sure there are thousands of Microsoft employees who have given up on Seattle living because they just couldn't stand the commute anymore. Mass transit to Redmond means that white-collar workers are more apt to live downtown than to grab up acreage on the Eastside. I myself used to work at Microsoft and now work at another company in Redmond, and the only way I can make it work is thanks to my employers allowing me to keep an earlier schedule. Also, I can't help but think that you're buying into a narrow, stereotypical definition of what it means to be a suburb. Suppose just for argument's sake that Sound Transit built this mass transit link from Seattle to some cookie-cutter suburb on the Eastside. And thanks to some great land-use reform and some great station locations, this suburb was transformed into a city with the density (if not the size) of a Tacoma. Wouldn't we all consider that a success in fighting sprawl? It may still be a suburb, but it's a city and it's not suburban-style development. Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to use the term "sprawl" to describe a constellation of dense cities that just happen to be spread out from each other. If Sound Transit can drive pedestrian-friendly development into the Bellevue and Redmond cores and transform those sleepy burghs into real cities (and Bellevue's already making progress in that direction), then an urbanite in Bellevue is just about as good as an urbanite on Capitol Hill (though obviously not as cool). Also, just keep in mind that people have to live somewhere. If stations on the Eastside become magnets for residential development, then every family who decides to live in an apartment or condo or townhouse within non-driving distance of a station is a family that isn't living in a single-family dwelling in an auto-dependent development. One other thing. Just look at this from a consumer's standpoint. Suppose Sound Transit does this right and emphasizes transit-oriented development over park-and-rides. It's hard for a transit station to encourage sprawl when the transit station doesn't confer any advantage to someone enjoying a sprawling lifestyle. I mean if I decide to live five miles from a transit station and it's not super-easy for me to park-and-ride, then why would I bother using the station? I'd just drive the whole way wherever I want to go. Obviously, these possibilities on the Eastside depend on Sound Transit's execution and on the willingness of local governments to adapt to different development patterns, not to mention on this state's ability to stick with growth management. On 2/17/06, Gary Powell [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by don_l_kirk on 2/17/06 |
||
|
Mitch.... et al: Henry Huntington, Southern Pacific, Union Pacific, etc., were all built, to make transportation available into the cities, for new developments the trolley lines and railroads were building (urban sprawl). The Transcontinental Railroad was built, to create a fast, smooth ride from the East Coast, to the West Coast; to encourage people to leave the crowded cities of the east and take the trains West, to settle in the West. The whole purpose of mainline railroads and interurban trolley lines, was to encourage urban sprawl into rural areas. Then came the freeways of the 1950's; and autos took people into the rural areas to live. Build more intercity lines and people will just keep moving further and further out; as they won't have far to drive to get to an intercity train. Why do you think the Los Angeles County Fair was put way out in Pomona? The Pacific Electric Trolley line took people out there. Many who was tired of crowded LA moved to Pomonan and San Bernadino; and rode the interurbans to work in LA. Of course, when the freeways came along, many then drove. Now, the freeways are so crowded, that the interurbans are coming back (LA's Blue, Green, Red, etc. lines). Their Gold line (OOPS BRT), was susposed to help relieve freeway travel; making way for more cars on the freeways; which will be caused by additional urban expansion. Try taking out the freeways and public transportation; and watch LA build "up"; rather than "out". Same with any other city. BTW....Last week we discussed autoless cities, on either this site, or the FOM site; and some said there is no movement to do this. I sent Kim a news story today about such a move (by the city's city council); and it's a very well known city at that. Intercity rapid transit encourages urban sprawl. Well planned citywide transportation helps the transportation problem; but, does not lend to additional urban sprawl. The Greenline was a citywide system; as is the LVM system. Don Kirk http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
|
Re: Olympia update: Sound Transit, "nonmonorail"
by bill_11hanson on 2/17/06 |
||
|
We tried buying a pig in a poke from ST, and it looks terminal. ST2 is the same shinola. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/ friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com |
||
Copyright © Friends of the Monorail. All
rights reserved.
Contact Us
|
About Us
|
|
|
|