Citizens for King County Monorail | Discussions | Share Your Thoughts on Regional Monorail Routes


Bellevue To Seattle in 19 minutes - EVERY TIME!

7/3/08

HOME

POSSIBLE ROUTES

FAQ

JOIN US


Our Mission
Contact Us
Donate
Meetings
News
Endorsements

Resolution
Discussion
Map
Timetable
Costs
Frequently Asked Questions
Video Simulations

Get Involved
Internships
Steering Committee

Share Your Thoughts on Regional Monorail Routes

We've put together two examples of where monorail could be used to get us around King County. However, there are hundreds of other possibilities. Let us know where you think it would make sense to run regional monorail, or comment on other people's ideas below.

Have something to add?

Connect Seattle to Bellevue, Redmond by bscottid on 5/31/04	Reply
I think one of the first steps in regional monorail would be to connect Seattle with Bellevue and Redmond on the eastside. This could take advantage of a new 520 bridge which is being designed to accommodate high-capacity transit. With so many people commuting in both directions, I think this would have very high ridership.

Go to the airport by monoman on 6/1/04	Reply
I just got back from a trip on Sunday and was thinking how great it would be to not have to worry about driving all the way there and then mess with the parking and associated cost. As a resident of Bellevue, I'd of course prefer that the route to the airport go from Bellevue, down 405 to Renton, and then across to SeaTac. A stop at Southcenter would be nice too.

where by tom thoensen on 6/1/04	Reply
looks like the option 1 almost has it. the horseshoe route from redmond to seattle over 520 and back to issaquah over I90 is perfect. The route from Auburn to Bothell on 405 is right however the monorail needs to run from Federal Way to Lynnwood on I5 to move max people from both areas effeciently and quickly to downtown and major sports venues. By doing this people in these populated areas will leave their cars home, thus freeing up existing roadways and Seattle side streets, and no need to build more roads.

	RE: Go to the airport by JayZ on 6/4/04
	The airport would be handy, and I've used such a connection when I arrive at Heathrow and head into London. But we should start with lines that serve people's daily commuting needs because that's where we'll get the most bang for the buck. Who cares if one more car is on the road for an occasional trip to SeaTac; far better to get that car off the road every day for its commute. Of course, if such an argument can be made for running a line down to Burien or Southcenter, why not swing by the airport on the way. JayZ

	RE: Go to the airport by Gary Powell on 6/9/04
	Civic boosters love Airport connections, but really, the Airport has some of the best transit connections in the whole region. We have Sound Transit Express buses, Taxies up the ying/yang, group buses (Shuttle Express), Metro, and Grayline runs buses from all the Major Hotels to the airport. We really need to focus on serving some of the areas that aren's so well served but have totally backed up traffic. Just listen to the traffic report in the morning, and 167 to 405N is packed to Bellevue stop and go... etc.

	RE: Go to the airport by Maury on 4/1/05
	One thing we don't have is a connection to Amtrak Cascades train. A transit connection would allow a person to fly into SeaTac and head to Bellingham, Tacoma, Edmonds. A monorail from the airport to the Tukwila station would make this connection a reality.

	RE: Connect Seattle to Bellevue, Redmond by tom on 6/1/04
	I agree except I don't think there needs to be a new 520 bridge, use the existing bridge just build the monorail to run above . We could use all existing roadways, I5 , 405 , I 90 etc, and build the monorails to run above the freeways, no need to buy land, disrupt traffic during construction etc.

Monorail Connection by T.S. on 6/1/04	Reply
The monorail connection should connect Bellevue, Redmond, Renton, Everette to Seattle. Not West Seattle and Ballard which already have short commutes. If you do want to connect West Seattle, then STOP at the end of the West Seattle Bridge near Avalon and 35th. Make a big park and ride, then you reduce the bus routes that need to go in and out of West Seattle, but don't ruin streets and businesses by pillaging the way through the community. People could walk into the Alaska and Admiral junctions, or down into Ballard. But don't go through our neighborhoods that is just ridiculous.

	RE: Monorail Connection by JS on 6/1/04
	A couple answers: 1) The SMP route for the Green Line was voted on already, so it's going to go into Ballard and West Seattle since that's what we Seattle voters approved. 2) City of Seattle policy [in my opinion correctly] opposes new park-and-ride capacity within the city limits. Park-and-ride lots are essentially tools to artificially create density to support transit - that density is already present in the Seattle neighborhoods along the Green Line, so why waste valuable land parking cars? The whole point of transit is to get people out of their cars, by giving them an option which allows them to avoid driving. 3) Seems to me the best course of action for the King County Monorail folks is to look at current transit ridership patterns and employment centers [like Factoria, for instance, which is currently horribly underserved by transit]. Make your route take advantage of areas where there is already good transit ridership, and make sure you serve employment centers, and people will use the system. 4) From a personal bias, a line hooking up with the SMP Green Line at Northgate [assuming that extension gets built] running around the north end of the lake and over to Redmond, would seem like a good start. Many of the folks who currently drive across 520 come from North Seattle, and a line as described would be quicker to build than getting caught up in the debate about 520 replacement.

Start the system with a 520 Monorail by William H 'Bill' Huff on 6/1/04	Reply
A higher automobile capacity along 520 westbound can only exacerbate traffic congestion during rush 'hour' along I-5, particularly under the Convention Center. A monorail terminating at the Pine St bus tunnel from 520 east from Redmond should be considered in conjunction with any 520 bridge improvements.

	RE: Connect Seattle to Bellevue, Redmond by Daniel Goodwin on 6/1/04
	1. To the earlier respondent -- 520 bridge is nearing the end of its useful life anyway and will need replacement, which would make it the perfect time to put an HCT (pick type) on it. 2. University District is close enough to 520 to make a diversion there worth the cost (although the engineering difficulties of snaking through Montlake and lower UW campus could get messy). Later additions thru the U District could run up past U-Village toward Lake City- Kenmore- Bothell. (extending ETC's Yellow Line) The key then becomes monorail's maneuverability--both in terms of tighter turning radius and narrower structure supports.

Option one by E. Heino on 6/1/04	Reply
I would like to see coordination between King County Monorail and the Seattle Monorail Project. The SMP's proposed second-phase Gold Line, Purple Line, and Blue Line both overlap with parts of King County's option one. That overlap is not necessary. I'd suggest terminating your 520 Purple Line at the station found at the University intersection of the SMP's Purple (Ballard to Sand Point) and Gold (Lake City--Capitol Hill) Lines. Either that, or compromise on crossing location for both Purple Line routes and make them one route operated jointly by both agencies. The SMP Gold Line would then be the near part of the saddle of the horseshoe, with the SMP Blue Line being the downtown part of another horseshoe. King County's Blue Line across I-90 should similarly terminate at the SMP Gold Line intersection to downtown, but could be jointly operating as a single line from downtown Seattle to Issaquah. There's also overlap in the north between SMPs proposed Pink and Gold Lines and King County's proposed Green Line. That should be resolved. I like the King County Red Line as shown, though I do question whether it needs to go further south than Tukwila when the commuter train already covers that route. It might make more sense to have one line including the Red Line north of Tukwila and the Orange Line. Make Tukwila a transfer point to commuter rail.

	RE: Option one by Gary Powell on 6/9/04
	Yeah, wouldn't that be nice. But really the Greenline is building a medium capacity Monorail. The King County Monorail should be a high capacity line. That means the track and cars will not be interchangeable. If you live in Seattle, you should be campagining to get the SPMA group to only pick a monorail that can be expanded. But with the cost limitations and at this late date, its highly unlikely that they are going to change. Of course if the design contracts come in way over current cost forcasts, then you may have a chance. Also the ALWEG, the one high capcity, high speed Monorail that is currently in Seattle, is slated to be torn down. Some city with forsight and cash might have a quick and easy monorail. After all Monorail Malyasia took the plans and has built one. Can't be that bad.. Also King County Monorail should be open to a Urban Maglev Monorail. By the time this project hits the ballot box, there could be a reasonable cost one available from HSST. And Maglev has a number of advantages, high speed, no wear from tires etc... Anyway don't limit the bidding to only rubber tired Monorails.

Renton Red Line by J. Sherman on 6/1/04	Reply
In making a move from Seattle to Renton, I'm in favor of the Red Line via option 1 or 2, which can connect to Eastside, South End, and downtown Seattle hubs. Of course I favor option 1, but being realistic, option 2 has less sticker shock for the taxpayers to accept. Renton is working towards high density living, while being more affordable than the Eastside. It's still somewhat centrally located to metro Puget Sound. And of course I do not have to close with the infamous I-405 traffic, most any time of day.

Downtown Seattle, downtown Bellevue, downtown Redmond by jpv on 6/1/04	Reply
If we built the 520 line first, I could take that baby to work, so that's my vote. As long as it serves South Lake Union and Eastlake. The hub could be at Westlake, King St. Station, or Seattle Center. Let's get it on the ballot this time, and get the sucker built! --jpv

	Monorail Routes for a Regional Transportation System by Orville Cooper on 6/2/04	Reply
	A North South line following Highway 99 from Marysville to Tumwater tying into the planned Seattle lines would serve numerous existing residential, commercial, government and business locations including the sports complexes and SeaTac. A North/South line using the existing rail right of way from Monroe to Renton could be extended to Sea Tac serving existing locations and intersecting the line above. An East/West line following I-90 from North Bend to downtown Seattle intersecting the two North/West lines would allow easy transfers between routes. A line following Union Hill Road into Redmond then over 85th to Kirkland then North on Market Street and connecting arterials on to 228th St in Snohomish County A Snohomish East/West route from the Intersection of Highway 9 and 228th St to Edmonds following existing arterials. An East/West route from Lakewood in Tacoma following arterial streets through Puyallap to Sumner then North following arterials to Auburn then Kent ending in Renton at the station for the line following the rail right of way mentioned above.

Not to change the subject... by Mike Kleven on 6/2/04	Reply
My favorite monorail line would be right down East Valley Hiway or I-167. Serving Renton, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallip and Tacoma. Maybe eventually reaching Fort Lewis and Olympia. This is a high population area. It is an area ripe for future development. I think that covering the transportation bottle necks in the Puget Sound and Seattle area is a top priority. Both bridges across Lake Washington and all routes into and out of Seattle. I agree with those who propose developing the Harbor area without replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct. This money saved should be spent on a Seattle street car system, contruction of a monorail system and additional foot ferry service North and South. In addition another way besides car ferries to reach Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas as well as Bainbridge Island should be considered. A bridge or surface tunnel? The solution to the regions traffic woes will be multi phasic and will take time to design and build. Another interesting issue I have not seen addressed? What type of services will be needed by pedestrian commuters? How can we increase the quality of life of those leaving their cars behind. Can we raise the standard of living in the region by providing new services? Care should be taken with how we build the future infrastructure. People friendly spaces and a sensitivity towards safety and comfort. Creativity will be required from the ground level up. This will be an exciting time for reshaping society in the Pacific Northwest. Michael K. Kleven

	RE: Not to change the subject... by Jay on 6/4/04
	Don't Renton, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallip and Tacoma already have Sounder service? It seems that the real value of monorail is in higher density areas where its lower footprint and tighter turns really shine. JayZ

	RE: Not to change the subject... by Gary Powell on 6/9/04
	Ah, the Renton Sounder connection is almost in Tukwilla. It's not by any stretch of the imagination convient or served by anything but a too small park and ride. Also the infrequency of the train and the extremely high cost of the rides makes this unlikely to be expanded into anything useful anytime soon. The issues of course are that B&N owns the track. B&N ship freight not passengers. Sound Transit is leasing the rights but they have a lower priority and its costing us the tax payers a huge amount. However Renton to Seattle is well served by the Metro 101, which in the morning runs every 10 minutes. I do agree based on the traffic pattern, WA-167 North to Bothel via I-405 is jamed and a good place to run an Eastside Monorail. Stops in Factoria, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland, Bothel and terminate in Lynnwood. (Or go North to Everett.)

	Alternative Route by Steve Clark on 6/2/04	Reply
	Sound Transit's Phase 2 Link line proposes to extend from SeaTac Airport to Federal Way and then to Tacoma. As such, your proposed monorail line is redundant with the proposed light rail line. Alternatively, please consider eliminating the line to Federal Way but terminate your proposed line in Burien so that the line fror the easide, through Renton, Tulwila and the Airport, either terminated in Burien or is extended to connect with the Seattle Monorail line at Delridge Way. Another southern extension to consider would be from Renton to south to Kent on the East or West Valley Highways. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

	Monorail Service by Jeanette on 6/2/04	Reply
	I recommend the the monorail run thru Tukwila and connect to Burien on 1st Ave.

	Monorail Routes by Bill Shell on 6/2/04	Reply
	Thanks for considering different options for a KC Monorail. There are a couple of points I would like to make. The Federal Way to Tukwila route is one I have long championed. However, I do not think, as some suggest, that it should run along I5. Rather,it would be perfect along Pac Hiway (Rt. 99). The cities of Sea-TAC, Fed Way and Kent are widening this route with a central medium that would be perfect for monorail columns. A I5 route would require people to use their cars, while the Rt. 99 path is well served by buses and has population density within walking distance. This route could also be extended to the Tacoma Dome. This brings me to my next point. I think we should take advantage of connections with the Seattle Monorail. Extending a Pac Hiway monorail along East Marginal Way would serve the Duwamish corridor. Connecting this line with the SMP would allow transit form Seattle to the airport and south, as well as from the south to Seattle, Seattle Center and north. Likewise, a line from Burien along SR518 to Tukwila and north along I405 would allow East Siders to access to the airport with a single transfer. Finally, a north Seattle route should connect with the SMP at Seattle Center avoiding expensive construction through downtown Seattle and taking advantage of the SMP Green Line.I grew up on the East Coast and know that transferring between different lines is no obstacle to ridership. The minor inconvenience is far ourtweighed by the the better transit times.

	RE: Alternative Route by Bill Shell on 6/3/04
	STs Phase 2 is a north route to Northgate not a southern route. The southern terminus is expected to extend from S. 154th and terminate at the airport possibly going to S. 200th but no further. Therefore the proposed monorail route to Fed Way and maybe Tacoma is not redundant with STs plans.

	Connection among transit providers by KLP on 6/3/04	Reply
	I think it is important that whichever option is selected, that it integrate with other transit service in the region. A prime example would be a connection from the Seattle Monorail Project's green line terminus in West Seattle south through the White Center area, down through Burien, and then over to the airport. This would complement what you are showing on Option One. Please do not ignore potential benefits to historically underserved areas of our region.

	RE: Connection among transit providers by Gary Powell on 6/9/04
	The problem with extending the West Seattle line, is that the Seattle Monorail plan is to single track this terminus. Thus the carry'ing capacity of this line is pretty limited. It might make sense, to sweep down to the ferry dock, and then head South, but if you believe that this line should be extended, you should start lobbing the SMP to double track the whole line. Otherwise its really a waste of the KCMonorail to extend a line that is a dead end.

	Questions about SR-520 "Freeway" Monorail by James Felch on 6/6/04	Reply
	The SR-520 Bridge Improvement Project offers the tantalizing prospect of accomodating monorail connecting Seattle with the eastside of Lake Washington. How would this interact with bus transit service on the HOV lanes likely to be extended by the 6-lane option? Would these two transit options compete for the same passengers over similar areas? Is the route for SR-520, selected in the early 1950's to connect the two interstate highways while avoiding populated areas, the best strategy for a monorail system which has the dexterity to run through developed areas and offer pedestrian access? Considering the environmental sensitivity of Foster Island, Union Bay and Portage Bay as the only outlet to the sea for salmon migration, is there a place to cross Lake Washington which would have less impact and could connect population centers currently underserved by existing transportation routes? Which populations centers do you see as most in need of increased mobility across Lake Washington? Does an SR-520 monorail route integrate with the future lines outlined under the ETC? Will WSDOT cooperate in implementing monorail on SR-520 instead of light rail? Would an independent monorail crossing have a greater prospect of moving forward?

	RE: Questions about SR-520 "Freeway" Monorail by Gary Powell on 6/9/04
	The issue for a floating bridge crossing is balance and weight. The bridge needs to have the weight centered, so we would be looking at supports that arch over the whole bridge and the track running down the middle. In addition, the pontoons would need enough floatation to hold up the additional weight and allow for the flex as the train passes over them. This is flexing issue is the same for Light Rail as well as Monorail. DOT has not in the past shown any interest in building Monorails or Light rail. Aubry Davis who was in charge of Metro at the time the track was laid in the tunnel is a fan of Light rail, but he hasn't gotten it right yet. The track in the tunnel wasn't bedded correctly to be used. (He was told by the engineers in charge of the project, but as it turns out, with the low floor cars, they need to dig up the floor of the tunnel anyway.) And he was in charge of the replacement of I-90 when it sank, and the contract for that specifies, Light rail _OR_ HOV. This is due to the weight, if you lay track down you can't drive on it. So you must lay concrete between the tracks. The additional weight on one side of the bridge must be balanced by weight on the other side. I-90 can't hold up an additional 6 inches of concrete across the whole bridge. So for 520 replacement and Monorail or Light rail to be an option, it MUST be specified BEFORE the bridge is built. Otherwise forget it.

	RE: Questions about SR-520 "Freeway" Monorail by Bill Shell on 6/28/04
	I am opponent of replacing the 520 bridge with a new floating bridge. Rather I have (unsucessfully) urged the DOT to consider a two-level suspension bridge as more environmentally sensitive, safer and able to accomodate transit, including an integrated monorail, more effectively. While such a bridge would be more expensive, the life cycle costs are actually less as floating bridges have a life span of at most 50 years. Mass transit using monorail would enable the new bridge to maintain the number of current lane configuration thus eliminating the need for expensive additions to I5 and I405.

	RE: Questions about SR-520 "Freeway" Monorail by Gary Powell on 6/29/04
	A two level suspension bridge would require a large and very deep center support, (It's over 200ft deep in the middle of the lake, and the bottom is muck, not bedrock so the foundation has to go even deeper) and/or massive supports at either end. Both neighborhoods on either side are extremely politically active, rich and aware. No wonder you've had such a poor response from WA DOT. There is very little likelyhood of a suspension bridge being built at that site. (Although I do agree that they are very pretty to look at, Lion's Gate up in Vancouver BC, the Foss Waterway one in Tacoma, the Tacoma Narrows bridge. -Gary-

	RE: Questions about SR-520 "Freeway" Monorail by Bill Shell on 6/30/04
	The depth of the Lake Washington where caissons for a suspension bridge would need to be built is only 80 feet not 200 feet. The total length of such a bridge would be less than the largest suspension bridge in the world which is on Japan and was built on a treacherous strait.

	RE: Questions about SR-520 "Freeway" Monorail by Pongo on 9/13/05
	forget about the suspension bridge idea....it will never happen. Too many people with money around the lake that will fight to kill it. Not to mention the fact that it will totally disrupt the serenity of the west side of 520. We built the viaduct 50 years ago, we will not do the same along LW!

Intelligence, efficiency, and decentralization by Todd Boyle on 6/11/04	Reply
Harm reduction. Cars are polluting, noisy, energy wasting, dangerous, and consume excess space. But they go point to point. Mass transit is a tragic mistake. Go live in Tokyo a few years. It takes an agonizing amount of time, to get anywhere except downtown. This was created by a wealth-elite. Seattle is the perfect place to create the new transportation system: smaller, totally intelligent, smart vehicles that know the exact requirements for transportation every second, and the exact location of every other vehicle and obstacle. Washington and Seattle has the brains, how we have brains. Our elected leaders should create a true, requirements statement based on the facts of demand, and let an RFP for a total rebuild of the whole transportation system. This RFP would require that no executive, owner or employee reside outside the service area. That is fundamental. We're being exploited by everybody from Detroit to Saudi Arabia. If I were the governor I would install steel goalposts on one lane of every street and highway, dividing them into standard 5-foot wide, 5-foot high square Rights of Way. Let the larger vehicles share the remaining space. http://refusenik.org/trackways.htm Todd Boyle 425-827-3107 Kirkland lets rolllllll

Freeway BRT vs Monorail by ROW on 6/28/04	Reply
The freeway monorail concept does not make a lot of sense given the build out of HOV or other managed lanes on SR-520 and I-405. Why duplicate the transit centers, flyer stops, and other infrastructures that are costing us billions of dollars? Rapid transit = right-of-way. This monorail plan makes the same mistake that ST/Metro's planner's made 5-10 years ago: technology coupled with a few lines on a map means nothing. How many times do we have to repeat this mistake? The suburban transit system is best served by BRT. Direct access ramps, HOV lanes, and buses make a powerful combination and these vehicles can shift from right-of-way to roadway to transit center without beams and other constructions. Jogging the freeway right-of-way to pass over interchanges, access transit centers, and parallel existing and soon to be improved, regional GUIDEWAYS for buses and other vehicles is ill conceived. Rail's saving grace in Puget Sound will be its ability to augment and compliment the existing paths or routes that have been designed/programmed/acquired, and drop those laden with right-of-way ignorance. Do not repeat the mistakes of the past and think beyond the scale of the geographer and technologist. In other words...make an option 3.

	RE: Freeway BRT vs Monorail by bscottid on 6/28/04
	Please note that King County Monorail is not necessarily promoting freeway monorail. We want monorail to "connect the dots" of our major population, business, and activity centers. We support whatever path it takes to do that while maximizing ridership and minimizing cost and time of travel. BRT isn't a good option because at the end of the day it's still stuck in the traffic down on the surface. Our region is very short on right-of-way, and BRT requires a very expensive 25 foot wide swath if you want it to have its own dedicated lanes. Carpool lanes aren't a very good option either, since we've recently seen that their availability to transit exists at the mercy of civic geniuses as Tim Eyman. BRT is often used by transit opponents who want to get a few more lanes of freeway that can easily be converted to general purpose use. I was in Boston a few weeks ago and saw the typical example of BRT. The silver line is promoted as being equal to their great "T" subway lines, but in reality it is the same old slow buses meandering around clogged city streets. There is even less right-of-way available in the suburbs than there is in Seattle. The only meaningful amount is on the freeways. You're talking about demolishing row after row of houses If you want to dedicate lanes to buses in the cities on the eastside. Otherwise you're taking existing lanes away from cars. Either option is politically impossible. Monorail's great advantage is that it frees our region from our perpetual lack of land that stems from our natural geography. It takes a very small footprint on the ground and expands that into two high-speed, high-capacity lanes in the air. This ends up being much faster and more comfortable than buses, and much less expensive than light-rail or subways.

Since light rail is too expensive and is expected to kill 3 black people/year in Rainier Valley: by Ron Simms Jr. on 7/13/04	Reply
This is the best starter system route for the King County Monorail: Connect downtown Seattle to the UW via Eastlake - 3.5 miles Connect Shoreline CC all the way down to Federal Way via Highway 99. Have a stop every 2 miles. - 30 miles Connect downtown Seattle with Downtown Bellevue and Kirkland via I-90 or 520. - 10-15 miles Ask Microsoft to contribute in order to connect Redmond to Kirkland. - 2.5 miles This 45 miles of monorail would be able to replace at least 50% of the buses.

	Monorail Technology Selection by Bill Owen on 7/13/04	Reply
	In all the Seattle monorail discussion on the various web sites and the Seattle newspapers I hear only of "first-generation" monorail such as the one presently in use in Seattle. Thirty years later a "second-generation" monorail has become available. It is the HighRoad system, with a single beam and vehicles operating on the sides of the beam. See www.otg-inc.com for more info. This system can be built for about $30 million a mile, not $87 million. It operates at a much lower cost than the old Disney-types. One drawback - it uses steel wheels on steel track with a rail noise silencing system. It isn't "rubber tires only" as prescribed in the criteria for the Seattle monorail bids. HighRoad wasn't bid since its technology was pre-excluded. Perhaps the Sound Transit Monorail people would like to look at it.

	RE: Since light rail is too expensive and is expected to kill 3 black people/year in Rainier Valley: by Ron Simms Jr. on 7/13/04
	A few more things: The Seattle area gets about 15 miles. The Eastside gets about 15 miles. South King County gets about 15 miles. Make it similar to the way the Sound Transit regional taxing system works...but each region should be required to spend the money linking together a fast and cost-effective monorail system, and not be able to arbitrarily spend it on other transportation projects, as the current Sound Transit light rail policy allows. This equality in distribution of the system improves the possibility that the "King County Monorail" gets approved by voters. I've noticed that the maps on this site, show an extreme, Eastside-centric monorail system. That bias will kill this "King County Monorail" idea before it has a chance to gain appreciation.

Northern Routes, Airports, Etc by Craig Dupler on 8/5/04	Reply
The idea of making sure that the option 1 purple line passes near the Microsoft campus is a good one. Serving a strong combination of large employers, business centers, shopping areas, and neighborhood access corridors makes sense. So I would argue that the Northern yellow line should be planned to go follow SR 525 from the Alderwood area, and pass along the West side of Paine Field and then pass along one of the borders of the Boeing Everett plant campus on the way into Everett and beyond. This would server both Boeing's long term strategic assembly site (roughly 30,000 employees, including on site suppliers) and be on the right side of Paine Field for the eventual secondary regional airport with scheduled airline service (take a hard look at the provisions for future construction built into the Mukilteo Speedway improvements). Finally, I think that any plan, indcluding option 1 should be cast as an initial system, with additional "fill in" routes to be added later. One could argue that the transit systems in other major cities are basically in a state of permanent expansion construction. A system for this area should be no different.

	RE: Northern Routes, Airports, Etc by EyeforTransit on 8/10/04
	Hello Craig, Thanks for sharing your thoughts - I for one agree! Do you live in King County? EfT

Idea from Mississippi by Eric on 9/13/04	Reply
The biggest problem that we have in Washington is that we have hills and lakes as we all know. The best way to conquer these problems is to go through it. I assume we can all agree that we need a monorail to the north, south, and 2 crossings of L.W. But the thing that I have not seen addressed too much is Lake Sammamish. We need a route to the north and south. Not only that but we need through Sammamish or by it that will service more north south traffic. If you have ever lived or been on the Plateau at Rush Hour, it sucks. Only 3 or 4 major ways off. A monorail to the north and south could take major amounts of traffic off the roads. Again though, I say could. It all depends on how well run and maintained the system is and if it services the right areas. But we need access for all major choke points. And Sammamish is a huge one that affects Redmond, Bellevue, Issaquah, and the Snoqualmie Valley Region.

	Build a Loop by Daniel Austin on 10/25/04	Reply
	Because there are so many people who live on one side (ie; Seattle) and work on the other (ie; Bellevue), there should be a one-continuous loop monorail that runs across 520, thru downtown Seattle, out I-90, and up 405, and repeat. One rail would go counter-clockwise and the other rail clockwise. This way anyone can hop on anywhere and reach their destination quickly no matter which direction it's going. Park-n-ride lots could be located in each of the 4 'corners' (ie; I-90 & I-5, I-90 & 405, 405 & 520, etc). Also, extension routes (or connector routes) could be tagged on to extend a leg out to Issaquah and another one out 520 to Microsoft and Redmond. These could each bring riders to the 'loop' route. This approach could take a heavy load off the 2 bridges as well as the horrible 405 congestion through Bellevue.

	RE: Build a Loop by John Bailo on 11/10/04
	Your loop sounds inefficient. I would rather see a Big Loop that runs: Seattle Bellevue Renton Going across I-90 is redundant. John Bailo Texeme

	RE: Build a Loop by Bill Shell on 5/5/05
	Nobody wants to travel where they do not want to go. If you live in Bellevue, you don't go to Seattle via Renton. Direct lines between urban centers and work centers is the model that should be used with convenient transfer points.

	the loop factor by Pongo on 9/13/05
	The loop is one of the best suggestions that any one has come up with. Why do you think that the very first monorail plan was composed of a series of smaller loops that would offer greater flexibility in mobility. Those that think in straight lines often get to the end and are dissapointed. I'd take the loop, knowing that whic ever direction I got on I would get to my destination. Is it redundant, yes, but the objective is to move people around, not just from point a in bellevue to point b in Seattle.

RE: Connect Seattle to Bellevue, Redmond by Luke R on 1/20/05	Reply
i think that its ridiculus that seattle doesnt have mass transit system every other city of its size has one. it would be important to connect seattle to bellvue and redmond. places like bellvue square and redmond town center also the redmond library and microsoft. it would also make it a lot easier to get to work and school

To Issaquah! by monorailfan on 4/7/05	Reply
My perfect route would run from the International District in Seattle straight out to downtown Issaquah. I'd never have to drive to work again!

Monorail's Time is Now by Larry Everett on 3/31/05	Reply
Regardless of the routes, hov car pool and busses get caught in gridlock with everyone else, the need to operate on a separate plane is clearly demonstrated. As in the field of dreams, build it and they will come, anyone sitting in traffic observing a monorail traveling overhead at 50+ mph will figure out how to get on it. The Puget Sound area is ideal for a double hub and spoke system providing efficient service between Seattle, Tacoma, Everett and Bellevue with various spokes serving the subburbs as feeder lines. In 1973 as a UW transportation major I wrote a major article identifying the feasibility and need at the time, in 30+ years the need and demand has only intensified. It seems the greatest hinderance is government fighting over whose jurisdiction it will be to manage the system. To efficiently accomplish building such a system would reguire federal and state agencies to work together rather than solely staking out their own domains.

	Elevated, electric bus lane. by Web Peirce on 7/11/05	Reply
	Once it was clear that the monorail project, as designed, would exceed its financial suport package, I think we all started asking ourselves why we could not afford something that we clearly wanted: efficient, predictable mass-transit. Does anyone know why the existing monorail elevated track could not be modified to support electric buses (all other components similar, but e-buses instead of monorail)? Would this reduce costs and increase connectivity? Maybe the elevated track is the main cost, I have not reviewed the bid. I guess there might also be issues with light transmission and driver costs, but maybe these could be addressed with an auto-pilot technology and wheel-only tracks(open decking between). Any thoughts on this?

	RE: Elevated, electric bus lane. by Jeff on 8/5/05
	Well first look at how mismatched the report was. Taking suggested costs for 20 years and adding it to monorail while looking at only building costs for light rail.. Something fishy? Yep. Sound has been playing it all along while never planning on using a proven technology, they aren't interested in saving your tax dollars. And now even the paper says maybe sound should take over smp? OH that would help it alot. And the state wants the mvet for their pet projects.. 2nd, monorail being automated has much lower overhead, and the beam is much smaller than a huge "roadway" overhead for an electric bus. Keep in mind, smp did alot of work with people in the neighborhoods, and tried to keep costs down, but had alot of people wanting art and things that raise cost to the stations, route adjustments and more... Other options seem to just condem, and create a wide swath of destruction as they build a ride from nowhere to almost nowhere.. Take a bus to ride a train, to take a bus to get almost home? Id rather be "up there" above the traffic, and accidents and all that, leaving every 4 to 10 min regardless of weather.

Expand on the idea Include Snohomish County by Jeff on 8/5/05	Reply
I actually think this needs to be a region wide system, linking everett,snohomish, lk stevens, monroe, maltby, lynnwood, edmonds, Mt Lk Terrace, and the ferry terminals for starters.. since were not getting what we were sold along time ago... and they keep wanting to go back for more of our tax dollars for more overspending... Imagine getting to the Evergreen State Fair from Either Woodinville or Alderwood, on a clean Environmentally friendly monorail OVER the traffic, leaving every 10 min all day long. Not held up by collisions or rush hour. Talk about cost effective. Dont forget the income that is available to the system for advertising, and cable routing in the beams, and rent from stores in stations.

	RE: Connect Seattle to Bellevue, Redmond by Pongo on 9/13/05	Reply
	A replacement 520 bridge would make and excelent platform for elevated monorail transit down the middle. Rather than creating a new super highway that will surly decimate the neighborhoods on both sides of the pond, we need to incresase capacity with transit, not lanes for single occupancy vehicles. For those of us who live in seattle, if you want to work over hear, then move over hear. We have enough traffic problems in the downtown core with out trying to cram more cars onto the grid. By the way, I've heard that Sound transit has done two dtudies on which type of hov transit would work best for the i90 bridge and the 520 bridge, and as I understand it, monorail was the decided upon option. During high winds it's not succeptable to being thrown or removed from the tracks, and itcan move along faster than light rail. However these two studies have been supressed and buried by sound transit. CAN ANY ONE VERIFY THIS?

	RE: RE: Connect Seattle to Bellevue, Redmond by Jeff W on 9/19/05
	Unfortunately, Sound Transit's study misrepresented monorail, and as such put it out of the plan for I 90, saying for one thing, too expensive... But their plan for I90 to Bellevue includes tunneling up Bellevue way to Downtown.. You do the math, above ground with monorail or tunnel for years.. through downtown bellevue.. The studies for 520 dont' show ridership making mass transit an option, only because of the way those numbers were gathered. Monorail would be Great for 520 as well, right above all those stalled busses and cars... every 6 minutes or so regardless of the weather, traffic, or special event on either side of the Lake. Keep your voice up, let your politicians hear you, keep them accountable.... they can be elected out if they keep playin in stead of doing what we elected them to do! NO politics, BUILD OUR MONORAIL...!!!! Region Wide!!!!

	This is our Golden Opportunity by J. A. Bailo on 11/9/05	Reply
	Look -- people want a monorail -- they just didn't want "that" monorail. A high speed, low cost link between Bellevue and Seattle with a cross track from Everett/Northgate to Redmond/Kent is the real deal. Let's build that monorail -- a longer, faster "jumper" between the transportation centers. Let's go King County Monorail!

	RE: This is our Golden Opportunity by JeffW on 11/9/05
	Nice to hear.. Unfortunately the road is even more an uphill drive. With The reelection of Sound's rail man- Sims... and the misinformation that the public has about monorail.. much to the credit of Sound Transit, and many others both political and wealthy businessmen in Seattle and the County.. I totally agree, and think that We still need to think beyond just King County and include Everett, Monroe, Snohomish and the rest of us that aren't just "aimed at downtown Seattle".. Please send your letter to the editors of the local, seattle and USA Today papers... AND HELP US CONTINUE THIS BATTLE... for a transit system we can be proud to hand to our children and grandchildren.. Jeff W KCM

King County Monorail | P.O. Box 695 | Mercer Island, WA 98040
E-mail: kcm-info@kingcountymonorail.org

Your loop sounds inefficient.