Citizens for King County Monorail | Discussions | Sound Transit Resisting Monorail


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

Sound Transit Resisting Monorail

Monorail is definitely a popular option for our regional transportation - 1/3 of the comments for Sound Transit's extension into east King County asked them to look at monorail.

However, recent news reports described Sound Transit's reluctance to even study monorail as an option for our region. Refute their mistaken assumptions and tell them why you think monorail is the right choice for King County and the surrounding area.

Click Here to leave your comment.

Also - make sure and sign our resolution to tell Sound Transit they should include monorail.

Have something to add?

Monorail: Cheaper by nwtechie on 6/27/04	Reply
Has Sound Transit not been paying attention to the Seattle monorail project? The first phase of Sound Transit's light rail in Seattle will be 14 miles long with 7 new stations. The cost: $2.4 billion. Most of it is the cheapest type of light rail with trains stuck in traffic at street level. The new Seattle monorail will also be 14 miles long, but with 19 stations, and all running up above the gridlocked streets. The cost: $1.6 billion. Obviously, monorail is our most cost-effective mass transit option.

	RE: Monorail: Cheaper by Randy on 6/28/04
	Yeah, I just can't see the logic. Elevated rail is inherently cheaper than tunnels and safer than on-grade rail. (Actually, when you figure tax lost revenue from the extra land on-grade rail requires, I suspect the 50-year cost of monorail is lower too ... but I haven't done the math.) Where the fiscal logic is so compelling, yet resisted by the powers-that-be, SOMEONE has to be making money off the more expensive alternative. Who?

	RE: Monorail: Cheaper by Roger on 6/29/04
	If SPMA monorail is cheaper than ST Link light rail, it is only because it is a lower-capacity system. The Green Line will have short trains and stations -- just 130 feet long, or about the length of 2 Tacoma streetcars. Link light rail, in contrast, was designed to accommodate 4-car trains, 380 feet long -- 3 times the length of the new monorail. Put it this way, the Green Line is 2/3rds the cost of Link light rail but with 1/3rd of the capacity. This low-capacity system may well be adequate for the uncongested corridors selected for the Green Line, but it would be hopelessly inadequate for regional transit -- mainline services carrying large numbers of commuters among major urban centers. That would require a whole 'nuther type of monorail -- the largest Hitachi trains, with stations 300 feet or longer. Try to imagine the visual impact of those stations (not to mention their accompanying switch platforms!) on our urban and suburban landscapes. -Roger-

	RE: Monorail: Cheaper by bscottid on 6/30/04
	Roger, Your theory doesn't stand up to simple math: 1. The difference in cost between light-rail and monorail is $800 million 2. For the 7 new stations built by Sound Transit, that would imply that the cost of the extra space in each light-rail station is $114 million ($800/7) 3. Light rail stations are 3 times longer than Seattle monorail stations, implying that the total cost of a light rail station is $171 million ($114*3/2) That's obviously a ridiculously high figure. I doubt that even the underground station under Beacon Hill costs that much. And, train costs are irrelevant since we're initially only getting short light rail trains to begin with.

520 Monorail by William H'Bill' Huff on 6/28/04	Reply
One item Sound Transit apparently fails to recognize this time is the impact increased automobile capacity will have on the rest of the freeway system, particularly I-5 southbound at 520. Take a look at current afternoon congestion patterns. It's almost gridlock now. Every added vehicle westbound from 520 in the afternoon will only exacerbate the problem we already have. Obviously commuters will benefit from a choice of leaving their cars and riding a monorail across the bridge to the Pine St bus tunnel for example. I bet most riders would be willing to pay ten or fifteen bucks for a round trip ticket. There is a way to coerce Sound Transit to consider the addition of a monorail as part of the solution.

	RE: 520 Monorail by bscottid on 6/29/04
	Great point about 520. We've learned from WSDOT that while the design for the new bridge could be expanded for high-capacity transit (monorail, light rail, or BRT), there isn't enough land on either side of the bridge to provide right-of-way for additional surface lanes. In other words, there's room on the bridge for light rail and BRT, but no place to put it once you get off. However, monorail could be placed on the bridge and then it's small ground footprint would allow it to travel up above the traffic lanes on both the east and west shores.

	Myth: Monorail creates transfers by factchecker on 6/28/04	Reply
	This is one of the popular myths promoted by those that are afraid to confront monorail's facts: that if you added monorail to Sound Transit it would make things more inconvenient for passengers. No one is talking about changing Sound Transit's expansion from Seattle to the University District. That will be light rail (IF it ever gets built). If you're talking about a new line that connects Seattle to the eastside, people would need to transfer from the Seattle light rail line to the Bellevue light rail line anyway. There's no reason why a transfer to another light rail train would be any easier than walking across to a monorail. Plus, where do people think that eastsiders will go? From Sea-Tac through Seattle and then across the lake to Bellevue? That is ludicrous because it would take an hour to make a trip on light rail when people could take an express bus from the airport to the eastside much quicker. Or maybe rich eastsiders will want to go sight seeing in the Rainier Valley? If you go to any other city with intersecting transit lines you'll find that transfers are common if your trip doesn't lie along a single line. It's easy - you get off one train, ride up an escalator, maybe walk a block, and hop on the other line.

	RE: Myth: Monorail creates transfers by Richard Borkowski on 6/29/04
	One of the reasons transit agencies have chosen light rail is the very low operating costs. Obviously, the cost to operate a train is higher than a bus. However, on a per passenger-mile basis, non-automated light rail is far, far, far cheaper than any AGT system built in the United States. It's a good business decision that keeps fares affordable for customers. Plus, it allows transit agencies to redeploy bus service hours that are freed up by passengers that switch from buses to rail. - Richard Operating costs for existing monorail systems in the United States that report to FTA: Jacksonville Monorail costs $14.46 per passenger-mile Detroit AGT costs $3.41 per passenger-mile Seattle Monorail is $1.18 per passenger-mile (and is non-automated) By contrast, KC Metro buses cost $0.65 per passenger-mile and Portland's Tri-Met light rail is $0.34 per passenger-mile This is public information as reported to the Federal Transit Administration by the operating agencies. The reports can be accessed at: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf

	RE: Myth: Monorail creates transfers by bscottid on 6/29/04
	Your data sample is way to small to draw any conclusions from. The Jacksonville numbers are high because of low ridership on that system. It's silly to claim that paying a person to drive a train makes it cheaper than having an automated system do it. That's just completely illogical. Anyone in business will tell you that the first way to reduce your operating costs is to automate your processes. An automated, driverless system allows the capacity of the system to scale independent of expensive human costs. It also results in more time-certain performance.

	Monorail incorporation into regional transit planning by Ronald David Nelson on 6/30/04	Reply
	Monorails NEED to be incorporated into a regional transport system. Anyone with an idea of creating a transportion that "Really served" the community could see what an essential role a monorail would play. With the construction of a line streching from Everett to Tacoma and another from Seattle to the Greater Eastside 100,000s of commuters could be moved daily at rapid speed and to all major centers of the Puget Sound area. Of course over time more lines could be added especialy in Seattle / greater East side through aa cooperative effort with the Seattle monorail authority. Light rail could be developed to support the monorail system along with bus routes in order to funnel commuters into the high speed monorail system. Those Sounder commuter trains ( the big waste of money that they are if you consider the few numbers of riders per day (not to mention the few number of trains per day (wasn't the original plan to have 18??)) could serve outlying areas such as Olympia( Thurston Co.) and the Mt Vernon (even Bellingham) to the North not to mention MORE public events such as baseball and football games. The main problem with the sounder commuter trains is that the private railroads dictate when and where sounder commuter trains will run. One can cleay discern that commiter trains are not high priorty( another reason to build a monorail system). Sound transit needs to listen or be disbanded they appear to have a record of building to little to late and no clear plan. They were created in 1996 The greater east side has had a problem with traffic long before that and only now in 2004 they are asking public comment! Seems like there is a severe organizational problem here!

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