The sole bid for the Seattle Monorail appears to be $200 million higher than expected. The report says this problem has been "privately known for months". That would explain why the Monorail Project has been lobbying in Olympia for permission to finance the project with 40 year bonds, instead of the customary 25-30 year bonds. Caveat creditor. The only other public project in state history to finance itself with 40 year bonds was WPPS
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 16, 2005 09:22 AM | Email ThisIs there a connection here? I think maybe so.
Posted by: Chris on February 16, 2005 09:26 AMWe need some "Truth in Bonding" where the total cost of a govt.project including interest is known up front. In the same way "Truth in Lending" laws require full disclosure of the estimated total cost of a home INCLUDING INTEREST.
This information should be required to be included in bond proposals voted on by citizens.
This state will be RED very soon, because the fine people of this state have run out of patience with the flapping gums of the Seattle/Olympia intelligentsia.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on February 16, 2005 10:00 AM
As for the rest of you, shut up and drink the kool-aid.
just because you can make a paper-mache replica of a train and run around at a parade with it every year for a decade does not mean that you ought to be trusted with BILLIONS of dollars in taxpayer money--no matter how obtuse those taxpayers might be with regard to your nefarious ambitions.
Posted by: Rex on February 16, 2005 10:38 AMMeanwhile the democrats will play this state like a harp from hell (bill 1069 for instance).
Posted by: Andy on February 16, 2005 10:58 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002181566_monorail16m.html
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Monorail bid tops projection by $200M
By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter
The Seattle Monorail Project is trying to pare down its plans because the sole bid came in roughly $200 million higher than expected, according to sources knowledgeable about the project.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002181534_soundbudget16m.html
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Sound Transit budget on track
By Eric Pryne
Seattle Times staff reporter
The low bid on the last major construction contract for Sound Transit's Seattle light-rail line came in 10 percent below the agency's estimate yesterday, increasing the possibility that the mammoth project might be built for significantly less than its $2.44 billion budget.
There's no inconsistency. The Monorail and Sound Transit are two separate agencies.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 16, 2005 11:39 AMhttp://www.seattlemonorail.com/
Then there is the Seattle Monorail project. And I have to admit that when I first saw the "Monorail Questions?" button, I thought it said "Ask Liars", only after a double-take did I see that it was "Ask Lars" :-)
http://www.elevated.org/
And then there is the Seattle Light Rail.
http://www.soundtransit.org/projects/svc/link/
Wow, ok, I think I'm up to speed now.
BTW - I moved here from San Jose, CA last May. In San Jose they also had one of these very long, single line Light Rails. It was languishing. The $2.00 fare was only about 1/5 of the cost of an actual trip, the rest was subsidized by taxpayer money. Part of the problem was that it was only a single line, much like this Seattle Light Rail appears to be. So if you lived more than a mile or so away from the line, it was impractical to use. I rode it for about 6 months, but eventually went back to my car, because it was taking 60 minutes on the light rail to travel what took me 20 minutes in my car. Had it branched out to more lines (similar to the NYC Subway) then I'm sure more people would ride it. Not to mention that in the San Francisco Bay area, there was the San Jose Light Rail, there was a commuter train called Cal Train, and there was San Francisco and Oakland's light rail called BART. None of them connected to each other, so it was a nightmare trying to go anywhere on them.
Posted by: Jason on February 16, 2005 11:51 AMTransit property RFPs (Requests For Proposal) are publicly available. I've always been able to secure a copy just for the asking. There is also a process for clarifying questions about the RFP that is also public record.
My initial reaction is that a single bid coming in at $200m above estimate indicates that something went wrong in the bidding process. There are a number of things to investigate. I'd start with the following:
1) A copy of the RFP (it'll be huge)
2) A copy of the questions and clarifications
3) A list of prospective bidders (parties that requested the RFP)
4) A copy of the winning bid, which may be broken down into sections
5) A copy of the engineering estimate
6) Any RFBQs (Budgetary Quotations)
Things I have seen screw up the process are:
1) Requirements for single-sourced components or services
2) Badly written RFPs
3) A contractor deliberately obfuscating the clarification process
There's probably more I'll think of later.
Seattle has an enormous transportation dilemna, everyone agrees. Topography makes any new transport infrastructure, road or rail, complicated and expensive. But, because mass transit competes with the personal car, it is a conflict of interest for the business community to allow mass transit to function beyond minimal levels.
In 2002, the monorail agency ETC considered various routes, but chose Interbay to Ballard and 2nd Avenue downtown. Neither route option serves the most people, nor influences the most potential development for future revenue-producing ridership. Why were the least productive routes chosen? Answer: conservative business interests, not liberal transit users, pulled strings on the route decisions and then orchestrated a media blackout to insure a lackluster project went forward.
Same thing with Link light rail. Rail-based mass transit can work, but only if it is designed to the highest standards. Build it to inferior standards and it backfires, actually increasing traffic.
Link's I-5 Bypass of South Center along the route to Seatac, bypasses millions of existing daily riders who are the very ones the line should be built to serve. But no. Someone pulled strings and Sound Transit lied about the reason for the Bypass as "cost-savings". Sound Transit knows the Bypass loses millions in annual revenue. More than that, the Bypass misses the opportunity to guide development at South Center, producing jobs there that reduce Tukwila area residents current need for commuting and long-distance travel. Unless the need for commuting is reduced, it grows beyond the capacity of the light rail, increasing the number of people who then must drive. Missing South Center will leave the trains mostly empty in the Southbound direction. It's a No Brainer!
Get it? The I-5 Bypass decision was made by conservative business interests who sell cars, finance or insure them, build parking garages to cash cow them, advertize them on TV and in the paper, fuel them, vacation in them, race them on tracks, crash them and collect insurance, etc.
And if you think the monorail and light rail projects are bogus, take a closer look at the Lake Union Streetcar. Ask why this line doesn't run on adjacent Terry Avenue and enter the DSTT at Convention Place Station. It's electric rail running on the same current as in the DSTT, for cryin out loud! Somebody wants to run the streetcar through five, diagonal, accident-prone traffic intersections on Westlake and dead end at Westlake Mall. Oh, good grief! Run the streetcar into the DSTT and the Waterfront Streetcar Line can also connect eventually and use the same maintenance facility is SoDo.
The routes that work best are dismissed because modern mass transit is a conflict of interest to the conservative Seattle business community. We can blame liberals for being ignorant on this, but conservatives spreading misinformation are more to blame. The media is not liberal. They take too much money from conservative interests to be honestly liberal.
Posted by: Artie on February 16, 2005 12:54 PMDidn't this happen in the 70's, when the federal government gave Washington $20 billion to build a monorail/subway system? Anyone remember riding on that monorail/subway system as of late?
I'll give more money to the project, once they find that first $20 billion.
Posted by: John on February 16, 2005 01:04 PMIronically, IIRC, Norm Rice bears much of the responsibility for the LINK Rainier Valley dogleg (well-served by existing transit) that increases the run-distance between downtown and Sea-Tac.. Something about $50,000,000 in 'community impact mitigation' (i.e. $50M in taxpayer subsidies to the 'enhance' the Rainier Valley community) comes to mind.
"Get it? The I-5 Bypass decision was made by conservative business interests who sell cars, finance or insure them, build parking garages to cash cow them, advertize them on TV and in the paper, fuel them, vacation in them, race them on tracks, crash them and collect insurance, etc."
I think that you forgot to add that they also eat babies. /sarc
Posted by: FlyingTiggress on February 16, 2005 01:09 PMYour argument reminds me of the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". The villian was trying to shutdown the local mass transit (the Red Car trolley line) so as to make way for Freeways and large automobile dealerships.
Seriously, I think you over-estimate the power of any single group of businesses. If anything, local businesses in the area would welcome any transit system that delivers more people to their doors. There is a finite number of cars that will fit in Seattle, simply due to the limitations of available parking. Remove that limitation, and the volume of people increases. So I find it highly dubious that one segment of business would be able to so thoroughly steamroll over all the other businesses who would benefit from this.
Posted by: Jason on February 16, 2005 01:10 PMDon't forget the "restaurants at which drivers can get fast, quality, inexpensive food without leaving their cars..."
Posted by: FlyingTiggress on February 16, 2005 01:21 PMThe article boasts of under-budget bids "cost savings", but says 'nothing' about "lost revenue" ridership neglect in Bypassing South Center. These supposed cost savings are a lie.
Routing LRT through Ranier Valley produces ridership and builds future ridership via development - makes perfect sense and justifies the expense. But, all the Ranier Valley stations collectively cannot produce as much ridership as the direct route through South Center.
Routing away from Ranier Valley would produce insufficient ridership of mostly business air travelers, who Flying Tigress apparently would rather had an exclusive train ride apart from common transit riders. Uh huh. I call that viewpoint elitist.
The line without South Center will be mostly empty in the reverse-commute direction, but uncomfortably overwhelmed during 'too few' hours during the commute period to make enough revenue to avoid permanent, massive subsidy. The Bypass is an engineering error of monumental purportions, permanently limiting the lines potential. There's no excuse for this error.
Why do I bother, as a Moderate, with closed-minded republicans? The harm 'never wrong' conservatives do affects everyone?
We are so blessed.
Posted by: South County on February 16, 2005 02:44 PMTrying to convince the paranoid among us (Artie) is pointless, but, I'll give it one try.
My point, Artie, is that your screed that only conservative (unless, belying your 'moderate' self-characterization, you're sufficiently far to the Left to consider Mayor Rice a 'conservative') auto-related business interests were responsible for the route alignment is tripe. Metro already had, as noted by several who challenged the street-running for LINK through the RV, frequent bus service through the Valley. There is consider commercial and industrial development along the SODO-Georgetown area that would also benefit from LRT -- and not because of some "elitist" business downtown-airport traveler standpoint -- that because of the Beacon Hill-MLK-Boeing Access Road detour has additional travel time upon surface streets (NTM the $50,000,000 in S/T 'mitigation' funds for 'redeveloping' the neighborhood impacted by the RV route).
Thus endeth the troll-feeding (at Artie). He's gotten enough attention.
Posted by: FlyingTigress on February 16, 2005 03:10 PMI'm tired of talking about the monorail. We've spent more money over the years talking, studying, arguing, protesting and revoting on the monorail we could have already built and paid for much of it. Yes its a commitment by us citizens to pay the car taxes but its also an investment in our city and should benefit our lives by taking commuters off the roads.
Should we ignore the problems with the monorail? No you don't turn a blind eye to things but on the other hand continued opposition does raise the costs of such projects.
Safeco Field can attribute much of its costs overruns to oppositions that ran them into court and put construction behind. Yes Safeco Field is a somewhat different case because the Mariners had to pay cost overruns and with the monorail we the tax payers are on the hook. But the question remains, at what point do we stop fighting and just build the damn thing? And where are all the critics of Safeco Field now that it is built? The stadium has been a resounding success and a point of pride for many in the region.
I sometimes get the feeling that many are rooting against the monorail project in much the sameway that our liberal friends are rooting against the campaign in Iraq. "Support the troops, not the War." An almost see I told you so.
I just don't get it. If a line gets built by my house I would most certainly use it. Seattle is one of the greatest cities to live in with one detractor, TRAFFIC! Now I don't profess to now everything about the monorail, I'm not a transportation export, but I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. We've voted the monorail through twice if I'm not mistaken. Its time to build the damn thing, thats my 2 cents.
Posted by: Daryl on February 16, 2005 03:34 PMyou seem to have a viewpoint and you might have the facts to substantiate them but your exposition is poor.
state your point. state your supporting facts. state your conclusion, drawing upon salient details you have already presented. as it is, you are presenting an opinion followed by a swatch of details and presumably some analysis and then conclude with whackadoodle conspiracy theories. you are making expository leaps that a lot of people probably can't follow, including myself.
as an aside, i think you will discover that servicing a mall with mass transit is not the panacea that you seem to think it is. most people generally do not want to carry their items with them on a train. ever brought a television or even a DVD player on a bus or a train?
what do you mean "guide development" at Southcenter? seems to me that Southcenter is developing itself quite fine. add to it that Southcenter is located immediately at the junction of I-5 and 405 with the immediate area almost entirely built out and the east-to-west topography requires a steep climb to get to the airport not to mention having to cross the Interstate again.
are you sure that the light rail doesn't stop a mile from the airport just to screw the business air travellers? or is it because the Port leaned on ST so that the new parking garages at the airport would be full of evil gasoline-powered vehicles for another four years until the extension of the line goes to them?
i think you will discover that the chief limitation on Seattle mass transit are the topographical obstacles.
Posted by: Rex on February 16, 2005 03:36 PMI read in the local media recently about that ship-building or ship-fixing company in Ballard or Fremont, along the channel. They want to stay in business. It never mentioned whether they were a 'conservative' business or a 'liberal' business. Why? It's moot - they only want to be a 'running' business - a going concern.
Labeling every business as 'conservative' is about as enlightened as labeling every prospective monorail rider as 'liberal'. Of course local businesses will be against having the monorail shut them down or cut them off from current traffic flows. Only those businesses that can secure locations in the immediate vicinity of a station will be interested in the project.
I lived in Chicago for 30 years and rode the el to work for the six years I lived on the North Side. Mass transit only works if it has spurs or different lines. I live on Queen Anne hill and I'll never ride the Monorail as it's designed today. If there was a line that went out to Bellevue along the I-90 corridor, then maybe. But how many more years and $billions will that require?
Oh, yeah...in Chicago the el goes to both O'Hare Airport and Midway Airport. In Seattle it will not go to Seatac in the foreseeable future. Get it Artie?
Posted by: Larry on February 16, 2005 03:41 PMGood, you see my point exactly. What would that cost? Too much for my tastes. I think you could have seen that in the next paragraph where I asked "But how many more years and $billions will that require?"
The Chicago elevated does go outside the city limits - Evanston, Oak Park, etc. And the Metra takes riders 30-35 miles outside of the city. It's the topography of Seattle that makes Mass Transit by light rail prohibitive. Yet these locals are still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Posted by: Larry on February 16, 2005 04:19 PMIf not the monorail Larry, how then will you have us solve the traffic problem? I am just curious? Your right, it is very expensive but I don't like not doing anything either. Also I agree that a line running East/West along I-90 would be necessary. Like I said, I am no expert but something needs to be done.
Posted by: Daryl on February 16, 2005 04:36 PMTwo perfect examples: San Diego and Portland. SD (personal knowledge) started with an existing underutilized rail line, gained credibility by delivering a product that had been belittled by many as being the "Tijuana (Mexico) Trolley", made the first expansion (the line out towards El Cajon -- about 20 rail-miles -- in three sub-stages), then did some in-fill work inside downtown San Diego (including Artie's quest for integrated development and transit), then started branching northerly and into one of the major shopping areas -- not as an end destination, but as on the way out to Jack Murphy stadium and San Diego State Univ., and then (currently under construction) out to connect with the previously constructed El Cajon line (creating a loop around a major topographic feature). It's taken 20 years, so far, but they've got one heckuva system. Logical routes, little pressure to go somewhere for political reasons (from the Left or Right), and simply focus on the basics of moving people around the area where topography (the I-805 viaduct, by itself, over Mission Valley has enough concrete to build a sidewalk from San Diego to New York City, for example) limited the options for freeway improvements -- so LRT can work in topographically-challenged areas. It's an option, and one that makes sense.
Posted by: FlyingTigress on February 16, 2005 04:59 PMLoosen the grip on some of the precious trees around here and build some blasted roads. This love affair with nature doesn't have to be the tail wagging the dog. Monorail, light rail...doesn't matter. It's more good money after bad.
Posted by: dkpcowboy on February 16, 2005 05:38 PMYou asked "If not the monorail Larry, how then will you have us solve the traffic problem?"
I ask: What traffic problem? It takes me under 20 minutes to get to work in Bellevue from Queene Anne Hill in Seattle. If there's traffic, it takes 30 minutes. No big deal.
I take city buses to Sonics, Mariners, and Seahawks games, to Pike Place Market, etc.
In short, there is no traffic problem from my point of view. And that's why I don't pay for the Monorail!
Try living in Chicago, or New York City, or Los Angeles, and you'll see REAL traffic problems. I agree with dkpcowboy - build some more roads, and get rid of those useless carpool lanes. Make them true traffic lanes and ease congestion!
For everyone's perusal, a study by the Texas Transportation Institute:
\
http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2004.pdf
Seattle does not even rank in the Top 10 most congested cities. It is around #15-18 in the different measures. It is ranked #15 in average delay per traveler (which takes into account population). Among 'Large' urban areas (1-3 million), Seattle still ranks behind Atlanta, San Jose, and San Diego, all of which already have light rail mass transit.
So, I'm no expert either, but apparently the true experts think that Seattle's traffic problems are not all that great.
Posted by: Larry on February 16, 2005 06:34 PMMargaret, I hope you plan to run for office at some point. Your point is important in that the effects of these idiotic bonds is not the debt floated, but the actual aggregate cost associated with the proposed boondoggle. We need truth in government, and I see very little of truth in these types of projects…
I was in San Diego, Tigress, in 1994 when the Trolley extension through Mission Valley was seeking public approval. The environmental community was opposed, wrongfully believing the San Diego Riverbed would be adversely affected. With remediation the riverbed has never looked better.
Comparing the San Diego Trolley to Link LRT is demonstrative. If Link is routed through Georgetown, the south corridor with the greater revenue-generating ridership, Ranier Valley, is neglected. The additional, minute travel time, Tigress, is nothing. The ride comfort only rail offers, and serving the most people, is far more important than speed. The SD Trolley lines serve major destinations all along their routes. Missing South Center is like routing through Mission Valley but no stations for QualComm Stadium and the nearby shopping mall (I forget its name).
Speaking of shopping malls, South Center is more a commercial district, industrial employment center, entertainment venue with hotels, an Amtrak and Sounder Station, and perfectly suitable land for doubling its size in compact development.
South Center has more ridership potential than San Diego's QualComm and the nearby mall. Without light rail service, South Center must dedicate more development to roadspace, parking lots and garages, expect greater traffic congestion, the runoff polluting low-lying riverbed and ultimately Elliott Bay.
Seattle's Link LRT and the Monorail have grevious shortcomings in route selection and station siting which indicate poor ridership and ultimate failure. Route improvements are pooh-pooh'd by limp-wristed statistic seekers and censored by closed-door agencies doing backroom deals with people like Stefan Sharkansky.
Sound Transit will never be as good as MAX in Portland - and even they have a spitload of problems, but at least they got off the mark in the '80s and built it for a much lower cost that would be seen here. Maybe there is a mass transit in another American City that is worse financially than the twin turkeys in Seattle, but frankly don't know where or if.
Posted by: KS on February 16, 2005 10:35 PMAt one Eastside company, he misled venture capital investors about the prospects of the company by creating company performance graphs that his gang called the "hockey stick" - a slight dip followed by a huge jump in profits.
After that gig, he was overheard boasting that The Commons would never pass, but he "was going to make a killing while it was tied up in litigation for ten years". I wonder if people still remember him crying on the night of the election when it finally got buried.
Then he was campaign manager for Paul Schell. Enough said about that success.
Then he went to the monorail project. Just like the shyster in the episode of the Simpson's where the town was convinced that it somehow needed a monorail.
"Route improvements are pooh-pooh'd by limp-wristed statistic seekers and censored by closed-door agencies doing backroom deals with people like Stefan Sharkansky."
Backroom deals with Stefan? Shut the #*($ up, you've completely gone off the deep end. You have no knowledge of any 'backroom deals', and Stefan is only shining light upon facts that the Monorail Authority hid from the voting public during the election.
I suppose, using your logic, that we can blame ARTIE (read: you, Artie) for the fact that there is only one bidder, that the bid is at least $200 million over expectations, that the Monorail Authority hid the bid from the public until after the election, and that the revenues have been under expectations. Artie, how could you let us down? How could you allow the bids to be so high?
It's all your fault, Artie. If you're going to blame Stefan for writing about it, then I'm going to blame YOU for writing about it. See how your logic works, Artie? (Hint: It doesn't.)
Stefan is no more to blame for the complete failure of the Monorail Authority than I am to blame for the cost overruns of Safeco Field. I admit it, it's all your fault Artie.
Posted by: Larry on February 16, 2005 11:31 PMThe only point your last post proves is you have a reckless temper. My analysis and warnings about Seattle's rail-based transit projects and the intricate connections they have with land-use and development, are unique. They are complex and I do not expect them to be readily understood, but they are valid and should be discussed rationally, rather than blindly rejected. Seattle's rail projects, as is, will fail, no matter the expense, the evident corruption, nor the hopes placed on their success. It's a damn fiasco.
I think that this statement demonstrates Artie's lack of comprehension. Alternatively, my powers to 'prevent' him from expressing his opinion has failed. Curses! Foiled again.
Unless Artie is referring to the fact that he can't 'spam' my hotmail account.
Artie appears to have the same personality flaw shared by too many on the 'paranoid progressive' side -- that, expression an opinion that may contradict all or part of a position equates to prevention of expression.
Actually, I'm quite supportive of rail-based transit. Every day, in fact. There are observed the mistakes that Southern California made in the 1970s, and decided to make a career in the field of transportation engineering as a result to try to add to the discourse about balancing transportation modes.
Poor troll... no more food for you.
Posted by: FlyingTigress on February 17, 2005 04:53 AMI recall because (a) I lived in Mission Valley (out near Silver Springs Water and the stadium -- for those who know the area) and (b) I was working for a consulting engineering firm, and one of our clients (MVC) solicited our business on a proposal to improve site access to the proposed LRT route (near the end of the center where the Wards store used to be anchor).
The Mission Valley extension to Jack Murphy stadium (sorry Qualcomm) was, as I recall, sixth or seventh in terms of the SDT system expansion. IIRC, even the El Cajon line (third system expansion -- assuming you consider as a separate the stage the extension out to Euclid Ave.) skirted along the periphery of Grossmont Center (massive retaining wall, as I recall and some distance from the mall portion of the shopping center itself).
Oops. My bad. Artie's freedom of expression has been taken away...again. Bad F.T. Just for that, you have to do penance -- stop growling under Artie's bridge, get ready for another day of transportation engineering (coming up soon on 20 years in this profession), and run down to Freighthouse Square and catching the northbound Sounder into Seattle... again.
"The only point your last post proves is you have a reckless temper."
Kiss my @$$, Artie. You accused Stefan of making "backroom deals" with "closed-door agencies" to stop the Monorail. This would be libel and/or slander in any other forum. I merely told you to SHUT YOUR TRAP IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF. And, of course, you don't have any. It's all just a fancy little hypothesis inside your conspiracy-ridden little mind.
"They are complex and I do not expect them to be readily understood, but they are valid and should be discussed rationally, rather than blindly rejected."
Oh, that's rich. You're so smart and we, the unwashed masses, are not intelligent enough to understand the complex machinations of your thought processes. Or...maybe...the reason your ideas are blindly rejected is that they come from YOU - the person who slanders other people with no proof!
Artie, I am still TOTALLY OFFENDED that you accused Stefan by saying that the Monorail is "censored by closed-door agencies doing backroom deals with people like Stefan Sharkansky." You are hereby branded a troll, I have saved your statement, and I will remind everyone of your slanderous statements every time you comment on this blog.
Furthermore Lair, the analysis I present is indeed complicated. You've yet to show any understanding of a bit of it. What else am I to conclude but that you're the troll here? Why change the subject from transportation to slander if not that character assassination is your modus operandi, or, that you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about? Whatever.
Thanks Tigress, for adding civilly to the discussion. It's interesting to hear about your experience in SD. Do you remember what the SD Riverbed was like in the summer years before the trolley? Dry, with straggling vegetatation in many places.
I support rail transit, but as I've said, Link and the Monorail are poorly arranged engineering. That's all I've said. It's a Moderate position.
If you're working for Sound Transit-related engineering, you're in deep doo doo. Your idea that going through Georgetown instead of Ranier Valley is bogus. Like I said before, your preferrence would produce an exclusive train ride from the airport for business travellers. (over 50% air travel is business, business/vacation). If that's the principle of your engineering model, you're fired. You would have the entire public build a line that serves mostly the wealthy. Oh wait. You're a conservative. Too stubborn to admit a mistake.
Posted by: Artie on February 18, 2005 12:05 PM