Today's report in the Seattle Times that the sole bid is $200 million more than what was sold to the public is just the tip of the iceberg of devastating revelations to hit the fan, sources say. Details of Cascadia's proposal have been kept under close wraps for months, but bits and pieces are starting to leak out. Watch for more astonishing surprises regarding project schedule and scope. At the rate things are going, the Seattle Monorail might find itself downsized to where it looks like the Niles Monorail!
Now that Olympia has been brought into the loop, this would be a good time for our state legislature to work quickly to protect the public from the out-of-control Monorail agency.
UPDATE: Thursday's P-I has a report on the Monorail's challenges, including progress in the legislature to rein in the rogue agency. The Times editorial page also appropriately takes the Monorail to task. I detect the reasoned voice of Bruce Ramsey!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 16, 2005 10:03 PM | Email ThisWhen is Washington going to give up on big projects? WPPSS, the I-90 sinking bridge, the bus tunnel that was supposed to solve all of our traffic problems, endless road construction that are never enough because each is too small make a difference that lasts.
I hate to say it but my response to this news, "Ho, hum, so what else is new?"
Posted by: JB on February 16, 2005 10:19 PMAnd to dkpcowboy - you got it dead on --
Posted by: Bill on February 16, 2005 10:37 PMCalifornia has lots of problems, but in many ways they are light years ahead of Washington, and transportation is one area where they are making great strides to deal with difficult geographies and many more people and cars than we have in Washington.
But, forget about California, Washingtonions need only look a couple hundred miles South to Portland to see much better transportation. Portland built below street level loop freeways, major freeway bridges, beltways, etc. around the city all in the 60s and 70s. Then in the 80s and 90s and continuing today, they builing a great light rail system, that actually services commute corridors. What a concept.
Portland, and cities in California are achieving results by setting realistic long term goals much like Paris, London, New York, etc. did with their mass transit systems. London has a great Mass Transit System not because they passed a bazillion dollar bond for an amusement ride going nowhere, but because they started out with a reasonable line and have expanded it over 100 years.
The Puget Sound area suffers from the lack of any kind of regional planning and a never ending stream of politicians hoping to capitalize on some ridiculous boondoggle like the Monorail.
Ballard is nowhere when it comes to useful mass transit. Why not link major suburban areas via a much cheaper light rail technology over a reasonable 100 year plan instead of wasting money on a ridiculous fantasy like the Monorail? Nostalgists are clinging to this project because of amusement ride from the 1962 World's Fair, but that's no reason to spend taxpayer dollars or put the city and state into massive debt.
Washington needs to wake up and address the transportation problems of the Puget Sound area rationally, with solid, feasible, affordable policy for both automobiles and mass transit or the these problems will last for another 50 years or more.
At first glance, it's not looking good. With only one major North-South corridor/ Interstate narrowing to two lanes through the downtown, expensive disasters like the Monorail, Sound Transit, and putting the Alaskan Way Viaduct underground it's looking worse. And with leaders like Ron Sims, Seattle is flat-out doomed.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 16, 2005 11:56 PMAs for mass transit, only in Seattle would people worry about getting the Ballard Birkenstock crowd around. Everywhere else, planners would worry about getting the real commuters around.
but... then again, this is the crowd that votes in Jim McDermott every election so common sense clearly is lacking...
Posted by: dan on February 17, 2005 12:16 AMWhen was the last time you can remember the downtown core seeing a transportation problem and choosing from viable alternatives?
Their typical solution is to spend billions of dollars, waste years of valuable time...all to add just one lane of traffic...which is dedicated to HOV traffic that doesn't bother to show up.
It's not about solving problems. It's about legalized extortion and social engineering.
Posted by: scott158 on February 17, 2005 04:25 AMI moved to Washington state over a decade ago, and these Washington highways have been a nagging irritation to me ever since...not enough road signs; poorly designed junctions; often times no signs to turn until right at the last minute (Right turn Clide" - when your in the wrong lane); and look at that wash board of a freeway in-between Tacoma and Seattle! What a Joke! Who are the contractors that built that stretch?? This state should never hire them again...but they will! But if you drive the 10 mile stretch in front of the State Capital on I-5...smooth as glass...and lights everywhere! I bet the Democrats made sure of that in the last 20 years.
As a boy, I still remember people voting on the BART system in the SF Bay Area. What a disaster that turned out to be...just like so many other similar projets across the country. Seattle steps up to the plate and follows sute! Pssst...here's a secret to all those liberals in charge of these transportation issues: Success is not in a massive transit system...successful transportation is in the development of supperior and adequate highways!
So don't let the REVOTE issue die out: It will take decades to fix the problems Democrats have made these past 20 years! Dinno has a lot of work ahead of him...
Re-Re-Elect Dinno Rossie for Governor and begin to put out so many fires in this state!
Posted by: Jerry Hancock on February 17, 2005 06:13 AMGlad I'm not paying for that.
Jim
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on February 17, 2005 09:52 AMThe segment that Clark County voters rejected in 1995 has been redesigned, also a major improvement. The earlier design went north from downtown Vancouver to near the County fairgrounds. The new design runs east to Vancouver Mall, serves more people and can eventually run across the I-205 bridge across the Columbia and connect to Eastside MAX and Airport MAX. Not bad.
My point is, as in my earlier posts, rail lines can and must be built to high standards. I was glad the earlier MAX segment into Vancouver was rejected, but the current design is worth more careful scrutiny. It's a design that responds to Vancouver demands for a better project.
I wouldn't use the term "out-of-control" here. Not when the type of things you indicate we will be hearing about soon will have to do with scope cutbacks. Out of control would be if they were looking to add to the scope.
What we should be encouraging here is re-opening the bidding to Bombardier who have indicated their desire to provide a competing bid.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 17, 2005 10:21 AMYour point in earlier posts was cast slanderous accusations at Stefan:
"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."
You are a troll, Artie. You have no credibility here until you apologize. We're waiting.
And don't accuse me of violating your First Amendment rights or of trying to quiet you or discredit you unfairly. Those words above are yours, you wrote them, and only you can take them back by saying that you are sorry because you have no proof whatsoever behind your accusations.
Posted by: Larry on February 17, 2005 10:52 AMAlso:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-pornsloss.htm
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ports-n.html
Note that the original referendum that passed in 1996 was a general operating referendum (which was mostly intended for new roadways), when they went back to the voters in 1998 after Clark County said no, the Oregon voters also said no.
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on February 17, 2005 11:19 AMNow there is a non-biased site.
Posted by: CandrewB on February 17, 2005 11:28 AMJim
Has anyone looked at the actual busses taking that route? The 15 follows essentially the identical route, (full, with peak times of 10 minutes apart), and there's a pile of others.
What's the key feature of all of the 'ballard' buses other than the 44 & 46? The word 'downtown' comes to mind.
I only have person experience with the 15, but that sucker is filled when it crosses the Ballard Bridge whenever I've used it.
The inclination to cancel the monorail over a $200 million increase while charging forward with light rail after the original route is over a billion over budget is nuts. The route Sound Transit has decided on doesn't leave a lot of options as far as crossing the cut is concerned - locking out anything remotely approaching a sane price range.
Posted by: AL on February 17, 2005 11:58 AMI grew up in Portland. I lived there from 1973 to 1985. And I go back to Portland all the time to vist family. It is true that some of the ways that Metro pushed through light rail were heavy handed, and there are ridiculous carpool lanes, and empty buses, etc. However, when you compare Portland to all other cities it's size or larger on the West Coast, it is far ahead in terms of mass transit and adequate freeway infrastructure. Portland built light rail lines in the four cardinal directions, lines that really do service commute corridors, etc. I know there were fiascos like Vera's personal street car line, etc. but in general, Portland has done pretty well.
There is simply no comparison for Seattle. The Puget Sound is in real danger from a traffic and infrastructure standpoint. Ferries are overpriced and inadequate because there a very few private ferries. Buses are empty, Sound Transit trains are empty, the few freeways that service such a large Metro area are often in gridlock with very poor interchanges and critical bottlenecks, and the future of mass transit is based on an amusement park ride to Ballard.
I'm certainly not defending all of the bad decisions that Portland and many other cities have made, and all of the waste of tax dollars, etc. But at some point, the needs of infrastructure trump the whinings of all those who oppose freeways and mass transit. So the question is not so much if, as when, and how much will it cost. Might as well do it right if it's going to be done. In that this post is about the Monorail, let's all be clear that the Monorail is a big mistake, a costly, ridiculous Jetson style fantasy that will not go anywhere that real mass transit is needed.
From this perspective, Seattle is an absolute joke and is far behind Portland.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 17, 2005 12:12 PMNo question that buses to Ballard are full, but in the big scheme of things, if you are starting on mass transit in a City that ostensibly has none, do you start with Ballard? No. There a much denser population centers to the South, East and North that should connect with downtown first. Or what about the packed bridge problems going East-West across the lake?
And there are much cheaper and higher capacity ways to build mass transit than monorail. Monorail looks cool and futuristic, but it's not necessary to look cool when biliions are at stake.
And while I'm commenting, the underlying premise of the whole utopian liberal fantasy of mass transit is that people will abandon cars and use clean, fast mass transit to go about their lives. But in order for us to get away from our automobile dominated culture, it will take years of rail building before we ever get the mass transit structure to the point that it can displace autos on any kind of scale.
A sure fire way to make the goal of reduced dependence on the auto further from attainability is to spend billions on a ridiculous amusement park ride that is not scalable to the geography as a whole. Once taxpayers see the fiasco that the Monorail would become, they will be even more reluctant to authorize the utopians to continue building expensive and less than useful systems. Meanwhile, funds will have been diverted from the more urgent needs of maintaining and improving the infrastructure for autos which will dominate our transportation landscape for at least the next 50 years.
Sprinkle a healthy dose of environmentalist fanaticism and corrupt County Executives and other politicians on top of all of the above, and it all spells doom for Puget Sound transit. For all of our transportation problems, we need real leadership, and that's certainly not coming from our illegitimate Governor.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 17, 2005 12:32 PMwhen organized labor, the Seattle city and King county councils and the executives of these transit agencies are so clearly in bed with one another, it makes Artie's contentions that much more absurd. i doubt that I am alone in feeling that the leadership of Seattle's various agencies and organized labor are in complete cahoots to ramrod these public works projects down our gullets. if that means paying a few union stooges to stuff the ballot boxes on election night, then so be it. our elections officials will comply when push comes to shove.
in light of what we learned about King County this year, does anyone have any doubts that the monorail employed a similar strategy? going into the last day of counting, the monorail initiative was behind by a couple hundred votes only to have the last day of counting deliver an 800 vote victory. that story sounds familiar for some reason.........
Posted by: Rex on February 17, 2005 12:36 PMClark County Jim, Public Purpose is completely biased against rail transit.
The first vote in the Portland Metropolitan Area for South/North MAX was in 1994. It passed. In 1995, Clark County voters rejected their share, a $250 mil bond measure. (The initial route to Clark County Fairgrounds neglected the larger ridership base of East Clark County. I'm glad it was rejected, but what voters are considering today is an improved project). In 1996, the State of Oregon voters rejected another share of the project, $250 mil. The two, voter rejections altered the project enough to nulify the intent that Portland area voters expected in 1994. So, it went back to the ballot in 1998 and was rejected because light rail advocacy groups insisted the project had to be improved.
Interstate MAX has proved to be a lower-cost, lower-impact, higher ridership project that more Portlanders use and support. It was an ugly battle, but the people won. Seattle is in a similar situation - Link and the monorail have to be improved. Hold Sound Transit and SMP feet to the fire. They are not disclosing Seattle's options for improving these projects.
Posted by: Artie on February 17, 2005 12:53 PMBTW, my commute time would be greatly reduced if Oregon would fix the bottleneck on I-5 in Delta Park (which they said they'd do ONLY if Washingtom put a carpool lane on our side of the Columbia, we did it, but no plans yet to fix the problem), and replace the I-5 bridge (in the idea stage right now, no telling what that is going to cost?).
Face it, you're a libelous troll, okay? Your post "challenges Sharkansky's bias and credibility"? No, it goes much further, Artie Fartie.
"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."
That doesn't read like a credibility challenge. The only reason you can say that your focus was not on personal slander was that slander is oral. Your focus WAS on personal libel. In case you don't know the definition of libel, here it is: "a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression".
You wrote it; it is defamatory and unfavorable; and it is completely unjust. You have offered no proof to your accusations. I have proof of my accusations against you - your written statements.
You have no credibility here. As Rex said, you are delusional at best, libelous at worst. I say you are both.
Posted by: Larry on February 17, 2005 01:06 PMI agree that on flat terrain ground level light rail will be cheaper. Elevated light rail is clearly not cheaper. And bridges are far more expensive. Regardless, the approach of Sound Transit is going to have a _single_ water crossing route that costs more than the entire length of the monorail. (This is the 'second' piece of the ST rail line that the first line requires to make sense.)
Is Northgate to downtown better? Yes.
Is Southcenter/Airport to downtown better? Yes. (More because of SC than the airport).
But those routes are the exact ones already committed to! So what would your _NEXT_ choice be? The 'cross the lake' route is tough to do without leaving the city limits.
"And while I'm commenting, the underlying premise of the whole utopian liberal fantasy of mass transit is that people will abandon cars and use clean, fast mass transit to go about their lives."
I agree completely. I base it on comparing operational costs. Having the city pay $10-plus per rider trip in just the operational costs is completely nuts - even if the startup costs were half as expensive. And ST isn't half as expensive.
So here's the question: Is the operating cost of 6 bus routes starting in the same general area and ending in the same general area greater than the operating cost of (A: light rail, B: elevated light rail, C: monorail). (A:Yes, B:maybe, C:heck yes)
The 'it doesn't go anywhere' concern is salved somewhat by looking at a map and discovering a pretty straight shot up Holman/105th to Northgate - another 2 miles (roughly $200 million). No, I don't know why that wasn't part of the initial proposal. Northgate to downtown though _is_ one of the top routes.
Posted by: Al on February 17, 2005 01:13 PMWhy does it have to be elevated? I'm pretty sure that ground level is much cheaper to build.
Just a thought. But probably beating a dead horse.
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on February 17, 2005 01:20 PMWill broadcast corporations question whether Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technology is a preposterous hoax while TV and Radio derive significant income from their car ads? Is that an honest question or a radical one?
I try to present my position as Moderate, (albeit Left-leaning Moderate), but it's not easy when many Right wing partisans refuse to consider any position to the left of the Far Right. I believe corruption and incompetence are rampant and am concerned that Seattle is investing in transit projects that are predictable failures. C'mon. Mine is a politically Moderate position seeking compromise. The monorail project's current design should be shelved.
Posted by: Artie on February 17, 2005 01:26 PMClark County Jim, You should know that fixing the Delta Park bottleneck is in the works and has priority. Portland built the Jackson Bridge and I-205 about 25 years ago. The Banfield Freeway was widened with the original MAX line. All Portland area freeways have been expanded and new ramps added, over the years. Hwy 217 between Beaverton and Tigard had stoplights 20 years ago. These road projects prove that the Portland freeway system is NOT being "ignored".
Consider what bringing MAX to Downtown Vancouver and then east to Vancouver Mall would do. Besides offering many people a fast, comfortable option for getting to Portland destinations, it would very likely build 1000's of jobs in Vancouver, filled mostly by Vancouver residents, who then have less need for commuting to Portland, reducing freeway congestion for those who must drive, like yourself.
Ask how Vancouver is going to grow, as all US cities will, over the coming decades. Will Vancouverites have even more need to commute to Portland? Or, would it be better to build jobs in Vancouver and reduce the need for commuting? Bringing light rail over the river will accellerate downtown development. Running the line from downtown to Vancouver Mall will create a dynamic that serves Vancouverites more than it serves Portland.
What's happening with Seattle's rail transit projects is baffling. Total incompetence in Seattle. Worst rail planning in the nation. Portland's are among the best. The Portland Streetcar too is excellent design. The new Seattle Streetcar line from Lake Union is extremely accident-prone and senselessly dead-ends at the Shawping Mahl. Don't compare Seattle engineering with Portland engineering. There's some kind of rivalry between the cities. Seattle is jealous of Portland. What Portland does well, Seattle decides to corrupt, thinking any direction other than Portland's widely-acclaimed examples of excellent engineering make Seattle look a sort of less talented sister.
"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."
I'm overreacting? You're a libelous troll.
"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."
"If organized labor, Seattle City and County Councils and transit agencies are 'clearly' in bed with each other, then my contention that backroom deals are being made is logical."
"Mine is a politically Moderate position seeking compromise."
"You're a big poo-poo doodle fussy boy. You can quote me on that. Go ahead. Tell mommy I called you a big poo-poo doodle fussy boy. See if I care."
You're a woman of inherently complex contradictions, Artie.
Posted by: Larry on February 17, 2005 02:45 PMhttp://www.odot.state.or.us/region1/f_i5p_lombard/index.htm
Please show me where anybody says (besides yourself) that bringing light rail to Vancouver from Portland will create "1000's of jobs". Even the current strategic plan for this project doesn't attempt to get into numbers. Except where they state that they anticipate a 2% reduction in vehicular traffic on I-5 with light rail implemented. Doesn't seem to me that the cost would outway the benefit. There are some very good things in the plan, I'm just not sure that LRT is the way to go here.
http://www.i-5partnership.com/assets/strategic_plan.pdf
Jim
Posted by: Jim in Clark County on February 17, 2005 03:28 PMLook at the monorail route through Seattle. It would indeed be cheaper at ground level - but it would cost a minimum of a full lane of traffic down 2nd ave. Two for bidirectional. The additional cost of 'ground level' only occurs inside cities where flattening a building or two (on each block) to widen the road ends up being the only option. That or tunneling.
But the actual construction costs of the _track_, even elevated track isn't that high. The pricey parts are bridges and stations. A replacement Alaskan Way _Viaduct_ was quoted at $750 million back right after the Nisqually quake. Handling the same volume of cars at ground level would mean flattening at least one row of buildings, while the initial 'tunnel' plan was $14 billion.
Posted by: Al on February 17, 2005 04:00 PMLike building a rail line to nowhere - runs fast, but doesn't serve enough people to justify the cost. This argument is completely absent in public debate. There should be no doubt that Seattle agencies are fully aware of modest alterations to the routes which would improve ridership expectations, but are most likely nixed by special interests pulling strings in backrooms.
To justify the costs of building a MAX extension to Vancouver, ridership is based not just on Vancouver-to-Portland riders, but also on riders from Portland-to-Vancouver; that is, filling the seats in both directions. Not that complex a concept.
This means guiding Vancouver growth and development which will occur anyway downtown at the end of the 1st segment near VA Hospital. Downtown Vancouver development then, is based on serving both Vancouverites and regional travellers, touring, dining, hotel stays, taking in shows and events, all of which creates jobs, indeed 1000's of jobs in the long run. Vancouverites get an economic powerhouse downtown.
The next segment is even better. The 2nd Phase, Downtown to Vancouver Mall, more specifically serves Vancouverites, and extends the economic activity eastward at every station, especially at Vancouver Mall; more jobs, more amenities, services, development, income, etc. Commuting from East Clark County gains a new direction; less into Portland, more into Downtown Vancouver, more travellers heading east, less commuting overall when station area development creates jobs filled by more locals - 1000's of jobs. Vancouver's Mayor has been touting job growth recently and he's right. Jobs are coming.
That's the basic theory of building ridership via guiding growth with station area development. Growth is going to happen - either more suburban sprawl, more roads and traffic and those costs, or growth that incorporates mass transit optimally with rail, or, in the Seattle worst-case example, poorly guided growth with rail because Seattle engineers have had their heads up their butt for so long, half of 'em don't know what they're doing and the other half are pulling strings that undermine the transit investment and unsurprisingly result in monumental traffic.
Doesn't all this sound like I know what I'm talking about? It always surprises me when people respond with, "Huh? You say whaa? Yew don't know wut yer takin bout. Gimme some figgers".
Posted by: Artie on February 17, 2005 10:12 PM"Doesn't all this sound like I know what I'm talking about? It always surprises me when people respond with, "Huh? You say whaa? Yew don't know wut yer takin bout. Gimme some figgers"."
"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."
Artie, you have no clue what you are talking about, and no evidence to back it up.
Posted by: Larry on February 18, 2005 07:19 AMPosted by: Artie on February 18, 2005 12:40 PM
The only one laughing with you is you. The rest of us are laughing at you. Enjoy your little joke inside your little mind.
Posted by: Larry on February 18, 2005 03:21 PM