More bad news for the Seattle Monorail: "Major monorail partner pulls out of project".
After investing four years and more than $5 million, Washington Group International (WGI) decided earlier this month to withdraw from the Cascadia Monorail Co., a consortium of 29 companies, that is the sole bidder to build the 14-mile-long elevated railway from Ballard to West Seattle.Pretty soon, the one left still willing to build the Seattle Monorail will be the guy from Niles, California who built a monorail in his backyard.
Nevertheless, Seattle Monorail director Joel Horn is still optimistic that the system will still get built
Horn remarked before that meeting that he's "99.8 percent, 99.9 percent" sure he can forge a deal with Cascadia.99.8%? Great. All we need is another public agency that's no more accurate than the King County Elections office.
Bombardier dropped out last year because the bidding rules forced them out. They could not post a performance bond, but BOmbardier has a lot of buisness up here. They built the Skytrain cars in Vancouver, Sounder and West Coast Express(Vancouver) commuter coaches, first generation MAX Cars in Portland(1986 and still ticking), and the new people mover at Sea-Tac Airport. I do not know if Hitachi had any experience building transit in this area.
The Design Build Operate Maintain Contract is sound. I have been following construction on the internet of a Light Rail Line in Northern New Jersey, using that type of contracting. It is almost complete, and I think the contractor that pulled out today, worked on the Hudson-Bergen LRT line. The first segment opened a little late, but so far, the third MOS(Minimum Operating Segment) is almost complete.
Bombardier has a lot of experience building transit in North America. I admit they built the flop that they could call the Las Vegas Monorail, but they learned from it, and re-did their bid.
I am taking the middle aproach, order a re-submital of bids. The SMP promised that they would not be like Sound Transit. THey already have broken the promise. A one year delay would not be that bad, if it could lead to brining the project in on budget.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 28, 2005 10:46 AMExplain to me why this is preferable to lettin' great Aunt Sophie ride a bus. Heck, it'd be cheaper to just send out a fleet of limos.
What are you people smoking?????? It's gotta be illegal.
Posted by: scott158 on April 28, 2005 10:56 AMabout Horn's comments...I think that it's his cyber signal to the family back home to sell Cascadia Monorail Co. stock short...
Posted by: scott158 on April 28, 2005 10:59 AMIf the average cab ride to SeaTac were/is $30, that would be well over 46 million cab rides, did I do that math right?
This thing smells like the dead, for 2 weeks, rat I just found in my garage. How come half of Seattle doesnt smell it?
Posted by: CB on April 28, 2005 11:20 AMJoel is a very persuasive and charismatic person. But he really has not accomplished anything in his career (other than getting Paul Schell elected). He has gone from failed project to failed project while somehow managing to live well on other people's money.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on April 28, 2005 11:24 AMThe route should be the main question and objection. That the decisions were made behind closed doors and formal engineering drafts still secret is alone enough reason for skepticism. As is, the monorail is not visionary - it's a rush job.
Posted by: Artie on April 28, 2005 11:34 AMI see exactly what you mean. It was obviously Karl Rove that told Washington Group International to pull out of the Cascadia Corp.
Or you might be referring to the fact that the reason stated was that 'the business risks were too great.' And since only Republicans actually KNOW how to run a business and judge risk and reward, it's easy to assume that Republicans are behind it.
Posted by: Larry on April 28, 2005 12:01 PMThank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of this board even better than I was trying to do.
And Fred, you got your re-vote on the Monorail after the squeeker, and it went by in flying colors that (the third) time.
Posted by: JDB on April 28, 2005 01:11 PM"Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of this board even better than I was trying to do."
By "this board", I assume you mean the Monorail (Authority) board. Otherwise, your statement makes no sense, and after a brief bout with lucidity you are back to your usual self.
Posted by: Larry on April 28, 2005 01:14 PMCascadia = Hitler
Posted by: Broke Taxpayer on April 28, 2005 01:29 PMhttp://www.thestranger.com/2002-01-31/city2.html
Look...in the run-up to the monorail votes, the lib/soc. engineering prognosticators obviously understated the costs and overstated the feasibility...
...and all on a vote topic that is the election equivalent of Daddy comin' home saying, "Alright, kiddies, who wants to go to Disneyland?"
The ONLY reason this project may have any life in it at all is the fact that unchecked leftists have checked their logic and sense of fealty at the door.
Do a google on "denial." You're only hurting yourself.
Posted by: scott158 on April 28, 2005 02:14 PMI live in W. Seattle and commute to Ballard... not a bad commute at all unless you figure in an accident or two on the viaduct and/or I5 that backs traffic up everywhere so even the buses can't get anywhere.
Seattle can not afford to go another 20 years without getting the backbone of a monorail/rail system inplace. You can't build it in every direction overnight or take it to the Vashon Ferry or the airport right away... but you have to start somewhere and expand (and pay for) it over time.
Sure, there are idiots running the monorail show and poor decisions are being made regarding routes, train types, station design etc. That's all the more reason for an injection of sensible thinking to solve the problem instead of just cries to shit can it altogether.
Posted by: Waingro on April 28, 2005 02:25 PMImagine a world w/ McDonalds or Costco running the transit (e.g. someone who spends our money for the most # of people)
Posted by: righton on April 28, 2005 02:37 PMAs was pointed out, there have been four approving votes. And the last vote, an attempt to defund the monorail, failed misserably even after all the wingnuts had a year to raise all the issues you sighted. It should also be noted that no state money is being spent by the State, this is purely a Seattle issue.
Waingro:
Wow, a logical, sensible piece of criticism on this board. Are you sure you meant to post here?
I don't agree with everything you said, but the basic idea (we need to get a decent rail based mass transit section moving in this area) is sound. If we spent as much on rails as we do per passenger mile for road, we would have a great rail system, and our traffic problems would be sharply decreased. At least we are finally, after thirty years of whining by the likes of the Minnow.
I'm just currious how many of the people whining here about sound transit or the monorail actually live in there service/taxing districts. I have a nagging suspicion that most complaining here are just complaining because they assume such things are all commie plots.
Posted by: JDB on April 28, 2005 02:39 PMLet them squeak one vote through by the narrowest of margins, and if the opposition seeks to redress the issue, the left sends up howls of protest that “the people have spoken, it’s a done deal, time to move on.”
Alternately, they fudge the numbers and the feasibility and manage to get a bill through by deceit and/or smoke screen, and in the left’s collective mind, it would be abhorrent to have a new and more well reasoned vote. As with the monorail.
“What, openness and accountability??? But the people have spoken.”
Back when I was a kid, I thought that having an extensive monorail system was a great idea. I also liked the Jetsons.
I outgrew both of them. There’s something about growing up and studying economics/finance/history, etc that will do that to a person. Proposals need to make sense, not appeal to normative beliefs. We visit Disneyland…we don’t actually live there.
Wanna know why Disneyland worked? A combination of a good idea, and planners that made sure each step made sense financially. They had accountability back to the board/owners.
JDB, you’ve proven that it doesn’t matter to you that it’s almost certain that the public’s will regarding the gov election was circumvented or that the KCE counting was so flawed that no one short of God can possibly go back and find out who won. And you cite the Monorail election results as being etched in stone. That is hypocrisy and partisanship, not integrity and honesty.
Initial backers of a proposal don't back out of a deal because the numbers turned out to work out as originally expected.
Posted by: scott158 on April 28, 2005 03:17 PMI live on Queen Anne hill and I work in Bellevue. As currently specified, I will never ride the monorail. I commute by automobile, I take the #2 or #13 bus downtown, and the monorail will not change that one iota.
Futhermore, I think it's bass-ackwards that the people who are paying for the monorail (automobile owners) will likely never use it, yet the people who will use it (people who don't own autos) will never pay for it. And if I do want to ride it I'll pay the same for my ticket as someone who lives in Bellevue or Enumclaw and has contributed nothing to the project.
It's not a commie plot. It's just good idea gone horribly bad through typical Seattle bureaucracy, and it'll be a 2 billion dollar boondoggle at best. Thanks for asking.
Posted by: Larry on April 28, 2005 03:23 PMhttp://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0518/050504_news_monorail.php
Which includes this quote: "Half of the sole bidder's construction-team leadership was suddenly pulling out because of the financial risks. But despite a mantra of "transparency" to keep the public informed, SMP made no such announcement. The monorail staff and board never mentioned this stunning turn of events."
Why, exactly, JDB, are we supposed to just simply shut up and write checks????
Is there any aspect of your life where you actually have to be personally accountable? Do you similarly feel a resentment to those that hold YOU responsible?
Such questions seem reasonable in light of your blind loyalty to the cause.
There are perfectly good reasons why the route goes where it does. And while several of the decisions may be controversial, it's well-documented how each route decisions responded to a large number of Seattleites.
The route doesn't go the Vashon Ferry dock because folks in the neighborhood don't want it to, the ferry run may be eliminated, Vashon folks don't pay the MVET, and if they were going Downtown without a car they would be taking the passenger ferry directly there.
The route doesn't go to the Admiral District in West Seattle because folks in that neighborhood didn't want it coming there. So if many people don't want to ride it, why would we build it to them?
It runs down 5th Avenue instead of 2nd Avenue because there is more ridership there.
There is also the problem of having two monorails running three blocks apart.
Posted by: FoM Prez on April 28, 2005 04:33 PMThere are perfectly good reasons why the route goes where it does. And while several of the decisions may be controversial, it's well-documented how each route decisions responded to a large number of Seattleites.
The route doesn't go the Vashon Ferry dock because folks in the neighborhood don't want it to, the ferry run may be eliminated, Vashon folks don't pay the MVET, and if they were going Downtown without a car they would be taking the passenger ferry directly there.
The route doesn't go to the Admiral District in West Seattle because folks in that neighborhood didn't want it coming there. So if many people don't want to ride it, why would we build it to them?
It runs down 5th Avenue instead of 2nd Avenue because there is more ridership there.
There is also the problem of having two monorails running three blocks apart.
Posted by: FoM Prez on April 28, 2005 04:33 PMMetro routes are congested in Seattle. I was riding a #3 yesterday between Providence Hospital and Downtown Seattle, and it was standing room only. ALso, I was on a midday run of the 150 from University St. Station to Holgate St, and that bus was full. I am against a monorail on the First Hill routes because their is no room for a monorail there, but perhaps better bus priority systems, perhaps removing the parking strips on Jefforson St and using those as Bus Priority lanes between Providence Hospital, Harborview Hospital, and and then onto 9th Ave, and down James St. I am not entirely for spending on mega-transit projects.
The Monorail Authority, in their planning documents( I read the ones on their site), mentioned that it may be hard for their lines to connect with each other, hurting the ability to interchange trains between lines. At least with Sound Transit, once a North/South Spine Line is completed, they can plug branches into it. Just like the East/West line Spine in Portland. It seems TriMet has plans for more branches out of it, and a few unofficial plans from advocacy groups for a more comprehensive system.
With the Monorail, they thought too big. A simple extension of the existing one to King St. Station would have been better, but since it would have cost way less, politicians would have been opposed to it.
I voted for the recall, but it seems people did not agree. I-83 was rejected by almost the same margins as the Fire Levy and Libraries for All passed by.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 28, 2005 04:40 PMI love it when people are impatient and hit the 'Post' button twice.
Anyway - can you give me a good reason why the monorail will not go to Seatac airport? And if you say 'Because Seatac is not contributing' I ask 'Should that matter as long as Seattle is collecting the ticket fares to the airport?'
Or, try this - can you please name successful rail mass transit systems in the world that are not connected by rail to the major transportation hub (namely airports) in their cities?
Posted by: Larry on April 28, 2005 04:49 PMSo, instead of routing it towards the King County International Airport Terminal on Airport Way, and around, they decided why not run it in the Ranier Valley.
Also, Route 42, except for the stretches in Skyway, and S. Dearborn St, is duplicated by other routes. The 7 and 48. It could be pared back to a Skyway-Ranier Beach only route, some of the trips on the 7 be diverted to Dearborn St. Metro has already cut an underperforming portion of the 39 off, the Southcenter leg. They used those hours freed up to have Sunday Service on the route(which operates 11-5) run through to Downtown. That route's biggest performing segment if VA Medical Center to Busway and Spokane St.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 28, 2005 04:55 PMTransit guys wanna help poor people ride the bus, then regular bus people ride the bus more, they never get around to getting people out of their cars....
Posted by: Righton on April 28, 2005 05:08 PMBART has one complaint I keep hearing on websites is, not enough parking at their stations. They never thought they would be a success. The Freeways were not designed for RoW to be preserved for future transit use. I think, after seeing I-5 fill up after opening, Oregon DoT provided RoW for TriMet to later use on I-205. It took them 30 years to actually use it, and in a few years, they will have used all of it.
In fact, in San Jose, some of the Santa Clara Valley Tranist Authority's LRT routes, were only approved as part of highway widening, same in the case of Salt Lake City, and Denver. Every city that builds one line, has always had the urge to expand the system. As part of the I-405 improvements, there are proposals to use the BNSF Eastside Line, which in the Renton-Bellevue Corridor, parallels I-405, as either a Busway or LRT line. Monorail is out on the eastside for three reasons. In some spots the geography makes it cost prohibitive. Hitachi looked at the Mt. Baker tunnels, said their trains could not get through, Bombardier said, with modifications, yes. They can use the I-90 floating bridge by running at grade in the Express lanes. On several segments on the Eastside, they said Monorail would carry less than 8000 passengers, not an hour, but a day.
Even I agree that would not work over there, and so does Sound Transit.
A Rail Transit line within sight of a freeway is the best thing. Seattle Transit asked the state to do that 50 years ago, but no Right of Way was set aside. Now there is literally no room. In fact, that is why North of Northgate(whenever it gets built), they are considering running it via SR99 and Paine Field.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 28, 2005 05:28 PMRunning the monorail on 2nd is duplicative alongside the bus lines and the tunnel. The Waterfront lacks transit service, the visual impact of the monorail line there is minimal, and the ride has a great view.
Boy oh boy, nobody but dumb hippys object to the route through the useless Seattle Center Grounds. Cut the trees down, dang it. Seattlers hate trees and parks.
There are 2 ways to Ballard: Interbay and East Queen Anne. The east route first serves Denny Triangle and Lake Union. If it goes up and down Dexter, Upper Queen Anne and Aurora transit connections are made. If it stays on Westlake it serves Seattle Pacific University and neighborhood. Then, instead of a 120' high bridge, a short tunnel under the canal before entering Ballard costs less.
This East Alternative Route has double the ridership and double the development potential. All segments of the proposed route have serious shortcomings. Why arrange the route to serve the least people? Is it too icky for FoM Prez to answer the tough questions?
Now to serve Ballard from the West, an extension of the Waterfront Streetcar would be better, and it could use the Ballard Bridge, I think it had been done once before. I know I have seen pictures of streetcars on the Fremont and University Bridges.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 28, 2005 08:52 PMI believe we have reached a consensus on this!
Now we need to print the bumper stickers.....
Posted by: Deborah on April 28, 2005 09:24 PMThis talk about possible and more desireable routes strengthens the argument that the existing route is not acceptable, no matter the cost. If the SMP produced a better route, I'd be supportive. Frankly, it looks to me like they're not really interested in doing the right thing.
Posted by: Artie on April 29, 2005 10:38 AMI have no problem with accountability. What I have problemw with are 1) hypocrisy and 2) people like Deborah and the Minnow who think just because things aren't perfect, they must be destroyed. Note, from reading this entire thread, Deborah ignored your arguements and others, and just wants to get rid of the Monorail because she believes there is a consensus. Nevermind that it is a consensus of one.
If you want to discuss rationally ways that we can achieve what the people want, while keeping expenses in line, hey, I'm all for it. Occasionally rational discussions break out on this board.
Posted by: JDB on April 29, 2005 10:41 AMThey happen all the time, but never involving you. It isn't that opportunities haven't presented themselves, it's just that your rhetoric gets the best of you (you can't help yourself).
But that's OK, because you're amusing just the way you are.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 29, 2005 01:13 PMBut don't feel bad, in a board of trolls, someone like you can easily be king.
Posted by: JDB on April 29, 2005 01:50 PMhttp://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0518/050504_news_monorail.php