Getting The Monorail On Track

A good front page article in today's Seattle Times by Mike Lindblom addresses the constraints the Seattle Monorail project has had to live within that I mentioned in my previous posting.

Lindblom provides a detailed explanation of how the financing was projected, and how those projections were affected by the choice of the type of tax, lost revenue from an overestimation of the number of cars and people avoiding the tax by registering outside the city, and higher development costs.

But I want to highlight the last part of the article:

There are many ways to react when money gets tight on a megaproject; the monorail agency made commitments that limit some choices.

Shorten the line?

The 2002 measure to create the Green Line tax, requires all 14 miles from Ballard to West Seattle. It cannot be shortened without a public vote.

Monorail backers wanted to show they wouldn't follow the example of Sound Transit, which shortened its initial light-rail corridor because of cost overruns.

Raise more money?

The ballot measure fixed the tax rate at $140 per $10,000 of vehicle value.

A tax increase would require another bruising campaign, after the 2002 measure passed by just 877 votes.

Monorail officials have mentioned tapping a proposed "traffic mitigation" fund for the state's proposed Alaskan Way Viaduct tunneling project. Williamson said the monorail will serve commuters while the highway is closed.

Simplify the design?

Design cuts already are under way, yet the price remains roughly $400 million above the original $1.75 billion estimate.

Landmark stations, with elaborate windows and unique roofs, were scrapped in favor of standard open-air layouts. Two stations were cut, and SMP can afford only 13 trains for now, compared with the expected 19.

Falkenbury says the entire project should have been simpler. He faults SMP for introducing extra track switches and multiple column shapes, while Vancouver SkyTrain saves money with standardized trackways.

"What we've done is taken a simple process of building a Tinkertoylike system with two rails, and we've turned it into the opposite," he said. "The basic idea of getting up in the air is a good one — I would swallow right now, and approve the contract."

Stretch the payments?

This has become SMP's main option.

Voters approved a debt cap of $1.5 billion, in 2002 dollars. (As of this month, the cap is $1.7 billion.) The ballot measure put no limit on the overall dollars raised, nor an expiration date on the tax.

SMP intends to time the bond sales and defer interest payments to stay under the cap, which applies only to the principal.

The City Council's financial review is limited to whether SMP can afford to build the line and run it the first five years. Until this week, the council didn't envision debating the wisdom of a 50-year tax.

Before I chime in with my opinion, let's also consider what Danny Westneat thinks:

Look, I love the monorail. But this plan doesn't pencil. The only rational paths now are to shorten the line substantially and put it back out for bid, or keep all 14 miles and ask the voters for more money.

Or cancel it. Let's not forget there's another feature of the monorail that makes it superior to other projects — it can still be canceled.

It really seems that we now have all the information needed for voters to make an informed decision and that the question should most appropriately be put to the public for a vote. I realize that there have already been four votes on the Monorail project, but none would be more important than a vote that puts these options up for consideration.

For my part, I believe that a solution should be found that can more quickly pay off the cost of this project, while simplifying the design a bit to cut some costs. Voters should be presented with various alternatives that address the need to compromise on two key limitations the Monorail project has had to live within: the 1.4% MVET and the 14 mile line promise. The tax should be raised, or supplemented in some way, and/or the line should be shortened, and the public should be allowed to decide which of those options are acceptable.

This is the people's project after all, so it is time for the people to get back involved and help remove some of the limitations that have tied the hands of the project planners. This is important work that deserves our continued, but reasoned, commitment. (nwphtt55)