SEATTLE — Several billion dollars from now, commuters could be whizzing in light-rail trains and elevated monorail cars from Northgate to downtown Seattle and beyond, the Seattle Times reports.
For drivers stuck in traffic, that might sound like utopia. But many officials involved with the projects question whether the region can afford to do both.
Costs for two 14-mile starter systems could easily top $3 billion. Hundreds of millions more would be needed for expansion.
Even if the money could be found, there’s skepticism about paying for different train technologies, when one could do the job. Building both means paying for separate support systems, including staffs, maintenance bases and even spare parts.
“There is a difference between what’s feasible and what’s practical,” said Seattle Mayor Paul Schell, echoing the thoughts of several elected officials. “There are obvious advantages to using one system.”
Schell is leaving office in January after his primary-election loss but has been serving on the Sound Transit board overseeing light rail and has become increasingly supportive of monorail this year. He sees the two projects in a head-to-head competition for public support and increasingly scarce tax dollars.
“We’re headed for a showdown where both could win or, worse, both could lose,” Schell said.
Mayoral candidate Mark Sidran also sees the two projects in competition for support and money. “I think it’s unlikely we’ll do both,” he said.
He supports the concept of monorail but is waiting for more details on costs before endorsing it. Sidran opposes the current light-rail project.
Greg Nickels, a Metropolitan King County Council member and Seattle mayoral candidate, said Seattle needs both systems and should get started.
Both Sound Transit and the Elevated Transportation Co. (ETC), which is planning a monorail system, are pushing ahead to build separate projects.
Only reality stands in the way, said Rob McKenna, a County Council member and light-rail critic. “We can do both, and pigs can fly,” he said.
The two types of train systems have much in common: Both have popular support, both can carry large numbers of people, both are expensive to build, and both hope to eventually reach Northgate.
The differences, from the perspective of the people using the trains, are largely cosmetic. Monorail cars use a single rail at the level of treetops, and the stations are elevated as well. The lines do not mix with automobile traffic.
Light-rail electric trains generally stay at ground level but also run in tunnels and on elevated sections. They can mix with traffic.
Seattle got serious about monorail when the city’s voters passed Initiative 53 in November, requiring the ETC to craft a plan for a monorail system.
The ETC is scoping out an initial 14-mile route between Ballard and West Seattle that would go through downtown Seattle. There’s no budget yet, but the agency is looking for ways to pay for a project that would cost up to $1.5 billion. A plan is expected to go to voters next fall.
Monorail enthusiasts say the elevated train system is superior to light rail, in part, because it’s separated from traffic, can be operated by computer and has a futuristic aura, even though the basic technology is more than 100 years old. Seattle’s existing Monorail on Fifth Avenue dates to 1962.
By comparison, light rail was approved in 1996 by voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties as part of a $3.9 billion bus and rail system. The original plan called for a 21-mile light-rail line between the University District and the city of SeaTac. Sound Transit scaled back its plans after a series of missteps and cost increases.
Now it’s planning a $2.1 billion, 14-mile starter line from downtown to South 154th Street in Tukwila, one mile short of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Plans call for later extending light rail to Northgate and the airport.
Sound Transit officials say that light-rail trains also have broad appeal and that the system has a proven track record.
Monorail advocates say construction costs of a monorail system would be less than for a light-rail line, but that’s not clear.
A four-mile monorail line being built in Las Vegas is expected to cost about $100 million per mile, not including right-of-way costs or financing charges. Sound Transit says its 14-mile starter line – which is expected to have 42,500 boardings daily by 2020 – would cost about $91 million per mile, excluding buying land.
Sound Transit says light rail can carry more people than monorail, but Bombardier Transportation, which makes cars for both types of systems, disagrees.
“When you have the same length train, with the same headway, with the same proportion of standing to seated individuals, the capacities are virtually the same,” said Gary Hallman, director of marketing and sales for Bombardier Transportation.
In addition, the trains would travel about the same speed and with the same frequency.
So why build both train systems when one could do the job?
“In my dreams I can’t imagine it makes sense,” said Mark Hallenbeck, head of the Transportation Research Center at the University of Washington. “It sure makes more sense that you ought to be able to run one type of train.”
Schell said more work needs to be done on monorail before making a decision about whether to go with a single technology.
Sound Transit should do an independent analysis of monorail compared with light rail, he said. “If we could build a (monorail) system from the U District to SeaTac and you could afford it, why wouldn’t you make that change?”
Random interviews in downtown Seattle found a mixture of support for building either monorail or light rail.
“My first inclination would be light rail,” said Peg Snyder of Seattle.
But Alice Vandermartin, who lives on Beacon Hill in Seattle, wants monorail. “It seems to be the most effective way to get traffic off the streets,” she said.
Building both monorail and light rail doesn’t make sense, she added. “It just seems like an incredible amount of money.”
Sound Transit, as it is, needs $500 million in federal grants to help build its starter system and isn’t sure where it would find the money to expand light rail in the future.
But the agency is better off than monorail because it’s already collecting taxes. Last year, Sound Transit got roughly $100 million in sales taxes and auto-license fees for the light-rail project.
Monorail financing faces major obstacles. The ETC plans to pay for monorail by selling bonds. The bonds would be paid off with a steady stream of revenue from Seattle residents.
For a $1.5 billion monorail, the ETC projects it would need annual revenues of about $109 million.
The agency is focusing on three potential pots of money:
City general fund: The ETC estimates taking 5.6 percent of the fund revenue would generate enough money to pay for a $500 million project.
Taking 16.8 percent of the budget would pay for a $1.5 billion system.
Schell called tapping the general fund “foolishness.”
“It’s wishful thinking,” he said. “There is no money there to take, unless you want to stop filling potholes and doing any maintenance on the rest of the city.”
Sidran also quashed the idea. “The city’s general fund is going to be under tremendous pressure because of the recession,” he said. “I’m not comfortable paying for monorail by setting aside general-fund money.”
Nickels said he would consider using general-fund money.
Increasing city taxes: The ETC is looking at tax increases, including on vehicle-license fees, vehicle-sales taxes and commercial-parking taxes. The increases would need legislative approval.
“That’s going to be tough to do,” said state Rep. Ruth Fisher, D-Tacoma, co-chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee.
“I don’t think we’re going to be particularly receptive to new ways to raise money for the city of Seattle.”
Getting money from Sound Transit: The agency represents a mother lode if the ETC were able to get access to the money. Sound Transit collects millions in tax revenue each year for its light-rail project and has the authority, with voter approval, to increase sales and motor-vehicle taxes to raise more money.
Would Sound Transit willingly open its vault? Many observers and people involved with the projects consider that unlikely. The agency needs the money it’s getting to build light rail and may want to raise taxes to expand the system.
Dave Earling, chairman of the Sound Transit board, is noncommittal. “That would have to be a decision the board will have to make,” he said.
One scenario raised by the ETC is building light rail’s starter line and then using Sound Transit money to extend monorail north from downtown.
Nickels said he’s staying open to all ideas for paying for both monorail and light rail.
He downplayed concerns about the region’s ability to pay for both projects. “The issue of mobility is going to require us to add choices,” he said. “We need to have both. And we should begin now.”
Peter Sherwin, author of the monorail initiative, sees it differently.
“I fear that if we go ahead with the current light-rail plan, building monorail will become financially very difficult,” he said. “The more we spend on one system, the more difficult it is to spend money on another. I think that’s just logical.”