Slashdot Mirror
Seattle Monorail & California High Speed Rail Move Forward
bscottid writes "Woo-hoo! The monorail passed in Seattle!. And, it was driven by an amazing grass-roots effort of people who saw a way to use technology to get us moving again here in The Emerald City. Everyone mark your calendars, because in 2007 you're invited up here to take a quick, scenic ride around the beautiful city of Seattle! (Begin Simpsons references now)" It's also worth pointing out that in the recent california election, a pair of bills were passed which put aside approximately $10b for the construction of California's high speed rail project.
The monorail is the last thing Seattle should be worrying about. I live there and trust me, the highway system needs attention and FAST. Traffic is terible, and the Metro bus system got funding cut. Yes, I'm glad the monorail is going ahaid but due to the consept of a monorail only few people are going to be able to regularly use it. Work on our roads and mass transit first thank you very much.
A monorail is a waste of money in Seattle, because everybody that is going to use mass-transit is already using mass transit. Those that *should* be using mass transit currently can't, and won't be able to with the monorail, because it won't be going far enough north or south. Mass transit is no good if I have to get in my car to get to the transit station. I should be able to walk out of my home to the platform (ala New York).
Never been to Seattle, but Portland uses 'Dumb Trains' with good success. Our Governor and a group of planners actually went there a couple of years ago to get some ideas.
The Monorail, which from the very start was a viable and practical proposal to help deal with Seattle's critical-mass transportation problem, has been largely ignored by politicians for reasons unknown. The Monorail focus has been on solving transportation problems, and thus far seems to have been devoid of any lobbying or tampering by outfits that just want a contract. Every initiative, every election, was a result of a grassroots effort to make it happen. That it has made it as far as it has is a testament to the regular people that have labored so hard on it.
It ain't over yet though. You can bet that the rail forces will be back to create pain for the Monorail wherever they can. Stay tuned for the Sound Transit versus the Monorail shenanigans in Seattle over the next few years.
I'm glad they didn't do that, because that would mean that I(a Georgia resident) would be paying for it. I think they are setting a Nice Precedent by Not asking for funds.
Less Federal Government.
Air travel is really expensive, and barring any major improvements in aeronautics or cutthroat competition, it's not going to get that much cheaper.
Especially, you don't want to pay a lot if you have to travel from San Fransisco to Los Angeles every day for work, or home from college every week.
Plus, our airports (especially SFO) are busy enough as it is. Not to mention pollution and fuel consumption. California is growing, and in 18 years (estimated completion) the problem is going to be much much worse.
So those in Seattle owning a $25,000 car get to pay $350 per car per year to pay for one line of the monorail. If you have two $25K cars you get to pay $3,500 over 5 years waiting for this thing to open.
That's a lot of jack just to make it easier to get to the ball game.
I wonder how they are going to pay for the other 4 lines?
Passed by 800 votes, heh.
Huge tax increase to pay for it, 1.75 billion for FOURTEEN MILES OF FRIGGIN TRACK
Whoopitidy do da.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I'm glad they didn't do that, because that would mean that I(a Georgia resident) would be paying for it. I think they are setting a Nice Precedent by Not asking for funds.
No fair. I'm a Washington resident, and I'm paying for your construction projects.
I see. So walking, riding, carpooling to a rail station is out of the question then, sounds pretty damn lazy to me. In terms of energy, rail will always beat out automobiles - yes even busses. There's no question about this, so busses aren't more efficient. Look at the other few hundred cities in the world that uses light rail commuter trains, seems to work just fine. Hell, just look a little north to Vancouver with the Skytrain.
I think you missed a few points. (I voted yes)
There will be light rail, it will feed the Monorail to the north and south. (Which we need, full light rail would of been better.)
Commute time by monorail will be 100% quicker than bus, good reason for people to change from bus and car.
The Cost is high, but if we wait another 15 years (or is it 20 now, that light rail has been voted on) it will be 5 billion.
Who knows on the federal funding, our state has been spending money like crazy on the stupidest things for years. We are still paying off the kingdom, and we build a new one. Check out our state budget at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/ for more info.
BTW, main Seattle (Metro area) absentee voters tipped the vote to pass.
Fellow citizen of seattle:
The metro bus system sucks. (every bus system sucks, except for the Peter Pan from DC to NYC to Boston.) Living in Seattle, I used to take that pile of crap that is Sound Transit all the time. One problem is the "ride free zone" downtown. The idea is great--speed buses through the busy downtown corridor by not having to wait for people to pay. The effect has been to turn the bus system into a rolling homeless shelter. Also, there are way too many bus stops. Walk a block, people. We don't need a bus stop on EVERY BLOCK you could skip a block and the bus would get you there much faster. (Try riding the 71/72/73 downtown from the U-district some morning and you will see what I'm talking about.)
Ultimately, the reason buses suck is because they don't have a right-of-way. They get stuck in traffic jams just like all those freakin' Subaru Foresters and Outbacks do.
The problem with building more roads is that it will lead to more sprawl, and then you're back to square one.
Before I was in Seattle, I lived in Washington DC. They have a subway system and it works great. I took it whenever I could. Actually, the metro is about 25 years old now and unfortunately it's pretty much at max capacity. But if you want to see the example of why NOT to just build more roads, look at Northern Virginia. Roads/interchanges the size of the I-5/I-405 split in Tukwila are EVERYWHERE. And it can still take 45 minutes to go ten miles during rush hour. Becuase developers are still building subdivisions like crazy out there, so the roads fill up.
People who think Seattle has a bad traffic problem clearly haven't seen traffic in a place like DC. We still kinda have nice fresh air out here; doubling the number of roads (hence cars) will break that. Also, the way people drive in Seattle, you could get another 10% usage out of the roads by simply getting people to drive AT the speed limit, not BELOW it, on the major interstates. Frankly, I don't think Seattle drivers have the bandwidth to handle a 16-lane collector-distributor system like where I-270 meets the DC beltway.
Also, I encourage everyone to do what I did: Move to the city and work in the city. You get a few hours of your day back, and you're not supporting Evil (be it oil-funded terrorists or oil-funded economic destruction off the coast of Spain or oil-funded politicians in the Oval Office) as much. Or, if you work on the East Side, live there too. If you're not willilng to do that, stop bitching about traffic. No job is holding a gun to your head.
Just my two cents. And please don't take this as a personal attack; I'm just like that.
There are very few successful transit systems in the US. They just turn into big leeches on tax payers wallets.
And I suppose you think the roads are free?
I use mass transit 'out west' all the time (I used to commute daily on BART). It works great. It's faster then driving. I get to read my book. And it requires less federal subsidies then the roads.
I'd love to have a train that goes down to LA.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
The monorail won't work. By the Metro's (our bus system) own estimates, 85% of monorail potential riders already ride the bus. So it's not going to take a whole lot of people off the road.
The monorail is being paid for by vehicle taxes. So the people who don't need to ride the monorail are the ones being taxed for it. That's not grassroots, it's socialist.
(b) And downtown.
(c) People like their cars, so I have to believe almost any new mass transit system here will get most of its riders from buses, not from cars, initially. My hope is that this is just the first phase of many, and that ultimately a larger system (and one not subject to traffic jams because it doesn't run at grade level) *would* ultimately get people out of their cars.
(d) I don't follow. The monorail tax is based on the current value of your car, so if you're driving an old clunker you pay very little, and if you're driving a new SUV/Lexus/whatever you'll pay quite a bit more.
(e) Light rail won't go to the airport either (at least not in the first phase), you know.
(f) Heaven forbid cities and regions should take the initiative and spend the money to try to fix problems themselves instead of relying on the generosity of the Feds (or more precisely, the other 250 million-plus U.S. citizens who DON'T live in or near Seattle).
So it passed by 800 votes. Last time I checked, the state constitution didn't say anything about initiatives being any less valid because they got voted in with a slim majority. If I-776 (reducing license tabs, etc.) had only passed by an 800-vote majority, would you be as eager to decry it?
As for the fact that only 45% of people voted, as far as I'm concerned, the other 55% have no right to complain about the results.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
"It was too obvious even to the corrupt, however, that the rail system absolutely couldn't be done for any reasonable amount of money, and it's been in a perpetual state of falling over dead and being resurrected for the past 8 years or so."
You're being disingenuous. Sound Transit has had lots of trouble in Seattle for the same reason that any major public construction initiative has trouble in Seattle: the town is too politically correct for it's own good. Whereas many (most) other cities of Seattle's population have city managers with the power/authority to make decisions based upon engineering and technical criteria without putting issues to a vote, Seattle is hamstrung with a ridiculously political design/build process. Furthermore, the number of NIMBYs, owl-lovers and salmon saviors here attack any project that even looks sidelong at a stream or a standing puddle. It's a nightmare proposition for actually getting things done. The only reason the monorail people haven't hit this particular wall yet is because their line is only about five percent planned. And any engineer worth his sliderule will tell you that the true costs of a project don't become apparent until around the 30% mark.
You're right about one thing, though: Monorail has always been a populist initiative here in Seattle. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it a smart initiative. No matter how many intelligent, well-spoken engineers have pointed out the technical deficiencies of monorail for the Seattle landscape (and there have been many over the years), the populist beatniks have continued to mindlessly beat on the monorail drum. There's a reason that the Seattle Monorail has been called a technical solution waiting for a problem.
It's really sad, actually. Seattle is almost the textbook definition of the word "tragedy": a city with unbelievable potential, that is comepletely and utterly hamstrung by its political characteristics.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
In the US, land is cheap (land outside of major developed areas, that is.) Laws and taxes are such that building housing developments, and selling the idea of owning your own home is quite profitable, environmental impact be damned. As a result, sprawling residential developments spring up all over the place, overloading existing infrastructure (power, roads, telecommunications, sewer, water, hospital/school/police/fire.)
As more and more people move out into the boonies (and enduring 1-2hr commute times to and back from work), they demand improvements, like highway widening, more roads, etc. The growing tax base, and larger residential population now justify development of commercial properties, such as shopping malls - and guess who owns the land? Yep, the original developers, or attached arms thereof. Soon the area incorporates, and the politicans of that burblet start clamoring for state and federal funds to fix the mess that the developers created.
In the meantime, everyone who lives between the newly spawned burblet and where most of the residents work has to share increased commute times due to vehicle congestion, and greater pollution. Mass transit using buses fails miserably in this kind of situation, as buses have to share the roads with the worsening traffic, trapping mass transit riders in a commuter's nightmare. Solutions using rail, be it subway, commuter light rail, or a monorail/peoplemover, where the mass transit solution has right of way, are far superior, as you can cut commute times in half and thereby offer a reasonable and useful alternative to driving your own car.
Realistically though, unless all the burblets are in a straight line, leading to the commercial/industrial section of the city (hehe, simcity - a great urban planning tool), retrofitting any area with rail transit is an expensive and questionable pursuit. The key thing is right of way - and high density development around that right of way. Current development is low density, and unless you want to force people to rezone the properties along the proposed rail line, there won't be enough people riding mass transit to make it viable for the short to mid-term. In the long term, the idea is that having a rail line will convince people to re-orient their lives around it - but without a critical mass of transit options (a train that goes 3 miles is not useful), nobody's gonna ride it.
Even though this bond won't be voted on until Nov 2004 in California, it's about time we work on some decent public transit in this state. Outside of BART and maybe Caltrain, public transportation is horrible out here. Los Angeles is the second biggest city in the country, and it is quite possibly the worst public transit system (or lack thereof) I have ever seen for a big city.
New York has their subway, Boston has the T, and Chicago has the L. I haven't tried Chicago, but in Boston and New York their systems work great. You don't need a car because you can hop on a train and get pretty much anywhere you need to go with no more than a couple blocks of walking.
But unlike these cities, out here we have hardly anything at best. BART is great to get around in the East Bay and to get you to San Francisco, but once you are in the city you are walking pretty much anywhere. Caltrains is a decent option for people in the south bay who want to go to the city, but it is pretty slow and only goes to 4th street, once again leaving you a hefty walk if you are going anywhere other than Pac Bell Park.
However, as bad as it is up north, down south it is an utter joke. The pathetic excuse for a subway system in Los Angeles serves so little of the city that it's practically useless. Other than that, you have an unreliable bus system that couldn't follow a time schedule to save someone's life. I don't know about anything in San Diego, but as far as I know they don't have anything special.
While it won't be put into place for a long time even if the bond gets passed, I'm hoping this is a step in the right direction. Even though this system is state-wide rather than city-wide, I have a feeling that if we can get a really successful model to follow, cities will jump on the bandwagon and start making changes for the better.
>Commute time by monorail will be 100% quicker than bus
Wow, so a 30 minute commute will now take 0 minutes? That's AMAZING!
Just think, if they make the monorail go faster, I can be at work before I leave the house!
-l
...if you've ever been to Seattle, the "subway muggers" have that opportunity already in the bus tunnel stations.
If you've ever been to Chicago and Seattle, the sound levels between the El and the existing Monorail are completely different. The El sounds like a 727 at takeoff when it goes by. The Monorail is significantly quieter.
It seems that people are pretty strongly divided over this issue, and rightfully so: billions of dollars funded entirely by a city on a monorail system is unprecedented. Is it really necessary? Will it be (from an engineering standpoint) structurally sound? Is it cost-effective? Who knows. But at least it's a willingness to try something new. Progress is never made without change.
I apologize for posting this without being a resident of the city of Seattle. This automatically makes me flamebait for all those who are paying out of their own pockets for the project. I respect your (citizens of Seattle) opinions because they come from the frontlines of the battle.
However, as was brought up earlier, is there no reason to build a skyscraper without building the top floor first? Or starting a space program without knowing exactly how to get a man to the moon? I think not.
I personally like the example of the space program. I think that it is an excellent thing to have scientific minds devoted to getting human beings off of this rock we call Earth. Are the costs exorbitant? Of course. When the Apollo program was first begun, what was our motivation? "Beat those damn Russians to the moon." What kind of a reason was that? And yet if we had never started thinking about moving beyond this planet we may never have developed satellites (as a practical application) or be on our way to exploring further. The path of stagnation leads nowhere.
Another topic for /.ers: quantum computing. Can we build a useful one now? No. Does that mean that we shouldn't spend money on it? Of course not!
I know that the monorail system may seem to many people to not be very practical at all now, but if at some point in the future all of America's major cities develop mass-transit systems (possibly mono-rail), Seattle would be remembered as the catalyst. There is no way that people can see so far into the future to know that a project is doomed to failure: some of mankind's greatest discoveries were made purely by accident! ("Eureka!" he shouted in joy and ran down the streets naked) Perhaps the monorail project will fail. Okay. But if it succeeds, aren't the possible benefits worth current risks?
First off, I also live in Seattle, and I regularly use the monorail when I need to get downtown quickly. I don't own a car. I haven't had one since 1996, and I don't want one. There are two important issues regarding transportation that hardly get mentioned at all: Safety and Acessibility. How many people have been killed while riding the monorail? In terms of personal safety, the monorails must be safer than even airplaines. What about people who are not capable of driving? I think that people in wheelchairs will appeciate their increased mobility provided by an expanded monorail system. Does riding the monorail require a vision test? Do you need to memorise a truckload of driving laws? Also, I believe that it's safe for monorail passengers to talk on a cell phone or eat a sandwich while riding the monorail. I don't like to see car drivers doing anything other than driving their car.