New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 10, 2005

A new Peter Bagge cartoon considers the case for Seattle's genuine, bonafide, electrified, six-car monorail.

Comments

sage|3.10.05 @ 11:26AM|#

When I read that in the print edition, it made coffee come out of my nose. I love the look on the guy's face when he sees the BOT. Classic.

|3.10.05 @ 11:28AM|#

"PRT" systems aren't as theoretical as you say. There's one in Morgantown, WV, that works alarmingly well. I have no idea how much money Robert C. Byrd sucked down to get it built, and I'm no big fan of public-transit boondoggles, but I have to admit that it's surprisingly clean, fast, and modern-looking for a weird 1970s concept.

|3.10.05 @ 11:36AM|#

"One things I've learned is that the public agrees on two things. They're opposed to density and sprawl."

Yup.

|3.10.05 @ 11:42AM|#

There's a moment in history: joe's favorite line and mine were exactly the same! The Tribulation must be nigh...

|3.10.05 @ 12:24PM|#

We just started building a light rail systen in Phoenix, and I can't understand for the life of me who it's supposed to serve. This is the classic no-downtown car-based western city. It just doesn't seem to me that it can do any good. I think it's more about pretending we're a 'real' city (hah!) than anything else.

Not that I have a better suggestion! My solution to traffic and commuting problems is to live in the central city, so any where I have to commute to I go agasinst the traffic (suckers!). But lots of other people have the same idea, so now it's too pricey for most people.

|3.10.05 @ 12:29PM|#

Todd, rail projects are usually built in anticipatio of, or in the hope of promoting, future development. Has Phoenix rezoned the areas around the planned stations to allow for more urban development?

R C Dean|3.10.05 @ 12:59PM|#

So, joe, since it sounds like rail projects are a plot by the evil developers and speculators to get tax subsidies for their profit-making schemes, are you for or agin'?

|3.10.05 @ 12:59PM|#

I'm not sure, but the area it runs through has had some kind of infill incentive for years. It's working too, many more people are living close to 'downtown' than when I moved here 15 years ago, which is a good thing.

Most people here commute between one edge city to another, not from the suburban ring to a downtown hub, which is where the light rail will run. That's why I'm not sure it'll help anything.

|3.10.05 @ 1:14PM|#

What I want to know is: Which comic book store does Bagge frequent? The pseudo-map suggests that it's The Dreaming, an excellent choice. But it could be that terrible creepy place on 45th, west of I-5, which would be a shame.

B.D.|3.10.05 @ 1:19PM|#

The first vote for the monorail happened before I moved into Seattle. I signed the citizen's petition for the second vote, not because I favored the monorail, but because the city council arrogantly ignored the results of the first vote.

The third vote for the monorail, I voted against it based on the cost of the project and my experience living in Detroit (The People Mover). I felt that even though Seattle residents were more likely to use the monorail than Detroiters or their visitors, it would most likely never reach the ridership it hopes to attain. Monorail proponents argued that they were hoping to attain the Vancouver monorail ridership numbers and that their figures were conservative. The project barely passed with 51% of the vote.

By the time the final vote came around, I had moved east to a different city. Still, I would have voted against it. The cartoon is correct, though, the light rail project is a much bigger boondoggle and the monorail opponents were a collection of seriously concerned and serious nut cases.

|3.10.05 @ 2:27PM|#

Is it just me, or are there a lot of Washingtonians posting to H&R?

|3.10.05 @ 2:33PM|#

I don't think that this monorail will ever be built: It's underfunded, poorly planned, based on lies, and has people eager to see it fail. Of course, every other stupid civic project did too, and they got built....

I think the board of directors knows that the project is dead, but they'll keep it on life-support as long as they can collect their FAT paychecks.

|3.10.05 @ 2:53PM|#

For the life of me, I can't figure out how a monorail can be less boondoggley than light rail. But then, most of the examples of light rail I've seen are in Europe, where running on sensible routes and replacing one or two lanes of automobile traffic in order to have your *own* lane are not quite the issues they are here... In America, light rail always seems to run on freight tracks through industrial wastelands - because God forbid we take away a lane of traffic from that highway we just expanded to 8 lanes...

sage|3.10.05 @ 3:06PM|#

WSDave,

Poulsbo, myself.

|3.10.05 @ 3:45PM|#

Todd, developers and their investors build the vast majority of the built environment, and provide the vast majority of the dollar investment that goes into development and redevelopment. There's nothing evil about this - it's the basic stuff of how cities are built.

As for your question, any road or transit project is going to boost the values of some group of landowners. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as such considerations don't drive the planning process for the project.

|3.10.05 @ 3:50PM|#

I'm in Phx, too, and I don't see how light rail is worth any of the money we're forking out. Not that I won't be pleased if it actually gets used, but I have my doubts.

|3.10.05 @ 4:06PM|#

The above post was mean for RC Dean.

This is meant for Todd: a monorail doesn't make any sense outside of a major urban core. They are useful as tools to make cities work better, and thus accommodate more growth while providing a high quality of life. So they're useful in encouraging the redevelopment of declining areas. This benefits the area served directly by the transit, but also outlying areas, by channelling development away from the countryside and releaving growth pressure on towns. The more growth is shifted downtown, the slower the volume of traffic on the highways grows.

The problem is when the city plan and zoning aren't changed to accommodate the new transportation scheme, and appropriate development isn't allowed to take place. Transit works in Vancouver because Vancouver is built like Vancouver. If Seattle allows the right development to happen, this could be a huge boost for its prospects for the future.

|3.10.05 @ 4:30PM|#

joe, that makes sense. (not sure what your 'evil' comment refers to though). However, Phoenix is NOT built like Vancouver. It's very spread out and sparse. As far as commuters are concerned, they mostly don't live where the rail starts, and don't work where it ends, or on the way.

The downtown was declining, but is now being built-up with mostly residential property and is on a major rebound. Remember Phoenix has been one of the top 2 or 3 fastest growing cities for at least a decade. The vast majority of that new population is nowhere near this light rail system.

Keep in mind of course that this was voted for by the people, so if they want it that's alright with me. I just don't see the benefit.

|3.10.05 @ 4:33PM|#

No way sage. I grew up in Poulsbo. Home of overhyped bread and the ugliest used car strip in the world.

|3.10.05 @ 4:43PM|#

And a really BIG RV seller.

sage|3.10.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Shem,

Ditto on both counts. That bakery went up for sale, you know. Probably the monorail route will go right by it now. :)

WSDave,

My in-laws bought an RV from there. And my mother-in-law ended up basically eating it. Too bad for her.

|3.10.05 @ 5:26PM|#

We had a big fight here in Astoria (Queens) on whether to extend the N subway train a couple miles to LaGuardia airport. Given that the thing already runs above ground, down 31st Street, and that NYC is chock full of elevated railroads & people are used to the idea, you'd think it would be an easy sell. No way. Maybe they should call it a monorail. (Birail?)

|3.10.05 @ 6:34PM|#

The problem with light rail, as I see it, are not the capital costs. People always vote for it whether they intend to use it or not, especially since they are usually built with ass-loads of federal pork.

The problem is the operating costs. Portland's mayor (and sexual abuser) of the 1970's, Neil Goldschmidt invented the idea of using federal highway funds for light-rail. Sounds okay. Problem is, nobody ever looked closely at the operating costs (funded from a payroll tax on all employers). The cost of a ride on Portland's MAX (which has excellent ridership numbers)? $1.80. The real cost per passenger mile (including capitalized expenses) $33. Ouch. The result - less bus service for the poor, more fancy train rides for the suburbanites.

B.D.|3.10.05 @ 7:08PM|#

WSDave - now a Monroe resident, but lived in Seattle for 5 years and Bellevue for 3 years. I still work in Seattle. A lot of Washington residents here, it seems.

I have been to Phoenix several times and I cannot see how light rail makes sense there either.

As far as which is the bigger boondoggle - light rail or monorail - my guess is the monorail only because it's numbers are more conservative (not that they are on the mark at all, but they are closer to being there than the light rail). Of course, the monorail in action has been around for a shorter time than the light rail plan, so they have the ability to catch up and surpass the low in the long run.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I am very skeptical that either will come close to the ridership they are projecting. There is one other intangible factor that probably drives some of the support and that is the hope that whether or not it reaches the projected ridership goals, both projects will remove vehicles from the road. I doubt that they'll have much of an impact, but like I said, I'm happy to be proven wrong on this point.

|3.11.05 @ 12:45AM|#

sage, you mean they still want to build that mess?

Glad the bakery's up for sale though. Maybe the new owners will keep the flies out of the baked goods.

sage|3.11.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Shem,

I think someone already bought that bakery. I might be wrong though. As for the monorail/light rail, I could care less. If it allows me an easier commute to Lynnwood, I'll use it. Otherwise what I'm doing now is OK.