SEATTLE.GOV City Services Staff Directory About Seattle City Contacts
 SEARCH: 

2000 Seattle Election Information

Home
Filings
Campaigns
Total
Contributions

Total
Expenditures

Contributor
Search

Lists of
Contributors

Employers of
Contributors

Contributors
by Type

Contrib. by
Neighborhood

Contrib. by
Size

Expenditures
by Type

Indep. Expend.
& PACs

Historical
Comparisons

Primary Election
Voters' Guide

General Election
Voters' Guide
Compliance
Rates

Law, Rules
and Filing

General Election Voters' Guide
Prop 2 - Initiative 53 - Monorail

General
Election
Voters'
Guide
Introduction
 
Prop 1
Parks Levy

Statement
For and
Rebuttal


Statement
Against and
Rebuttal


Title &
Explanation


Complete Text

 
Prop 2
Init 53
Monorail

Statement
For and
Rebuttal


Statement
Against and
Rebuttal

Title &
Explanation


Complete Text

 
 
  Statement Against
 
  Our one-mile Alweg monorail has reliably shuttled between downtown and Seattle Center for 38 years, so a city-wide monorail system would work even better, right? Well, not quite.

Let’s debunk some myths. The profit-making monorail was the myth that sold I-41, the 1997 monorail initiative. Sponsors assured voters the private sector would build and operate their expanded monorail system to earn profit.

But two years after I-41 passed, they discovered no private investors would fund it! In reality, monorail is like light-rail transit: it’s expensive, and revenues provide no profits for private investors.

I-53 mandates the world’s largest monorail system, 40 miles long and costing $2 billion to $3 billion or more. And the only identifiable funding source is Seattle taxpayers!

Another myth is that Seattleites will embrace overhead transit. Whereas light-rail transit can be built elevated, at-grade, or underground, depending on neighborhood conditions, monorail is all elevated all the time. That won’t work in our city of views.

Supporters claim that modern monorails tracks are beautiful. Pillars would be the size of telephone poles and beamways “no larger than a highway guard rail.”

Unfortunately they can’t repeal the laws of physics. The reality is that where new monorails are being built, mainly Japan and Malaysia, they are just as ugly as our old Alweg. Monorail tracks would block views throughout Seattle and blight 40 miles of city streets.

Furthermore, the proposed system would have monorail trains running every few minutes, 20 hours a day, just 25 to 50 feet away from second-floor bedroom windows of thousands of homes and apartments.

Another problem is that builders have their own patented technologies. A Bombardier monorail train won’t fit on a Hitachi track and vice versa. Buyers are locked into one technology without competitive bidding.

In contrast, light-rail transit follows universal standards. With many suppliers providing each element, no one enjoys monopoly power.

Real transit solutions are coming. Seattle voters approved Sound Transit’s program by a record 72%, and they break ground next year on 23 miles of light-rail transit. And the City has a new intermediate-capacity transit study under way that examines a range of modes, without fixating on monorail alone.

If approved, I-53 would result in yet more proof that the private sector can’t pay the costs, and clear evidence that neighborhoods won’t tolerate monorail’s visual blight and social intrusion.

Vote NO on I-53 and save $6 million.

 
  Statement prepared by:
 
  Roger Pence, Beacon Hill neighborhood activist
Paul Kraabel, former City Councilmember
No on I-53 Committee
Phone: (206) 389-7340
Email: dawsonst@compuserve.com
 
  Rebuttal to Statement Against
 
  We urge you to read the city attorney’s statement (above) for an accurate description of the effects Proposition 2 (I-53) will have. This sensible proposition will determine actual costs, appropriate technology, routes, and financing for monorail transit. Proposition 2 is limited to producing a plan which then will be submitted to the voters for approval. We should welcome this opportunity to answer the questions about monorail.

Interested private companies cited a lack of cooperation from city government as the main reason they would not enter into a partnership with the ETC. Opponents suggest we should continue relying on the same system of planning that has been “solving” our transportation problems for the last 30 years. We don’t agree.

The “no” argument makes too many misrepresentations about monorail technology to address here. Please see our website or call for a detailed rebuttal.

 
  Rebuttal prepared by:
 
  Rise Above It All
PMB #449, 117 E. Louisa Street
Seattle, WA 98102
Phone: (206) 632-8140
Website: www.Riseaboveitall.org
 
 
 
 
SEEC Home Page