 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Municipal
League of King County Position on
Seattle Proposition 1 -- Seattle Monorail Authority Adopted by the
Board of Trustees, October 21, 2002 Position and Rationale: The Municipal League of King County opposes Seattle Proposition 1. Although Proposition 1 (the monorail proposal) appeals to many supporters, it represents investment in transportation corridors that are not as affected by congestion as other areas of the city. The route from Ballard through downtown to West Seattle currently has adequate surface bus service and does not require major transportation investment at this time. The proposition would focus scarce tax dollars away from our pressing transportation problems. The region’s worst safety and congestion problems are the Viaduct, I-5, SR-520 and I-405. Even supporters make no claims that capacity needs to be added in the Ballard and West Seattle corridors. The Municipal League is concerned that if this measure passes, it will “use up” voters’ willingness to tax themselves again to fix the regional transportation problems that will be on the ballot next spring. The cost estimates, ridership figures, and simplicity of development that are argued by the monorail planners do not seem believable in light of experiences with major transit, highway and bridge projects here and elsewhere. Impacts on adjacent neighborhoods and businesses appear to be severely underestimated. Even with more slender columns and higher guideways, the aesthetic impacts on our streetscapes and view corridors will be real.Summary of Measure This proposition would create the Seattle Monorail Authority to build and operate the initial 14-mile line of a proposed citywide monorail system. The initial Green Line would run from Ballard and West Seattle to downtown Seattle. The measure would levy an annual tax of 1.4% on the value of every motor vehicle owned by a resident of Seattle and would cost $1.75 billion including capital costs, financing, overhead, reserves and inflation. In 1997, Seattle voters approved Initiative 41, calling for an X-shaped, 40-mile monorail system. The Elevated Transportation Company (ETC) was formed and the City Council provided $200,000 to allow the ETC to hire staff. Attempts to secure funding were unsuccessful and in July 2000 the City Council dissolved the ETC. In response, monorail proponents filed Initiative 53, which reinstated the ETC and gave it two years and $6 million to plan a new system. Proposition 1 is the response to Initiative 53. According to the monorail plan, the proposed initial line would carry 69,000 riders per day by the year 2020. Trains would run on concrete or steel beams supported by columns placed in city street right-of-way. The system would have 19 stations with the ability to add future stations if ridership warrants their development. Trains would run at four-minute intervals during peak periods and would accommodate 3,000 passengers per hour in each direction. Trains would be automated to run without drivers. Monorail planners state that the system operating costs would be covered by fares and advertising and that no public subsidy would be required. The Monorail Authority would be an independent transportation authority governed by a nine-member board. After an interim period, two board members would be appointed by the Mayor, two by the City Council and five by current board members (subject to confirmation). After one year, two members would be elected by the voters. Proponents of the
measure have advanced these and other arguments IN SUPPORT:
· Improved technology has made monorail technology a fast, reliable, efficient, safe means of transportation. Because monorail guideways are elevated, their trains ride above congestion and do not compete with surface traffic, pedestrians or stop lights. · The monorail will offer a realistic alternative to surface transportation throughout its service area. · Construction is fast and minimally disruptive because guideway components can be prefabricated elsewhere and then brought to the site and assembled. Adverse impacts on surrounding residents and businesses are thus modest. · The monorail is environmentally sustainable. Its electric motors are quiet and do not pollute. · Costs are minimized because there would be little private property acquisition and no ongoing operating subsidy. Opponents of the measure have advanced these and other arguments AGAINST: · The proposed monorail line is a solution that does not address any of our real transportation problems. The Ballard and West Seattle corridors are already adequately served by surface bus and do not require major transportation investments. · The MVET tax the monorail proposal employs will displace a call upon the same tax source for the real transportation problems of the region that will be on the ballot next spring. The proposed tax will cost a typical household with 1.7 cars valued at $10,000 each $250 per year. This annual tax will be in place for 25-30 years to pay the bonds for the Green Line only. · The cost estimates and ridership figures may be overly optimistic. Contingencies are inadequate and only limited funds have been allocated for mitigation. The predicted ridership figures have been questioned by Metro which would be required to provide feeder bus service to monorail stations but has not been asked to plan for those investments. · The visual impacts of the Monorail, downtown and in the neighborhoods, have not been fully addressed. · The proposed governance structure is complicated and accountability is unclear. It is dominated by current members and their future appointees with limited independent oversight.
|
|
