The Municipal League of King County

Supports

Initiative 83 - Proposed Ban On Monorail's Use of Public Right of Way

On the November 2, 2004 General Election Ballot

Summary of Measure

 This Initiative would bar the Seattle Monorail Authority from building within any City of Seattle right of way.  If lawful, this prohibition would make it infeasible for the Seattle Monorail Authority to carry out its mission of building a citywide Monorail system as previously approved by Seattle voters.

Background

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. 

 In 2002, Seattle voters approved Citizen’s Petition No. 1 thereby creating the Seattle Monorail Authority and authorizing it to build and operate the initial 14-mile line of the proposed citywide Monorail system.  The initial Green Line would run from Ballard and West Seattle to downtown Seattle.  The measure created an annual tax levy 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. 

 According to the Monorail plan, the proposed initial Green 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 headways during peak periods and would accommodate 3,000 passengers per hour per 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 annual tax on a car valued at $10,000 would be $140. 

 The Monorail Authority is an independent municipal corporation, separate from Seattle City government, and is authorized to perform the Monorail transportation functions within the City of Seattle.  The Monorail Authority is governed by a nine-member board.  After an interim period, two board members are to 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. Note:  this election occurred in 2003; the candidates were evaluated by the Municipal League).

 The Monorail Authority must secure a number of permits, licenses and approvals from the City of Seattle in order to proceed with the Monorail project.  For example, the Monorail Authority must obtain the City’s approval to use its public right of way.

 The Monorail Authority is authorized by Washington law, Chapter 35A.95 of the Revised Code of Washington (the “Monorail Authority Act”).  Under the Monorail Authority Act, Seattle voters are authorized to dissolve the Monorail Authority Act if the “authority is faced with significant financial problems.”  RCW 35A.95.120.   Rather than utilizing this state provision for dissolving the Monorail Authority Act, I-83 uses Seattle’s charter provision for legislation through citizen initiative.

 I-83 bypasses the dissolution provisions of the Monorail Authority Act.  Instead, I-83 proposes to ban any Monorail project from operating within the City of Seattle public right of way.

 I-83 is being challenged in court.  The challenge will not be resolved before the November election.  The King County Superior Court determined that I-83 was an unlawful challenge and enjoined the submission of the initiative to Seattle voters.  The Court of Appeals dissolved the Superior Court injunction allowing the initiative to appear on the November ballot but without reaching the merits of the challenge.  The Washington Supreme Court has refused to intervene.

 Regrettably, the No Recall, Go Monorail Committee declined to answer our written questions about projected ridership, revenue forecasts and other substantive issues.  Respectfully, we disagree with the No Recall, Go Monorail Committee’s contention that voters’ substantive concerns about the Monorail Project were settled by the 2002 vote, and thus that our questions are “irrelevant.”  The Monorail Project’s deficiencies are more apparent now than they were at the time of the 2002 elections.  There are many changes in the project which make it less desirable for the cost.

 We note that it is likely that Seattle voters will view Initiative 83 as another referendum on the merits of the Monorail project, regardless of the pending court action.  The City Council, the Monorail Authority and other stakeholders are likely to use the election results to guide their further actions.  Accordingly, the Municipal League offers the following comments on the merits of the Monorail project. 

 The Municipal League opposed Citizen’s Petition No. 1 in 2002; and, though we respect the 2002 vote, we must advise voters that the project is less financially viable now than it was at the time of the 2002 vote. 

 Arguments For Initiative 83 (and Against the Monorail Project)

 ·        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 Monorail promises to improve the average rider’s one-way travel time only marginally over existing bus service.  This improvement is insufficient to justify the $1.74 billion capital expenditure.

·        Rider discontent is certain if SMP’s METRO routing plan is implemented.  Riders from West Seattle and much of Ballard and Magnolia may find that their local bus service ends at a Monorail station.  Evening commuters, who must transfer to a shuttle bus to return home, may be forced to wait at the Monorail station for 15 to 30 minutes to make the transfer.  If SMP’s METRO routing plan is not fully implemented, then SMP cannot achieve its ridership projections.

·        Under SMP’s plan, peak hour transfer riders may be required to pay an additional $.75 to continue their ride downtown.   If SMP agrees to mirror METRO’s fare structure, then SMP’s ambitious revenue projections will be further eroded.

·        The Seattle Monorail Project previously miscalculated its Motor Vehicle Excise Tax receipts by approximately 30% over actual tax collections.  The ongoing financial plan inflates probable operating revenues and offers meager contingency reserves.  It is unlikely that the Project will cover operating costs with operating revenues.  There is a substantial risk that the SMP will be forced to return to voters or to the City Council for additional funding.  It is important to note that, subject to voters’ approval, the Monorail Authority Act authorizes the SMP to impose a tax levy on Seattle real estate.  If the system is built and then requires a subsidy, there will be strong political pressure to use this taxing authority.

·        SMP’s operating plan makes unsupported forecasts that its entrepreneurship will generate substantial operating revenues that will allow the SMP to break even on operating costs.  SMP contends that its innovative advertising revenues will be extremely robust, much like the Las Vegas system, which connects Las Vegas casinos.  However, there is no meaningful comparison between the two systems and their advertising revenue potential.  Simply put, advertising to millions of Las Vegas tourists, who are there to spend their vacation money, is much more lucrative than advertising to Seattle commuters.

·        SMP’s unrealistic farebox revenue forecast assumes a 50% transfer surcharge and no discounts for seniors, disabled or youth.  Presently, METRO offers substantial discounts to seniors, disabled and youth.  Seniors, disabled and youth comprise 28% of METRO’s Seattle passengers.  SMP’s planned fare structure will impede its integration into a seamless regional system with METRO and Sound Transit.

·        SMP now proposes to downsize its station platforms from what it proposed in its Environmental Impact Statement.  SMP now proposes to eliminate escalators from most stations.  The smaller station platforms and the absence of escalators are likely to reduce system wide rider capacity and increase trip time.

·        The visual impacts of the Monorail, downtown and in the neighborhoods, have not been fully addressed. 

·        The SMP’s sole purpose is to build and operate the Monorail.  Its governance structure lacks independent oversight. 

 Arguments Against Initiative 83 (and For the Monorail Project)

 ·        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 stoplights. 

·        Construction is fast and minimally disruptive because guideway components can be prefabricated elsewhere and then brought to the site and assembled.  Adverse construction 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.

·        Seattle voters approved the project in 2002 and the City Council should be allowed to fulfill its supervisory mandate.

 Recommendation:  The Municipal League recommends a “Yes” vote on Initiative 83 for the reasons stated below.

 The trustees believe that, in sum, the Monorail’s financial plans are deficient and the anticipated project costs, in our judgment, outweigh the potential benefits.  Those possible benefits to City commuters resulting from this ambitious $1,740,000,000 project—which would be the largest public works project in Seattle history—are uncertain at best.

The Municipal League acknowledges that I-83 is not an ideal vehicle for addressing the deficiencies of the Monorail project (which go beyond the financial considerations anticipated in the state dissolution provision).  However, the trustees believe that voters will be looking for neutral, factual information on the project in order to cast a vote on whether the project should go forward.  We believe that support for I-83 allows the Municipal League to address the concerns of voters who will be seeking information on the project.

 As longtime supporters of public transit, the Municipal League is reluctant to support a measure which will impede construction of a transit project; yet the project’s numerous financial and other deficiencies leave us little choice.

 Note:  This report’s information on financial and ridership projections and other specifics of the project is as current as possible to obtain.  The SMP declined to respond to the Municipal League Ballot Issues Committee’s written questions seeking updated information.

10/19/04