In November 2005, Seattle residents voted to kill the Seattle Monorail Project that was to build the Green Line, the first of several lines that would eventually form a network of rapid transit monorail lines in Seattle. Poor planning resulted in underfunding that resulted in several problems that, pushed by opponents, led to the project rejection.

Now rising gas prices, concern about global warming, and increasing traffic congestion are rapidly creating new demands for mass transit. I think that the public needs to be convinced that the Green Line was basically a good idea and that we should try again, but with changes that will satisfy more people and avoid errors of the past.

FUNDING PLANNING — The earlier project was funded solely from MVET (motor vehicle excise taxes) and the original projection of revenue was too low. This led to cutting back on some project details and still the resulting financing package was for at least 50 years at fairly high interest rates. The new financing package must be guaranteed to pay for the project and that the debt can be paid off in a reasonable time with low interest rates.

OWNERSHIP — The original project was a grassroots effort by the people of Seattle, and was under the jurisdiction of the City of Seattle. I suggest that the new effort be controlled by King County Metro Transit. This will place the planning, construction, ownership and operation in the hands of an established mass transit agency. The Green Line would only be inside the Seattle city limits, but would be used often by many King County residents living outside of Seattle. I think that there should be a low county-wide tax, with an additional tax on Seattle residents because they will use the monorail more than others.

FUNDING SOURCES — The previous project put the entire tax burden on Seattle vehicle owners. The new tax package should avoid putting too much of a burden on any particular group of people, but rather spread the tax load across most of the people of Seattle and many people coming into Seattle, because mass transit will improve the city and the region, and everybody should help pay for it.

Possible taxes could include:

• Motor vehicle excise tax (MVET), but at a much lower rate than the previous tax, and it should apply to new car sales also. The rate would be very low in King County with a higher rate in Seattle.
• Property tax, again low in Seattle and even lower in the rest of King County.
• Tax on parking, and a portion of parking meter fees, all applicable only to Downtown Seattle extending south to include the sports stadiums and north to include the Seattle Center. This tax would let people driving downtown and to events to help pay for the monorail that will relieve traffic congestion in those areas.
• Tax on tourist and convention activities, such as car rentals, hotels, local tours, convention facilities, etc. This tax will help visitors pay for a project that will benefit many of them. Once again this tax would be lower in King County outside of Seattle.
• Sales tax, which will spread some of the tax burden to everyone that buys anything in King County, but more so in Seattle. This would collect some revenue from people who come into Seattle and King County but still benefit from the monorail.

None of these taxes should be very high, for instance maybe a 0.1% MVET in King County with an additional 0.2% in Seattle, and an 0.1% sales tax (1 cent for every ten dollars spent) in King County and an additional 0.1% in Seattle.

DUAL GUIDEWAY — In order to cut costs, the previous project planned a single guideway (track) on some segments of the monorail line. The new plan should have dual guideway (double track) for the entire length of the line. This gives flexibility to run trains closer together as needed. The Green Line is intended to be a rapid transit system and any unnecessary delay in travel time should be avoided.

SECOND AVENUE ROUTING — The prior plan was for the monorail to cross the Seattle Center grounds to follow Fifth Avenue to Stewart Street, then using Second Avenue from Stewart Street on south. From the standpoint of rapid transit it makes more sense to locate the Key Arena station just south of the Arena and route the monorail south to follow Second Avenue through Belltown. This has several advantages:

• Eliminates hundreds of feet of guideway, four curves, and one station, resulting in a trip that should be at least a minute or two faster. Rapid transit, remember?
• Elminating the extra guideway, curves, and station would save a large amount of money
• Would satisfy those who opposed the monorail because it would pass through Seattle Center.
• Would save the old Seattle Center Monorail, which would still serve the east side of Seattle Center and Westlake Center. If the Seattle Center Monorail is extended across Seattle Center along Thomas Street to the new Key Arena Staion south of Key Arena, there would be a transfer point between the two monorails. (See my ideas for a new Seattle Center Monorail.)

PLAN FOR LONGER TRAINS IN THE FUTURE — In order to save costs, the first trains could be two car trains (consists), but longer trains could be obtained later if needed. In order to save construction costs, build stations for two-car consists, but design them in such a way so that they can be easily extended later if longer trains are added to the fleet.

PLAN FOR FUTURE STATION IMPROVEMENTS — In order to cut initial costs, stations can be designed in a more basic style, but in such a way that they can be beautified later without much problem.

AVOID “IRIS“ LAYOUT OF GUIDEWAYS — The previous plan called for an Iris layout where one guideway beam was positioned above and to the side of the other. The purpose was to improve station design. However the visual effect from the side is more vertical obstruction of views. I suggest avoiding the Iris layout Downtown (and possibly other places) because with the beams at different heights, along with the walkways, the combined vertical height creates too much of a “wall” visual effect.

PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING — The earlier plan for the Green Line provided for very little parking at the monorail stations. It was intended that people would take a bus to the monorail stations. However such planning is unrealistic. It would be nice if as few people as possible drove, however in real life there are many people who are too far from a bus stop or for other reasons can’t reasonably take a bus. It is better to have people drive only from home to a monorail station than to drive all the way to their destination. Adequate parking should be provided at stations to encourage those that must drive to use the monorail for part of their trip.

CONSIDER BUILDING IN STAGES — The total cost (excluding financing) of the Green Line from West Seattle to Crown Hill will probably exceed $2 billion. Public opinion is more likely to oppose an expensive project than a less expensive one. I would like to see the entire project done at once, but it may be better initially to push for a shorter section and then extend it later. Once the initial segment is operating and people can experience it, public opinion should be stronger in favor of building the rest of the line.