Seattle Monorail, lunacy or legitimate?
In an effort to try and educate myself about the current Monorail proposal and the opposition to it, I have endeavored to read the two most likely candidates to provide relevant information. This should compliment nicely the existing posts on this site related to the Seattle vs. Jakarta monorail challenge which thehim has been so diligently following.
www.elevated.org is the site set up to establish and track the Monorail project. The site has a bunch of links to various content ranging from fluffy monthly newletters to real project proposal details. Some of the preliminary study data is available online but the real meat of the site is contained in the original proposal and the news room. The proposal, as near as I can make it, was the original proposal submitted for voter approval and does not contain updates based on engineering issues which seem to have partially prompted the recall. While a good read of the proposal is a must, the issues here are best summarized by looking at the recall issues on a point by point basis.
www.monorailrecall.com is the site focused on recalling the monorail. The site itself is a pile of worthless drivel not befitting much attention other than political propaganda. The only piece of relevant information discussing the issues at hand is the I-83 compare document. Short on strict detail, here are the specific grievances I can name:
The Two Lines Do Not Connect
It is true that the proposed light rail line and the proposed monorail line do not meet. However, they are within a block of each other. If you have ever used the bus system here, or subway systems in New York, Paris, Washington DC, Chicago, or Atlanta (to name a few), you often need to do some amount of walking to get from one station to the next. In Paris, I walked the equivalent of 3 city blocks from one line to another, in the same station. In point of fact, any multi-line mass transit system is constructed of lines that explicitly do not meet each other and do require some amount of walking.
Is this a problem? Only for whiners. Mass transit isn't meant to pick you up from your front door and deliver you to the front door of your destination, some amount of walking is required. For those who want to tell me that walking a block to make the switch from light rail to monorail, especially when that trip may have started in Tacoma and ends in Ballard; need to take a flashlight and find a relevant argument.
Lastly, the original proposal never said the monorail would integrate with light rail. While this would be a profound bonus, it hasn't changed.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype.
No Shared Stations
This is addressed above. There is no shared station, which is unfortunate since it would be preferred. But again, the distance between the monorail station and the light rail station is a city block. Given the limitations on budget, construction of a shared station may have imposed significant costs. Further, this is hardly an issue that can't be solved later.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Unfortunate but unimportant.
Lack of Integrated Policies
This is one of the potentially most disturbing aspects of the program. The monorail governance is performed by a third party organization, not the metro-King County transit authority. Inevitably, the lack of one roof administrations can lead to mixed policy and an overall degradation of the service. However, what is important to look at here is the fact that the monorail officials are already working with the existing transit authorities to work out the details of the service.
One of the primary arguments is the fact that there will not be a shared pass or other such unification which will make ridership easier. This is simply hogwash. The monorail proposal proposes no specifics with regards to pass pricing or policies; these are all to be determined at a later date. With the opening of the monorail still in the future, it is understandable that specific pricing and structure details have not been worked out. In fact, in most organizations this is the last step before releasing a product.
What we can say is clear is that there are news releases showing joint work between the monorail and the existing transit authorities. While I take it on faith, I do assume that when the specifics of any policy are being worked out, the needs of the combined rider bases will be taken into account and as such, sensible policies will be adopted.
Assume that sensible policies are not adopted. If this turns out to be the case, there are avenues for appeal. These include targeting the elected officials on the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (SPMA) as well as targeting the King Country Transit officials. Overall, this is hardly an insurmountable barrier.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Unfortunate but unimportant
Incompatible Technolgies
Yep, it is true. The monorail and the light rail run on different and incompatible technologies. This has the possibility of driving up maintenance costs and certainly doesn't allow for specific economies of scale that could be derived from an entire cities use of a single technology (if any could possibly exist anyway). However, I believe this will likely not be as serious an issue as it is made out to be.
Fundamentally, the ridership doesn't care what technology is used to get from A to B. This is strictly a mode that needs to work. The specific implementation of the technology will require specific skills in order to maintain and operate, but this is true any time there is a system with multiple technologies. As an example, take our bus system. King County buses and Sound Transit buses have different makes and models. Further, some are alternatively powered and other are diesel. The net here is that technicians working on the bus system are already in a position to need to know many different types of technologies. True, some basic building blocks are the same. But this argument carries equally well with monorail and light rail.
The point is this, at the end of the day it doesn't matter when it gets the job done. A person hops off the light rail and transfers one block to the monorail doesn't care about the technologies. They care about the service which is the next talking point.
Finally, to bring it back to the point, voters voted on a monorail. We didn't vote on a light rail proposal (we did, but that was a different proposal altogether) and then have it change to monorail.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype
Platform Length
The monorail proposal calls for platforms measuring rough 140 - 160 feet in length and between 22 and 27 feet in width. Based on the I-83 site, the size of the platforms has been reduced to around 90 feet in length. The straight dope here is that this is a serious limitation. Stations build to this standard will likely be difficult to upgrade to a "full length" platform and the right of way costs could be exorbitant.
I think this is a classic example of where trying to stay in budget leads to short termed solutions which will degrade long term performance. One needs only look at the 520 bridge here in Seattle to see a great example of "good enough" at work. While I applaud the effort to stay in budget, this is a decision that could haunt the monorail for decades.
Determination: Specific design change. Problem waiting to happen
Single Beam Sections
The single beam sections have drawn a considerable amount of flak from critics. Even before I started looking into the monorail issues, I heard about this. Like the platform lengths, this issues is again attributed to budgetary measures.
There are five sections, depending on how you want to count it, of single beam section. The entirety of the single section track exist near the terminus at each end. All of the downtown area of the monorail is double track sections. Notable is that the single section track exists in areas where there are few stations which should speed transit and reduce possible delays.
I am not a scheduling expert, nor do I believe anyone with the I-83 camp is a scheduling expert (John Magnusson is a structural engineer, which makes him as reliable a source on the scheduling issues as I), but to say that these single section tracks will constitute a significant scheduling issue is not realistic. The trains are automated which will already make them able to follow precise schedules and allow them to make adjustments to correct for minor schedule delays (think passenger not in the door). However, the placement of the single track sections greatly reduces the overall likelihood of track scheduling conflicts.
Now the I-83 camp does have a valid point with respect to redundancy in times of failure. Any time a single point of failure is introduced into a system, you should be wary. And this will be an Achilles' heel for the system until such time that the track can be expanded to two lines. Which raises an interesting point; for light rail, addition of lines requires additional right of way costs. For the monorail, the right of way already exists and a second line can be quickly added to existing support structures.
Determination: Specific design change. Mostly hype but single point of failure is bad.
Future Expansion
I-83 proponents point out that monorail systems are difficult to expand. There is no supporting evidence other than citing other cities that have only a single line. This says nothing. There are any number or social or political reasons which could prevent additional construction. The simple fact is that lack of building does not equal difficulty of building. Show me substantive data, and I will evaluate it.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype
Geographical Flexibility
One of the keys pointed out by I-83 proponents is that the monorail only comes in one flavor; above ground. They point out that monorail cannot be placed at street level nor can it go underground. Fine, we voted on an above ground system anyway.
What I contest is that it isn't possible to make monorail run at ground or sub-terrainian levels. The monorail simply runs on a track, it is fundamentally different than the light rail track but that does not make it impossible to run in these ways. I am an engineer, give me a CAD program and some dimensions and I will draft it up for you.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype
Construction and Operation Costs
I-83 proponents have a set of graphs showing the construction and operation costs of light rail opposed to monorail. The graphs show a significantly higher cost in both for monorails than for light rail. It is hard for me to specifically debunk this as I assume the costs are correct given specific factors. Here is what I question:
www.elevated.org is the site set up to establish and track the Monorail project. The site has a bunch of links to various content ranging from fluffy monthly newletters to real project proposal details. Some of the preliminary study data is available online but the real meat of the site is contained in the original proposal and the news room. The proposal, as near as I can make it, was the original proposal submitted for voter approval and does not contain updates based on engineering issues which seem to have partially prompted the recall. While a good read of the proposal is a must, the issues here are best summarized by looking at the recall issues on a point by point basis.
www.monorailrecall.com is the site focused on recalling the monorail. The site itself is a pile of worthless drivel not befitting much attention other than political propaganda. The only piece of relevant information discussing the issues at hand is the I-83 compare document. Short on strict detail, here are the specific grievances I can name:
The Two Lines Do Not Connect
It is true that the proposed light rail line and the proposed monorail line do not meet. However, they are within a block of each other. If you have ever used the bus system here, or subway systems in New York, Paris, Washington DC, Chicago, or Atlanta (to name a few), you often need to do some amount of walking to get from one station to the next. In Paris, I walked the equivalent of 3 city blocks from one line to another, in the same station. In point of fact, any multi-line mass transit system is constructed of lines that explicitly do not meet each other and do require some amount of walking.
Is this a problem? Only for whiners. Mass transit isn't meant to pick you up from your front door and deliver you to the front door of your destination, some amount of walking is required. For those who want to tell me that walking a block to make the switch from light rail to monorail, especially when that trip may have started in Tacoma and ends in Ballard; need to take a flashlight and find a relevant argument.
Lastly, the original proposal never said the monorail would integrate with light rail. While this would be a profound bonus, it hasn't changed.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype.
No Shared Stations
This is addressed above. There is no shared station, which is unfortunate since it would be preferred. But again, the distance between the monorail station and the light rail station is a city block. Given the limitations on budget, construction of a shared station may have imposed significant costs. Further, this is hardly an issue that can't be solved later.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Unfortunate but unimportant.
Lack of Integrated Policies
This is one of the potentially most disturbing aspects of the program. The monorail governance is performed by a third party organization, not the metro-King County transit authority. Inevitably, the lack of one roof administrations can lead to mixed policy and an overall degradation of the service. However, what is important to look at here is the fact that the monorail officials are already working with the existing transit authorities to work out the details of the service.
One of the primary arguments is the fact that there will not be a shared pass or other such unification which will make ridership easier. This is simply hogwash. The monorail proposal proposes no specifics with regards to pass pricing or policies; these are all to be determined at a later date. With the opening of the monorail still in the future, it is understandable that specific pricing and structure details have not been worked out. In fact, in most organizations this is the last step before releasing a product.
What we can say is clear is that there are news releases showing joint work between the monorail and the existing transit authorities. While I take it on faith, I do assume that when the specifics of any policy are being worked out, the needs of the combined rider bases will be taken into account and as such, sensible policies will be adopted.
Assume that sensible policies are not adopted. If this turns out to be the case, there are avenues for appeal. These include targeting the elected officials on the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (SPMA) as well as targeting the King Country Transit officials. Overall, this is hardly an insurmountable barrier.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Unfortunate but unimportant
Incompatible Technolgies
Yep, it is true. The monorail and the light rail run on different and incompatible technologies. This has the possibility of driving up maintenance costs and certainly doesn't allow for specific economies of scale that could be derived from an entire cities use of a single technology (if any could possibly exist anyway). However, I believe this will likely not be as serious an issue as it is made out to be.
Fundamentally, the ridership doesn't care what technology is used to get from A to B. This is strictly a mode that needs to work. The specific implementation of the technology will require specific skills in order to maintain and operate, but this is true any time there is a system with multiple technologies. As an example, take our bus system. King County buses and Sound Transit buses have different makes and models. Further, some are alternatively powered and other are diesel. The net here is that technicians working on the bus system are already in a position to need to know many different types of technologies. True, some basic building blocks are the same. But this argument carries equally well with monorail and light rail.
The point is this, at the end of the day it doesn't matter when it gets the job done. A person hops off the light rail and transfers one block to the monorail doesn't care about the technologies. They care about the service which is the next talking point.
Finally, to bring it back to the point, voters voted on a monorail. We didn't vote on a light rail proposal (we did, but that was a different proposal altogether) and then have it change to monorail.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype
Platform Length
The monorail proposal calls for platforms measuring rough 140 - 160 feet in length and between 22 and 27 feet in width. Based on the I-83 site, the size of the platforms has been reduced to around 90 feet in length. The straight dope here is that this is a serious limitation. Stations build to this standard will likely be difficult to upgrade to a "full length" platform and the right of way costs could be exorbitant.
I think this is a classic example of where trying to stay in budget leads to short termed solutions which will degrade long term performance. One needs only look at the 520 bridge here in Seattle to see a great example of "good enough" at work. While I applaud the effort to stay in budget, this is a decision that could haunt the monorail for decades.
Determination: Specific design change. Problem waiting to happen
Single Beam Sections
The single beam sections have drawn a considerable amount of flak from critics. Even before I started looking into the monorail issues, I heard about this. Like the platform lengths, this issues is again attributed to budgetary measures.
There are five sections, depending on how you want to count it, of single beam section. The entirety of the single section track exist near the terminus at each end. All of the downtown area of the monorail is double track sections. Notable is that the single section track exists in areas where there are few stations which should speed transit and reduce possible delays.
I am not a scheduling expert, nor do I believe anyone with the I-83 camp is a scheduling expert (John Magnusson is a structural engineer, which makes him as reliable a source on the scheduling issues as I), but to say that these single section tracks will constitute a significant scheduling issue is not realistic. The trains are automated which will already make them able to follow precise schedules and allow them to make adjustments to correct for minor schedule delays (think passenger not in the door). However, the placement of the single track sections greatly reduces the overall likelihood of track scheduling conflicts.
Now the I-83 camp does have a valid point with respect to redundancy in times of failure. Any time a single point of failure is introduced into a system, you should be wary. And this will be an Achilles' heel for the system until such time that the track can be expanded to two lines. Which raises an interesting point; for light rail, addition of lines requires additional right of way costs. For the monorail, the right of way already exists and a second line can be quickly added to existing support structures.
Determination: Specific design change. Mostly hype but single point of failure is bad.
Future Expansion
I-83 proponents point out that monorail systems are difficult to expand. There is no supporting evidence other than citing other cities that have only a single line. This says nothing. There are any number or social or political reasons which could prevent additional construction. The simple fact is that lack of building does not equal difficulty of building. Show me substantive data, and I will evaluate it.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype
Geographical Flexibility
One of the keys pointed out by I-83 proponents is that the monorail only comes in one flavor; above ground. They point out that monorail cannot be placed at street level nor can it go underground. Fine, we voted on an above ground system anyway.
What I contest is that it isn't possible to make monorail run at ground or sub-terrainian levels. The monorail simply runs on a track, it is fundamentally different than the light rail track but that does not make it impossible to run in these ways. I am an engineer, give me a CAD program and some dimensions and I will draft it up for you.
Determination: No change from monorail proposal. Hype
Construction and Operation Costs
I-83 proponents have a set of graphs showing the construction and operation costs of light rail opposed to monorail. The graphs show a significantly higher cost in both for monorails than for light rail. It is hard for me to specifically debunk this as I assume the costs are correct given specific factors. Here is what I question:
- The same cities aren't listed in both graphs, why not? Were they not as compelling in both places?
- Do the graphs for construction costs equally measure right of way costs
Determination: Inconclusive
Summary
The net of this post is twofold. One is to point out that the issues here are not black and white. You need to dig a little and in comparing and contrasting and asking questions, you can reach an informed decision. That isn't to say you need to reach mine.
Which brings me to my second point. I have talked to people who don't want the monorail because it doesn't solve their problem. Well guess what, K-12 education doesn't do anything for me right now because I don't have kids. That doesn't mean I am not going to pay for it because when I do have a child that needs school, I want that infrastructure in place and humming.
If this specific form of mass transit doesn't help you, sorry. But look at the whole picture and rationalize that. Infrastructure is a problem in Seattle and unfortunately people want a magic bullet. It doesn't happen that way and with the electorate in Seattle asking for voting oversight at every turn, it is even less likely that we will ever get anything. The monorail is a specific remedy for a specific problem. It doesn't solve them all, and it may not be as good as light rail. But there is no specific plan I have found to expand light rail in the ways addressed by the monorail which, by defacto, makes the monorail better than nothing.
posted by Kermit at 1:03 AM
<< Home