Fact Check: Anti-Monorail Group's 23 Gripes

The anti-monorail campaign's list of 23 reasons why you should support their campaign is full of distortions and outright lies. It's no more than a grab bag of recycled claims from the 2002 election and a few new non-issues that they try to use as proof that the plan has changed when it in fact is the same as when approved in 2002. Out of 23 supposed reasons to kill the monorail, only 3 points have anything remotely to do with it being different that what we voted on in 2002. Here is the truth for each:

1. "Significant Financial Problems" - Opponents make the claim that the Seattle Monorail Project is showing "desperate signs" of financial problems, but they don't back it up with any evidence of the desperation. They cite a year-old number that the MVET revenues are 30% below projections and go on to cite RCW 35.95A.120 to claim that this allows a vote by the people to desolve the authority.

Fact: The monorail project is currently $150 million under budget, coming down from an estimate of $1.75 billion to $1.6 billion. Also, the issues with the mvet are much better today than when first reported in 2003. Changes by the state Department of Licencing have reduced one of the major reasons for the shortfall: tax cheats. In fact, the Seattle PI reports that recent revenue has ranged from 72% to over 100% of expectations. Additionally, how can we trust the financial analysis of monorail opponents when they can't even keep their own books in order?

Also, the opposition campaign's mention of the authorizing legislation for the monorail is pretty funny, since they decided to use an illegal shortcut to run their initiative since they knew that they couldn't prove the "Significant Financial Problems" as required by state law.

2. "Promise By The Elevated Transportation Company" - Claims that the ETC is breaking it's promise to bring the system back to the voters if it can't be built as shown in the original plan. Again, this is just a vague claim with no specifics - it only refers to the other reasons that follow. Maybe someone should teach these folks how to put meaningful lists together.

Fact: The current plan for the green line is to build a 14 mile system with 19 stations to connect neighborhoods to the jobs, shopping, and special events downtown - exactly like the plan the voters approved in November of 2002.

3. "Single Track" - The anti-monorailers are scared of the single beam and claim that this constitutes a significant change.

Fact: The high volume portions of the line are located downtown, where the system will be exclusively 2 tracks. The single track was a recent idea that better scales the system to the travel demand that will be seen at the ends of the line in Ballard and West Seattle. Additionally, this is all premature since the Cascadia Monorail team is allowed to use dual tracks for the entire length of the line. We should find out the details of their bid in the next few weeks.

4. "Elevators Instead of Escalators" The opposition bemoans the SMP's decision to reduce the size of stations by using large, fast elevators in stations instead of bulky escalators.

Fact: This is by far the silliest of their claims: we should not build a monorail because it offends our natural love of escalators. Anyone who has ever set foot into a downtown office building knows that it's rare to find escalators in any non-shopping building taller than two stories. I ride elevators at work 10 times a day, and it's obviously a quick, safe, and efficient way to move people up and down. Elevators will be faster, cheaper to maintain, and allow the system to be built without condemning huge sections of blocks to build stations. This is just smart, forward thinking design.

5. "Voting Booth - No Mention of the Years We Will Pay The Tax" - MRC members claim that voters were not told the length of time the tax would be collected.

Fact: The opposition must have been sleeping during the campaign when this was discussed many, many times. Anyone that knows anything about multi-million dollar bond issues will tell you that investors don't want an artificial limit on the length of the payback period. They want to sign a contract that will guarantee repayment regardless of the specific down-to-the-year end date. Otherwise voters end up paying a much higher interest rate on the debt.

6. "Higher Tax - How Is The Tax Calculated?" - The anti-monorail group claims that voters didn't know their vehicle would be valued using the same tables that were used for the old statewide MVET tax. They also lie by saying that the valuation formula used by the state DOL is illegal. The MVET tax formula has always remained in place - it just isn't levied by the state any longer. If it was in fact illegal, why don't the opponents sue on that basis instead of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for another election?

Fact: Again, the valuation was discussed a great deal before the 2002 election, explaining that it would be just like the old pre-Eyman statewide vehicle tax except that is would be only 1.4% instead of 2.4%. In fact, this is the only way the state can do it. It would be impossible to use "actual value" such as a blue book value due to the fact that it varies so much from car to car depending on mileage, condition, etc. There is no way the state could inspect the details of every car every year.

7. "Preserve Historic Seattle Center" - Complaints that the Seattle Center route was not on the ballot, and that it will disturb the quiet, peaceful environment of the Bite of Seattle. Also claimed is that "the curves required will make for a slow commute".

Fact: The ambiguity of the Seattle Center route was well discussed in the 2002 campaign. Mayor Nichols and other Seattle Center interests requested that a final decision be put off until after the election when everyone could come together and agree on the best path. Seattle Center has never been a quiet garden of relaxation - it is the home to numerous loud, busy festivals, rock concerts, and sporting events. The monorail will fit in well for those surroundings and provide an easy way for the center's patrons to get to their events. The final route is supported by the Seattle Center authorities, the Queen Anne community, and surrounding organizations such as the EMP. Also - the claim of being slowed down is ludicrous - the final route through Seattle center has three very gentle, large radius turns that will negligibly affect the speed as the trains leave and approach the two nearby stations.

8. "Parking Not Strategically Addressed" - Another recycled complaint that the monorail isn't spending hundreds of millions of dollars building parking spaces.

Fact: The new monorail plain includes $25 million for station parking. Plus, city policy prohibits building park-and-ride lots within the city limits. The plan has always been to use the bus hours that will be freed from downtown trips to expand service into neighborhoods and use them to connect people to monorail stations. This is much more cost efficient than building parking spaces at $22,000 a piece and results in giving more people access to fast, clean, scenic monorail trips into town.

9. "No Noise Pollution Mitigation Plan" - Compares the noise of monorail to the jets at SeaTac (!!) and claims that the SPMA should be buying noise insulation for neighboring properties. Also contains unfounded claims that the EIS didn't spend enough effort on analyzing noise.

Fact: The EIS spends 51 pages on noise (see section 4.7 "Noise and Vibration" in the EIS), but maybe MRC members were too busy covering up Martin Selig's payola to read it. Here's an executive summary: a jet taking off produces 120 dBA at 200 feet, while a monorail will produce only 70 dbA at 50 feet which is comparable to a diesel bus at idle. In other words, a monorail gliding by will be quieter than the car and truck traffic on the street below. I live on the 48 bus route with articulated buses going by every 10 minutes - should I get Metro to pay for noise insulation for my house?

10. "Downgraded Stations" - The claim is made that stations will be "bare bones" and that the public will not have the ability to influence the design. No supporting articles or public statements are included to back this up.

Fact: Architects from the SPMA have been working with neighborhoods for the last 2 years to gather ideas for station designs. No one has ever said that stations will be minimalist. We'll get the full facts in a few weeks when the details of the contractor's bid is revealed. Also, remember that these are the same types of people who would be complaining if the stations were nice too: the typical "Why are you wasting our tax dollars on public art?" talk radio rant.

11. "Reduced Ridership" - Additional unfounded claims that the final monorail design won't support the ridership estimate of 69,000 passengers per day. The only supporting data is 3,000 riders per day on the Skyway in Jacksonville.

Fact: The green line ridership estimates were done by a nationally known engineering firm called URS using the same computer modeling as done for Sound Transit and other federally regulated transportation systems. Also, the train system mentioned in Florida is widely known to be poorly designed and only 2.5 miles long vs. 14 for the green line. Once again, a distortion-filled assertion is made by the monorail opponents with absolutely no corroborating evidence.

12. "Route Changes/ Inside Deals?" - Completely false claims are made that the route was changed after the vote. The only specific accusation is that the Seattle School District got favorable treatment near their headquarters.

Fact: Every specific corridor that was in the plan approved by voters is a part of the final solution developed by the SMP. This includes 5th Ave, 2nd Ave, and then 3rd Ave out to Lander. The claim made by MRC that the school board had an inside deal is 100% WRONG - The final plan runs right next to the school board building on two sides.

13. "Demolition of the 1962 Monorail" - Laments the tearing down of the old monorail columns that supported the trains that are currently grounded due to the Memorial Day fire. Also claims that voters didn't know old monorail would be torn down before the 2002 vote that approved the green line and questions why a "commuter train" would need to go to Seattle Center.

Fact: The destruction of the 5th Ave monorail was well discussed before the 2002 vote. The plan that was approved by voters stated that the green line would run down 5th, where the 1962 monorail is located. Isn't is interesting how sometimes the monorail opponents attack saying that it is deviating from the plan, and then they turn around and say that the problem is that it is doing what it said? Also - the recent fire has raised questions whether the old trains will ever run again whether the new city-wide monorail system is built or not.

14. "Before the Vote: 'We Will Break Even' After the Vote, Admission it will 'Never Break Even' " - Recycles old 2002 arguments that no transportation system in the US breaks even and misleadingly implies that SMP officials have "admitted" it won't, without any supporting quotes or documentation.

Fact: Another distortion lobbed by desperate monorail opponents. SMP officials have always maintained that break-even operation is the goal and that it is achievable. The claim that no transportation system in the US has succeeded at this is meaningless since no other US city has a modern, elevated, completely automated system like our green line will be. In fact, there is a nearby city whose mass transit does operate at break-even: the Vancouver Sky Train a few miles north in Canada. It shares many similarities with the monorail's design: elevated and automated.

15. "Citywide Plan Will Never Be Built" - Another set of recycled arguments that the tax base won't support the follow-on monorail lines in the citywide plan. Again no specifics are offered, just unsubstantiated assertions.

Fact: The Seattle Monorail Project has been working for the last year on 2nd phase planning. As has been discussed many times, additional lines are completely feasible through federal funding that contains credit for the money we put into the green line. Also, the current MVET tax will grow at a rate of 6% per year which could provide funds for further expansion of the system.

16. "Questionable Monorail Management" - Claims that the monorail should be killed because Joel Horn isn't from a transit background and because top officials are paid too much.

Fact: Joel Horn was selected to lead the agency due to his strong leadership as a member of the ETC staff and to help get the project going quickly - i.e. save taxpayer money. And how is the salary of monorail officials a good reason to kill the project?

17. "Monorail Credibility" - Claims that the agency has lost all credibility due to the delay in reporting the MVET collection shortfall to the board.

Fact: The delay occurred while staff were trying to get all of the details on the problem and be able to report an entire picture. The board represented the people of Seattle and properly scolded the staff for not bringing it to their attention in a more timely fashion.

18. "Soaks Up Taxes Needed For Basic Services" - Another generic rant that the city has a funding problem and so we shouldn't worry about the fact that huge numbers of the city's citizens sit stuck in traffic every day.

Fact: Again, this has nothing to do with the monorail's route, design, or other aspects of the plan. It's just the typical sentiment you would expect from an anti-tax Tim Eyman wannabe.

19. "Monorail Riders Already Ride Buses" - Complaints that a majority of monorail riders will be existing bus riders and that the number of new riders will be "miniscule".

Fact: The ETC's ridership studies indicated that the monorail would convert almost 20,000 car riders to fast monorail trips. The complaint about bus riders is a typical anti-transit argument: "We've given them buses, isn't that good enough?". Perhaps the anti-monorail leaders should step on a bus once in a while a see the issue for themselves: slow, stuck in traffic, and often standing room only. Monorail will shave 15-20 minutes off of the average bus trip, and will be faster than driving in peak hours. This time advantage will be the prime factor that draws people off the streets and into an easy monorail commute.

20. "Seattle Taxpayers Give Suburban Commuters A Free Ride" - Anti-monorailers are evidently disturbed by all the people who come into Seattle every day to work, shop, and attend events without having to pay city taxes.

Fact: The Green-line is contained completely in the city and is designed to connect neighborhoods with downtown. The vast majority of riders will be Seattle citizens who pay the tax. People from neighboring cities should be welcomed with open arms to come into town and spend their money, set up businesses with good jobs, and support our local arts and sports scenes. If monorail makes that easier for them, so much the better.

21. "Does Not Solve Real Transportation Problems" - The most popular of Henry Aronson's attacks during the 2002 campaign (are we sure he's not a part of MRC?). Just the usual generic complaints that we should be building roads instead of building a rapid-transit monorail system.

Fact: Already around 50% of the employees in downtown Seattle get there every day on transit. A fast, easy monorail system will push that even higher. Roads such as I-5, 520, 99, and I-90 are the obligations of the federal and state governments, not the city of Seattle. Additional dollars put into freeways is throwing money into a black hole - there will still be thousands of people stuck in traffic every day. Monorail will get them up above the congestion and speed them to work and play.

22. "The Monorail Is An Elevated Train" - A complaint that the new monorail is an elevated system that whisks people up above the clogged streets and highways, repeating the previously discredited fears of noise. Also makes the completely unsubstantiated claim that 5th Ave has suffered due to the existing monorail.

Fact: Yes, the monorail is elevated. That is it's main advantage in that it's up in the air on it's own track, separate from our notorious traffic congestion. Finally ETC studies in 2002 indicated that 5th Ave property values have increased due to the existing monorail, and business owners along 5th are supportive of the new plan.

23. "Tax May Drive Businesses Out Of Seattle" - Drives a scare tactic that the monorail tax will force out companies that depend on fleets of vehicles.

Fact: The monorail vehicle tax is among the smallest of all taxes paid by businesses in Seattle. First of all, most business don't own vehicles. Those that do still pay many time more money in B&O, property, and sales taxes than they ever will on the monorail tax.