The anti-monorail “Yes on Intiative 83 Committee” has distributed tens of thousands of 16-page pamphlets urging voters to vote in favor of Initiative 83, which would prohibit construction of any new monorails on or over city property.
The pamphlet is quite convincing, encouraging construction of light rail rather than monorail. However the pamphlet is full of false and misleading information and suggestions. I will point out as many as possible in the following table:
| WHAT THE PAMPHLET SAYS |
MY REBUTTAL |
| Should we expand the light rail system already under construction... or build a standalone monorail line? |
This is not a one or the other choice. They are two separate projects. They are complementary. We can have both. |
| ...standalone monorail line? |
The monorail line would be integrated with light rail, commuter rail, bus lines, and Amtrak. Furthermore it is the beginning of a city-wide monorail system and there are groups campaigning for regional monorail. The term “standalone” is highly misleading when applied to the Green Line monorail. |
| Seattle’s building two separate mass transit systems. |
Basically true, but misleading. The two are separate in the sense that the monorail trains won’t run on the train tracks and the light rail trains won’t run on the monorail beams. But the two systems are integrated into each other and to other transit modes. |
| Monorail from Ballard, downtown above 2nd Ave, [sic] and out to West Seattle (14 miles). |
True |
| Light rail from the UW, downtown under 3rd Ave, [sic] and out to SeaTac airport (14 miles). |
FALSE! Link light rail currently under construction will go downtown under 3rd Ave. to a point south of Seatac Airport. That portion is 14 miles long. The portions from downtown to the UW (University of Washington) and the rest of the way to Seatac Airport are proposed and are not part of the 14 miles under construction. |
| Unfortunately, they don’t connect. |
Technically true in the sense they don't share stations. However there are several places where a station for one is one or two blocks away from a station for the other. |
| We don’t have unlimited taxpayer resources. |
This is very true! Therefore we should invest our resources in the less expensive, more effective, and less harmful technology — monorail. |
| They come within a block of each other. But they never connect. |
True, but so what? People often have to walk a block or two from one bus stop to another, or between one place and another. |
| Two different 14-mile lines. But no shared stations. |
True, but so what? Already answered in the previous comment. |
| Two uncoordinated stand-alone systems. |
Uncoordinated? Sound Transit and the Seattle Monorail Project are working together to coordinate the two systems, along with bus and other modes of transportation. |
| Two incompatible technologies. |
So what? They are also incompatible with buses and ferries, but they all work together. |
| Two separate agencies. |
So what, as long as they work together and cooperate. |
| No integration. |
Lie! I have already mentioned how all the modes of transportation are, and will be, integrated. |
|
|
| Capacity. This page of the pamphlet argues that long passenger platforms are essential to allow long trains that can handle the passenger loads. A bar chart compares platform lengths of several mass transit systems, with the Seattle Green Line monorail at 90 feet and Seattle light rail at 400 feet. “Seattle’s proposed monorail does not have enough station or train capacity to handle the capacity out city needs.” |
Uh, why do we need 400-foot light rail stations? This is Seattle, not Manhattan! Transportation experts have determined that the monorail platforms and train lengths are more than sufficient for rush hour and event passenger loads here in Seattle. Light rail trains will have more capacity, but it is very doubtful they will use it. |
| Monorail’s “single beam” chokepoints. |
It is true that at the ends of the Green Line there are plans to use a single beam instead of two. I personally would prefer two beams, but I am neither an engineer nor a transportation planner. The experts in those fields have determined that single beams can be used in those areas. However those details are still in negotiation, so the decision is not final. |
| Expansion. This page of the pamphlet argues that it is easier to expand light rail than monorail. |
There really isn't any reason why light rail should be easier to expand than monorail. They both face similar problems of planning a suitable route, procuring right-of-way, and construction. However it seems that it would actually be easier for monorail because it takes up less land. |
| Expanding a monorail is so difficult, there is no monorail network with two or more lines anywhere in the world. |
False and misleading logic! It is true, as far as I know, that there are no two-line networks yet. However that does not mean that this is true because they are so difficult to expand. Actually it's basically just a matter of adding a couple of switches and adding new guideway. |
| The next page of the pamphlet compares switching for monorail and light rail. Monorail uses bulky overhead switches; light rail uses simpler surface switches, as with any railroad. |
This argument is true. Monorail switches are much more bulky and expensive than railroad switches. This is one of the few disadvantages of monorail, not enough to condemn a technology that is superior overall. |
| Flexibility. Two pages of the pamphlet promote the concept that light rail is more flexible than monorail. |
Not true, and they use lies to try to convince people. See the next few items. |
| Light rail systems, like those in Portland and San Diego, can run elevated, at-grade, or below ground. |
True. |
| Monorails are designed to be elevated-only. |
False! This is the primary concept, but they can run at grade or below ground. |
| The second page compares monorail and light rail, with three images for each. For each the first image is elevated, the second is ground level, and the third is below ground. |
I describe each pair of images — monorail vs. light rail — below. |
| The elevated view of monorail shows the old Las Vegas monorail, and for light rail they show construction underway for elevated track for Seattle’s light rail system. |
For their monorail photo they picked one of the smallest trains they could have found, a short car that looks like two minivans welded together back to back. Very misleading! The Seattle monorail will be much larger and have much higher capacity and look much better. I am impressed by their photo of the construction for elevated light rail — far bulkier than any monorail switch and far in excess of the relatively light structure of a monorail guideway. |
| The ground level image for monorail is a blank box with an “X” through it, and the caption, “Monorails can only be elevated.” The photo for light rail is of a train running along the ground. (On tracks of course!) |
LIE! Monorail beams can be laid directly on the ground to permit ground level operation where appropriate. |
| The below ground image for monorail is a blank box with an “X” through it, and the caption, “Monorails can only be elevated.” The photo for light rail is of the downtown Seattle bus tunnel, which will be converted to light rail use (seriously compromising its intended use as a bus tunnel). |
LIE! Monorail beams can be laid directly on the floor of a tunnel to permit underground operation where appropriate. |
| Why don’t other cities use monorail as a mass transit system? |
There are other cities with monorails, although most are overseas. Railways are old and widely used technology that people are used to, and people tend to automatically think of railways when thinking of mass transit. Seattle is a progressive city which has had a short monorail line for more than forty years, and the people here see the advantages and promise of monorail as a technology superior to light rail for our local conditions. |
| The pamphlet quotes a report by Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic, UPS Foundation Professor of Transportation Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Vuchic’s article is critical of monorail and favors rail rapid transit systems. |
Although Dr. Vuchic is an expert in the field of transportation engineering, his opinions are not universally shared. |
| “...for more than four decades monorails have been built only for special purposes, such as amusement parks and airport shuttles. They have been built for regular transit lines in very few cities, mostly in Japan.” Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic |
Because U.S. monorails have been small-scale ones built for amusement parks, etc., they haven't been looked upon as a viable alternative to rail transit. The monorails seem like toys in comparison. In Japan Hitachi designed larger, transit-oriented monorails that have been quite successful in Japan. Forward-thinking Seattle officials visited Japan to see the Hitachi systems and were favorably impressed. The larger monorails are suitable for mass transit purposes, unlike the smaller Disneyland-type monorails. |
| “Since 1979 no less than 20 cities in North American and many more overseas have built new light rail systems. None has selected a monorail.” Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic |
I have already noted that when thinking of mass transit, most people automatically think of rail, as if there is no alternative. The statement that no city selected monorail is false. Mass transit monorails have recently opened in Sydney, Australia; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Moscow, Russia; Okinawa; and Las Vegas. |
| The next page of the pamphlet has two bar charts. The first one compares construction costs of various projects and the second one compares operation and maintenance costs of various light rail and monorail systems. The first graph shows much higher costs for monorail than light rail projects, and the second graph shows monorails costing much more for operation and maintenance. |
The construction costs graph shows many projects built many years ago when costs of construction and materials were much lower, and when real estate costs were lower. Conveniently for the opponents, the graph does not include the Seattle light rail line, which will cost about a billion dollars more than the monorail. I do not have a way to check on the operation and maintenance costs, however the Jacksonville monorail was a poorly designed project and has the highest costs. |
| “Instead of two separate systems, how about one really good one?” This page argues in favor of killing monorail in favor of light rail. |
Yes, let build one really good system — monorail! Monorail takes up less space on the ground so is less disruptive to communities. It is quietier. It is separated from surface traffic so is faster, more reliable, and can’t run over people or hit cars. Monorail takes less space so doesn't require as much demolition of homes and businesses as light rail does. Monorail costs less per mile in the Seattle area, so for the money spent on light rail, monorail can be extended further, faster. |
©2002 Robert M. Fleming Jr.
This page was last updated 30 October 2004.
