In August 2004 Team Monorail, a consortium of several companies including Bombardier, decided not to bid on the Green Line design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) contract because they were having some problems at the time and they realized that they could not complete their bid in time for the deadline for submitting bids. This left only one bidder, Cascadia Monorail, Incorporated, and the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) is currently in negotiations with Cascadia to work out details of the contract.

In February 2005 Team Monorail announced that they are now interested in submitting a proposal for what they believe will be a monorail like what the people of Seattle has asked for. They noted that the negotiations with Cascadia Monorail are taking months longer than anticipated, and feel that their proposal should be considered.

The response from the SMP is that they are following the procedures announced for the bidding process, that Team Monorail did not meet the deadline for submitting a bid, and that the negotiations with Cascadia Monorail are taking longer due to political problems in 2004 (there was a petition to stop the monorail project but it was defeated in the November election) and because of the complexity of the contract. The SMP went on to say that they expect to come to an agreement with Cascadia Monorail, but if the negotiations fail, that would be time to consider new options, one of which could be to accept new bids, including one from Team Monorail.

My Opinions

I think that the SMP is correct and justified in refusing to consider the proposal from Team Monorail at this time. It is unfortunate that Team Monorail had problems last Summer that delayed preparation of their proposal, but the fact of the matter is that they failed to submit a bid in time.

However I studied their proposal online and it looks very good. I hope very much that the Cascadia Monorail proposal has the features I like in the Team Monorail proposal.

From the beginning I have believed that no matter what other advantages the monorail may have, the most important thing is that it is intended to be a modern high-speed mass transit system, and that those objectives must be kept in mind during the design.

For me, the main objectives of the design should be:

1. As direct a route as possible, to minimize travel time
2. Trains similar to subway or light-rail trains — roomy, comfortable, high capacity
3. Walk-through trains, where passengers can freely move from car to car, rather than cars enclosed on the ends like in some systems.
4. Expandability — the ability to add capacity (within limits)
5. Extendibility — designed so that the line can be extended and so that other lines can branch off.
6. Regional perspective — even though the Green Line will only be in Seattle, design it with the idea in mind that in the future it will be part of a larger regional system.

Since then I have come up with another personal requirement. In the beginning I assumed dual guideways, in other words two tracks. But then about a year ago the SMP announced plans to use a single guideway, in other words a single track, in parts of the line. To me this adversely affects travel time, expandability, extendibility, and flexibility. So now one other thing I think important in the design is a dual guideway system with the possibility of the final segment in West Seattle (to Morgan Street station).

These are some of the features that Team Monorail claims they will incorporate in their design:

1. Sleeker trains
2. Walk-through trains
3. Lighter-weight trains, therefore thinner columns and beams
4. Dual guideways over the entire route except the segment between N.W. 65th St. and the end of the line at N.W. 85th St.
5. Stations built more over the sidewalk, involving less use of adjacent property
6. A bridge over the Ship Canal that will avoid destroying a boat business currently threatened by SMP plans

Of those features, the ones I am especially interested in is the extensive dual guideways (although I strongly feel dual guideways should extend to N.W. 85th St. because of the likelihood of future extension to Northgate and Lake City), and the walk-through trains. I like the other features also, although if the sleeker trains result in lower capacity, then I would give preference to higher capacity. Although better looks would be better, don’t forget that one thing that should be kept in mind is the importance of the system as a rapid-transit system.

I have long favored Hitachi trains (which would be supplied by Cascadia Monorail) over Bombardier trains (which would be supplied by Team Monorail) despite the sleeker looks of the Bombardier trains, because the Hitachi trains are of a roomy walk-through design whereas the Bombardier trains were smaller and closed off at the ends. However the new trains designed by Bombardier are of a walk-through design. I do not know about their roominess. I have also favored Hitachi because they have more than forty years of experience in the mass transit monorail business, whereas Bombardier’s monorail experience is limited to smaller resort and airport monorails, with the exception of the new Las Vegas monorail. However Bombardier has a great deal of experience in building commuter rail and light rail trains and systems, so it seems reasonable that those skills could be applied to mass transit monorail systems.