Public Interest Transportation Forum - http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf

Seattle Monorail Recall: First, Set Transportation Priorities

by Dick Nelson

SUMMARY

A Seattle citywide initiative has been filed to prohibit the planned Monorail Green Line from using public right-of-ways. Since state law establishes the grounds and a procedure for dissolving the monorail authority, an effort to kill the monorail can only be done indirectly under the city charter. According to sponsors, the "recall" initiative responds to concern over the Green Line's revenue shortfall and that it will lead to compromises in design standards and technical performance. Adverse routing/alignment impacts are also mentioned.

Given the broad latitude project builders have been given to modify the monorail's form and operation, the monorail authority's ability to borrow against tax revenues over longer periods, and important political realities, success of the initiative at the polls is no certainty. Monorail opponents might want to consider another approach that may improve their chances and at the same time contribute to the transportation policy process.

The costs and benefits of the Green Line could be assessed in a comprehensive review of all major city and regional transportation projects. An initiative could require the city to compare the monorail with other projects that have been either committed to or identified and then require that all of them be prioritized in the context of limited city resources. This would not only benefit the city but the greater region. And it would seem to have a greater likelihood of success.

Click here for Dick Nelson's comprehensive review of the 2002 Green Line Proposal.

ANALYSIS

Latitude In Seattle Popular Monorail Plan

Voters have given the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) and the Green Line DBOMers (design-build-operate-maintain contractors) a lot of flexibility in both design and operational performance in order to bring costs in line with revenues. The monorail builders seem to be on the path to use much of that latitude (single track sections, longer trip times, station modifications). Initiative 53 contained only general statements regarding the design of the initial line and the citywide system and the city's responsibility. It caused a Plan to be developed, but the Plan is amendable by the SMP Board. Initiative Options The state law (ESSB 6464, 2002 Regular Session) that established the SMP as an independent transportation authority and created its tax base provides that the SMP may be dissolved by a city-wide referendum vote "if the authority is faced with significant financial problems." The bill provided no definition of what constitutes significant financial problems (note the plural.) And it requires that referendum petitions carry valid signatures of at least 15 percent of the city's registered voters.

This signature requirement is substantially greater (more than 3 times) than what is required for an initiative petition under the Seattle City Charter (Article IV). The charter requires signatures at least equal to 10% of the votes cast for the office of mayor in the last election (about 18,000). And the state law allows only 90 days for signature gathering compared to 180 days (plus 20 more if the first count is insufficient) for a charter-authorized initiative. The previous monorail initiatives were placed on the ballot under the City's less stringent signature requirements.

Charter Initiative Preferred, But May Be Difficult

The state law gives a definite edge to a City charter-based initiative. However, a city charter initiative has its own set of problems. An initiative that directs that the City may not issue permits would likely mean that the council would let it go to the ballot without taking action. A majority of the Council seems supportive of the monorail in spite of its lack of performance, financial problems, and routing controversy.

At this point it appears that one can anticipate an election that pits a majority of council members, the Mayor, environmental groups, most Seattle Center entities, downtown business leaders, and numerous contractors and law firms involved with the monorail, against some citizens and property owners. Other significant players may choose one side or the other. One can expect a lot of money to be spent by monorail proponents and much (even more) spin by the monorail authority.

Possible Substance of an Alternative City Initiative

An alternative approach could require the City Council to provide a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of all of the major transportation projects that are currently on the table, including those that are physically in the city and those that are outside the city but affect city residents, before it issues permits for monorail construction. The analysis would suggest priorities for current and new revenues. The City or our regional transportation-planning agency, the Puget Sound Regional Council, has never done such a fiscal analysis. The City has a strategic transportation plan but the document is simply a menu for all of the sundry transportation improvements that the city would like to undertake. There is no prioritization and no recognition of fiscal constraints. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) does no better. It simply catalogs all of the transportation projects that every jurisdiction, including Seattle, in the four counties of the region has programmed out to 2030. It does acknowledge that there is a significant regional transportation budget shortfall.

Projects to Include

Here are mega and mini-mega roadway and transit projects that a city analysis should encompass. They have been selected to show the range of projects and their financial magnitude. Included are several outside the city projects that have a clear impact on travel into and through the city, and some other projects that city residents will be asked to help pay for through regional funding arrangements. The dollar amounts are estimates of construction costs that have been provided in official documents such as the PSRC's Destination 2030 project list and recent news reports. No effort has been made to verify these numbers. Costs at the high end of a range have been used since the drift of costs for large public works projects is usually upward. Not included are debt service (interest) costs that in some cases will double construction costs.

bullet

Alaskan Way Viaduct/Seawall ($4,100 m)

bullet

Evergreen Point Bridge/SR520 ($6,000 m)

bullet

I-5 repaving ($2,000 m)

bullet

I-5 HOV connectors ($140 m)

bullet

I-405 widening ($4,200 m)

bullet

Link light rail from downtown Seattle to Northgate ($2,500 m)

bullet

Link light rail from South 154th to SeaTac Airport to South 200th ($230 m)

bullet

High Capacity Transit Phase 2 extensions North and to Eastside ($1,050 m)

bullet

High Capacity Transit Phase 3 extensions ($200 m)

bullet

Green Line ($1,750 m)

bullet

Green Line extension from Crown Hill to Northgate/Lake City ($290 m)

bullet

Green Line Extension from Delridge to Vashon Ferry Terminal ($80 m)

bullet

Complete 5-line citywide monorail system ($1,200+ m)

bullet

Seattle-Everett Sounder commuter rail service improvements ($75 m)

bullet

South Lake Union trolley ($50 m)

bullet

Mercer Street corridor ($27 m)

bullet

Magnolia Bridge ($100 m)

bullet

Aurora North corridor including bridge expansion ($107 m)

bullet

Street and other transportation improvements identified in neighborhood plans ($500 m)

bullet

Seattle arterial and neighborhood streets deferred maintenance ($2,400 m)

Regional Revenue Shortfall

The PSRC (Transportation Finance 1989-2000) has inventoried regional costs for all programs by category through 2030 and compared the totals to current law revenues. Projected transportation revenues for all regional programs (city streets, county roads, local transit, regional transit, state ferries, state highways) are currently estimated to be $72.1 billion (2000 $). This amount includes several recent adjustments that both add and subtract from the total:

Revenue decreases:

bullet

Full effects of I-747 on county road levies

bullet

Elimination of county/city motor vehicle license fees from ruling on I-776

bullet

Refined estimate of city general fund contributions

Revenue increases:

bullet

Nickel state gas tax share for four-county region (approx. $1.9 billion)

bullet

Monorail tax (sales and MVET) authority

bullet

Sound Transit's full funding grant agreement

bullet

Voter approved sales tax increases for all local transit operators

In 2001, the PSRC (Destination 2030) estimated the cost of all planned transportation investments for system expansion and basic needs in the region out to 2030. Basic needs encompass maintenance, preservation, operation, safety, and debt service. The total came to $105 billion.

Thus the shortfall between current law revenues and investment costs is $33 billion, or about one-third of what is needed.

Conclusion

There may be other projects that should be added to the list of Seattle projects. But it suffices to indicate the enormous magnitude of transportation needs and wants and, together with the regional shortfall, it suggests the large gap between transportation costs and fiscal (tax payer) capacity.

Is it perhaps time for someone in our government leadership to "rise above it all" and determine what we really need and can pay for and in what order? Or is it time for citizens to use their power to force the issue? This observer's opinion is probably apparent.

Return to the Public Interest Transportation Forum home page.

Last modified: October 2004