But hints from SMP board members and staff, as well as individuals involved in the bidding process, indicate that the agency is prepared to push back its opening date as far as 2009, opening the entire line at once but eliminating the promised initial segment. The decision would allow the whole system to open months ahead of schedule and could save millions of dollars. The change, which has been requested by both prospective monorail bidders, would violate a promise by the monorail campaign to open the initial line by 2007. And it would be a public-relations blow to the agency and Horn, who has staked the SMP's reputation on promises the monorail will be built "on time and under budget."
That's not the point, insists SMP board chairman Tom Weeks. "We've been asked to build the best system possible and to use taxpayer resources wisely," he says. "Sometimes you have to say, 'We were wrong.'"
Virtually everyone, from board members to individuals involved in the bidding process, agrees that it would be cheaper to open the entire 14 miles at once. How much cheaper, however, is anybody's guess; estimates range from as little as a couple million dollars to upward of $60 million.
A reasonable estimate of the cost of testing and running the starter line puts the savings closer to the high end of the scale. The annual operating subsidy for that segment alone is estimated at around $12 million. Add to that the cost of testing not just one but three monorail segments (the starter line from downtown to Seattle Center, plus the extensions to Ballard and West Seattle) plus lost revenues if the line has to be shut down for testing, and savings in the tens of millions seem plausible.
Board member Steve Williamson notes that, in addition to saving money, opening the whole 14 miles at once could shave months off the monorail's final completion date. "I think the usefulness of the monorail is that it's 14 miles and 19 stations," Williamson says. "It seems like not a good use of taxpayer money to build in costs just to open early."
Logistically, opening the initial segment would present major problems for the monorail builder. The monorail must run without glitches for 30 days before they can start carrying passengers. But opening the ends of the line later would mean first testing the initial segment, then either shutting down the entire line or running trains in the middle while doing tests on the ends. Both options would be costly; the latter would be a practical nightmare. "What's awkward is to do a whole bunch of test runs while the middle section of the track is operational," Weeks says. "It's a total pain. It isn't the way anyone would want to operate it."
That assessment may seem intuitive now. But it wasn't obvious to the monorail agency back in 2002, when Horn first proposed the early opening date. "Frankly, I can only guess that people felt it was a sales job," Williamson says. However, he says, "I don't think it was meant to manipulate. I think it was meant to be a good idea at the time." Horn defends his decision to push for an early opening, noting that before the monorail election, "We didn't have anywhere near the technical expertise we have today."
But Laws says the board shouldn't have to take the responsibility for political maneuvering by Horn and his staff. "Certain people on the monorail staff... want the board to make that decision [to delay the opening] so they don't have to take the heat. Well, they were responsible for putting the date out there in the first place."
The board doesn't have long to make its decision. Its next meeting is scheduled for July 14, and the bids are due on August 16.
