Transit visionary Dick Falkenbury drafted the first monorail initiative, I-41, back in 1997. With the help of fellow transit visionary Grant Cogswell, Falkenbury got his initiative on the ballot. Both men recognized something that Seattle's establishment politicians and mainstream media did not: Seattle needed a rapid transit system, something along the lines of Chicago's "L" or the New York City subway. Seattle didn't need more buses clogging our streets--Seattle was already choking on traffic. An expensive, truncated light-rail system wasn't the answer--at-grade light rail would wind up stuck in traffic right alongside cars and buses. Since we couldn't dig tunnels and build a subway system (something Sound Transit learned the hard way), we had to go up. If we were going to build a rapid transit system, it would have to be elevated.
Seattle's mayor at the time, Norm Rice, came out against I-41, as did the entire city council. Both daily papers urged a no vote. But Seattle voters recognized the rock- solid logic of elevated rapid transit and approved the plan. (Elevated rapid transit was already the fastest way to get from Westlake Park to Seattle Center, voters agreed, so why shouldn't it work citywide?) When citizens pass an initiative, they're making law; the monorail law passed by Seattle voters obligated the city to fully fund a monorail agency charged with designing, building, and operating a citywide rapid transit system. But the city ignored the voter-approved law--the city broke the law--and starved the voter-created Elevated Transportation Company (ETC) of funds. When a judge ordered the city to stop breaking the law and either fund the ETC or repeal I-41, Heidi Wills and Richard Conlin pushed a repeal through the city council.
Furious monorail supporters rallied, and smart, quotable monorail supporter Peter Sherwin filed a new initiative, I-53. Again, establishment pols and papers opposed the plan. But voters said yes--by an even wider margin than the first time. A revived and fully funded ETC was given two years to come up with a new, more detailed plan, one that was put before the voters in 2002. When it came time for the third and final vote, all the usual suspects lined up against it. But for the third time in five years, Seattle voters said yes. And with their third vote, Seattle voters said yes to building a rapid transit system--not yes to talking about building a rapid transit system, not yes to drafting some more plans, not yes-but-only-if-no-one-objects. Voters said yes, build us a rapid transit system. Seattle needs one.
The monorail agency, under the leadership of Joel Horn, is ready to build the rapid transit system voters approved three times. Environmental impact studies are in; station designs are done; an unexpected funding shortfall has been overcome. And in what may be a first here in Process City, the hundreds of hours of community meetings convened by the monorail agency weren't just for show. Changes were made to the plan based on ideas, suggestions, and complaints generated at community meetings. There's just one more hurdle that the monorail agency needs to clear before it starts to build: It needs right-of-way permits from city hall.
The usual monorail opponents inside city hall (hello, Richard Conlin) and outside city hall (hello, Seattle Times) are gearing up to make their last-ditch attempts to stop the monorail. The anti-monorail/anti-progress crowd is hoping to force delays that will drive up the cost of building the proposed system and, they hope, ultimately derail the project. And where are Seattle's monorail supporters? After racking up three victories at the ballot box in five years, supporters (including this paper) have been content to sit back and let the monorail agency do its work. But now it's time for monorail supporters to remind opponents why Seattle said yes to the monorail three times.
If Seattle is going to grow in a smart, sustainable way, if Seattle is going to be a city where you can live and work without a car, Seattle must have a rapid transit system. We need something that doesn't run at grade, something that can't get stuck in traffic. Truly rapid transit gets people out of their cars and creates more livable, walkable cities in places like New York City and Chicago and Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia and Atlanta and Berlin and Paris and Budapest because rapid transit gets you from point A to point B faster than driving your own car. Rapid transit appeals to commuters' self-interest. Subways and elevated transit systems work because they offer something cars in crowded cities cannot: reliable, safe, rapid transit.
Based on the media coverage over the last year, you would think that the monorail plan is in trouble. Why? Because some people are unhappy: property owners along Second Avenue, some folks in SoDo, people in Pioneer Square who fear that the monorail authority may replace the sinking-ship parking garage at Second Avenue and Yesler Way with something uglier. (How would that be possible? What could possibly be uglier than the sinking-ship parking garage? A three-story pile of burning tires? A full-size replica of the Seattle Art Museum?) The fact that some people are unhappy is no reason not to build the monorail. The monorail plan was never about pumping Ecstasy into the city's water supply--it wasn't, in other words, a recipe for making everyone in town deliriously happy. A rapid transit system serves the greater good, and some people, some structures (bye-bye sinking ship), and some "vistas" will have to be sacrificed.
A word about vistas: We are going to get used to seeing the monorail run up and down our streets. But the monorail is not, as some argue, going to destroy views all over the city. The monorail will become part of the view, as much of an icon in Seattle as the "L" is in Chicago. And once the Alaskan Way Viaduct is torn down (or falls down), the monorail will provide folks who don't own condos on Second Avenue with some stunning views as they commute to work downtown from Ballard and West Seattle.
The monorail board approved the route earlier this week and sent it to the city for approval. While, as longtime monorail fans, The Stranger is excited, we also know that serious hurdles remain. This week's feature story looks at the landscape. In a hardball interview with the monorail's new finance director, we take a tough look at the agency's budget. A synopsis of the power politics at city hall unmasks the monorail foes--including Richard "Death by Process" Conlin. There's also some good news, as we walk you through the extensive changes the agency made to the route to appease neighborhood concerns. We've also whipped up a handy-dandy rapid response sheet to help monorail supporters battle the anti-monorail campaign.
