Proponents of anti-monorail initiative modify tactics

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Related stories Ad watch: "What does a Yes vote mean? " Other links Letter to Yes on I-83 Committee (57 KB) Monorailrecall.com No Recall Go Monorail

The latest ad for anti-monorail Initiative 83 seems to give Seattle voters a stark choice: Spend $1.75 billion for the 14-mile elevated monorail from West Seattle to Ballard, or invest tax dollars in another big transportation project, the Sound Transit light-rail system.

In its attempt to help make that choice, the 16-page brochure that began appearing in weekly newspapers yesterday presents what monorail supporters consider misleading information.

For instance, one chart unfavorably compares the proposed Green Line monorail — which will cost about $125 million per mile to build — to light-rail lines in Dallas, Denver, San Diego and Portland, built for less than half the cost.

But left out of the comparison is Seattle's own Sound Transit system, where the estimated cost of about $174 million per mile is actually more expensive than the monorail.

Bill Broadhead, media consultant for I-83, said he used information from "Light Rail Now," a national advocacy Web site. He said the comparison is still useful. If Sound Transit's light-rail line eventually grows into a regional system, he argues, costs should drop when the line can be built on the surfaces outside of Seattle, where much of it would run through tunnels.

But Tom Weeks, chairman of the Seattle Monorail Project board, said, "It's pretty surprising to me how inaccurate they are."

Sound Transit Communications Director Ric Ilgenfritz has sent the anti-monorail campaign a letter asking I-83 to print disclaimers saying Sound Transit is not affiliated with I-83.

The ads represent a shift in political tactics for backers of I-83, which would prohibit the city from issuing construction permits for the project.

Originally, organizers stressed the opposition to the car-tab taxes used to fund the monorail and argued that the overhead tracks would mar neighborhoods. In the past two weeks, in an attempt to woo pro-public-transit voters, the campaign has begun arguing that the tax dollars could be better spent on expanding the Sound Transit light-rail system, scheduled to go from downtown Seattle to Tukwila.

I-83 would not shift the monorail tax dollars to Sound Transit or other transportation alternatives. That would require another tax vote by the public.
 
But indirectly, there would be less "taxpayer fatigue" for future voter-approved transportation projects if the monorail project folds, argues opponents such as former Mayor Charles Royer.

Peter Sherwin of the rival No Recall — Go Monorail campaign replied: "So far, they've promised the money to the viaduct, [Highways] 520, 405, I-5. The only thing they haven't promised the money to is the third runway."

The ad points out that the monorail is smaller and would carry far fewer passengers than Sound Transit is designed to accommodate.

The new ad also claims monorails cannot run at surface or in tunnels. In Asia, some monorail systems do.

Many Seattle design experts believe a street-level rail system is less intrusive than concrete tracks overhead.

Even if people quibble with the ad's data, Broadhead said it is the "meatiest" campaign piece ever, and it speaks to voters who say the city needs to build some kind of mass transit.

"We need a real debate on what our transit future is going to look like," he said.

He pointed out that the public still hasn't seen the full monorail plan, because the SMP has refused to release its sole bid proposal, submitted in August by the Cascadia Monorail Co., which offers Japanese trains by Hitachi.

"Are the people of Seattle aware of it?" he said.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com