Yes Monorail | Vote for an important part of a citywide rapid-transit system

VOTING "yes" on Monorail Proposition 1 moves us toward an integrated, citywide rapid transit system; voting "no" means losing the chance for integrated, citywide rapid transit for another generation.

The monorail proposal has great benefits at an affordable cost. If we vote "no," there is no credible alternative.

Another 150,000 people will live here by 2030. Investing in roads alone — as some politicians desire — means more congestion, global warming, sprawl and oil runoff polluting Puget Sound. We need grade-separated rapid transit for better mobility and for environmental and economic benefits. Only rapid transit provides a real alternative to congestion.

The monorail segment on the ballot is from West Seattle to south of the Ballard Bridge, and also includes the trains and real estate for expansion to Northwest 85th Street in Crown Hill. We can build to Market Street in Ballard immediately, for just $150 million, if the city supports the monorail instead of throwing roadblocks up.

For example, if the city removs $74 million in inappropriate rent and "taxation" it has imposed, helps obtain a state sales-tax rebate worth $60 million, and allows the monorail to negotiate $16 million more in contract savings, we can build to Ballard without delay.

Monorail is the only technology that fits in this corridor. Opponents have no alternative because tunnels cost too much, and surface rail or exclusive bus lanes don't fit in the roads and streets in this corridor. The monorail will serve the "west side" of Seattle. It links in four places with the light rail line that will serve the "east side" of Seattle.

The two lines synergistically form an X-shaped system. People boarding at light rail stations can transfer to monorail — and vice versa. Only with both lines are many trips possible, such as from the University of Washington to Seattle Center; from Othello to Starbucks headquarters in Sodo; or from West Seattle to the airport to meet an out-of-town visitor, then on to UW, back to Seattle Center and back to West Seattle.

At first this system will have 31 miles and 27 stations. Later, we can extend both lines to Northgate and beyond. Isn't this citywide system the robust alternative to congestion we have always wanted?

The monorail will provide premium, automated, state-of-the-art service, with the smoothest rides possible. Trains will come every six minutes during commute hours. Trips are 18 minutes from Alaska Junction to Pike Place Market, or six minutes from Uptown to Pioneer Square — regardless of traffic, weather, time of day, or the viaduct being down.

The monorail project cost averages just 25 cents per day per citizen. The project cost is $1.7 billion. For this, we can add 12 monorail stations to the "X." This is affordable compared to $4 billion for airport expansion, or $4 billion (or more) for a tunnel-viaduct replacement. The tunnel light-rail segment from downtown to UW will add two stations for $1.5 billion. The per-mile cost of monorail at $160 million per mile is one-third the per-mile cost of tunnel light rail at $456 million per mile.

The monorail debt will be repaid in 32 to 38 years, depending on the growth rate of the car-tab tax. This range reflects a more-conservative 5 percent growth rate, as critics have urged. This is lower than the historical rate of 9 percent. The total debt service will be $3.9 billion to $4.9 billion, representing a $6 billion or $7 billion savings compared to last June's ill-begotten finance plan that was never approved.

Repayment under 40 years is proper for an asset lasting more than 100 years that will only get more expensive if we wait. The 1970s' Forward Thrust bonds most officials laud today are for 40 years.

Many who complain about monorail finance costs or risks inconsistently support costly, risky tunnel highway projects, or the tunnel section of light rail. The tunnel section of light rail embodies a $1 billion cost overrun that will be much more than that when financed. Monorail costs are lower; risks are controlled as no tunneling is required and the monorail is under a fixed-price contract.

Monorail finance plans assume a highly conservative $1.12 fare. This can be raised to provide any "cushion" as needed if there is any shortfall in operating revenue. Other projects do not even disclose their operating costs or subsidies required of taxpayers.

The monorail project is funded, under contract, and ready to go. Opponents have no alternative. If they did, we would see it is either more costly or highly impractical because it would displace roadway lanes through the corridor.

Any alternative would take years to develop. Prices for real estate and construction only go up. Any alternative that comes a few years later likely will cost more just because of the delay alone.

"Yes" means starting construction in early 2006. Elected officials have pledged to abide by the vote. "Yes" means going forward with an integrated rapid transit system we can ride all over town in a few years. "No" means we lose the last chance in a generation to have an interconnected rapid transit system in Seattle. Worse, we would also lose control over the Seattle car-tab tax stream — allowing Olympia politicians to take it to build more roads.