Monorail agency gears up $2.6 million ad blitz | Seattle Times

[Ediacara]

Monorail agency gears up $2.6 million ad blitz

By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times staff reporter

At the same time the Seattle Monorail Project is trying to reduce spending on design and construction on the proposed Green Line, the agency is paying millions of dollars for promotional advertising.

Monorail officials plan to spend $2.6 million through May for print, radio and television ads, and a similar amount in the second half of this year, according to agency figures.

Double-page newspaper ads this week explained the "green" qualities of the monorail — recycled materials would be used in construction, bicycles would be allowed aboard and the trains would employ an energy-efficient braking system.

Executive Director Joel Horn called the ad campaign an "educational program" to improve public knowledge about the monorail, which would connect downtown to Ballard and West Seattle by 2009.

Critics say the ads are meant to distract attention from serious problems with the project.

More at the Seattle Times

[montanacowboy]

1. What a joke this is

Unless you live in Ballard you won't be served by it, but yet, all of us have to pay for it, and a hefty tax on our vehicle license fees.

Seattle will NEVER get it right on mass transit - these people have no clue - they are 30 years behind the times and billions of $$ short. What now passes for mass transit is sitting on the freeway in a bus that moves as slow as the traffic - even on the "express" lanes.

[Ediacara]

2. Well I can only hope

That after they build the West Seattle-Ballard line that they expand to Capitol Hill, the U-District, Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley etc. It's taken them so long to get started, but I think that once they break ground, it'll get off the ground.

[SEAburb]

10. the light rail system will serve most of those areas

Do you think the two systems should overlap?

[Ediacara]

12. *What* Light Rail System?

The one that's cost $15B already and hasn't even been DESIGNED yet? I think light rail is dead in the water, and won't ever be built, except POSSIBLY feeding into the suburbs.

And no, I don't think that the two systems should overlap, I just don't think light rail will ever be built within the city.

I actually wish that Simms and Nickles would push a ballot initiative urging Seattle and King County voters to decide, light rail OR monorail, because I agree, the two systems shouldn't overlap, and ideally, I'd like just one or the other for the entire county.

[mobuto]

15. What if there were a new Administration

headed by a man with a deep, longstanding commitment to mass transit - and was willing to commit the Federal Government to backing such a proposal?

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Who can commit the Federal Government to anything?

[mobuto]

18. The United States Department of Transportation

and a couple of key Congressional leaders?

President Kerry could frame the debate in terms of national security: mass transit projects vastly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Well, they have enough trouble with that debate for D.C.

And that's a lot more compelling. Monorails are cool, but lack much of a constituency -- even in Congress.

[mobuto]

29. Not monorail per se

but mass transit and rail as a whole could have a very powerful constituency. If we spent even 1/3 of DoT discretionary spending on mas transit and rail (as opposed to roughly 1/50 today), we could, in just a few years, have a tremendous national infrastructure.

Where would the money come from? DoT pork barrel spending, currently doled on aviation and roads. Members of Congress would object, of course, but I think rail more than makes up for that. A lot of people, especially in fairly rural areas, live in places too small for commercial airports. And even where they do exist, they're so small, that they're dominated by a monopoly of a single airline (which results in extremely high fares). The solution is obvious: build reliable high speed rail that just happens to go through key congressional districts, and you can eliminate much of the opposition. And unlike a highway to nowhere, rail would result in real, long-term, tangible economic benefits to small cities and rural communities.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. While you and I could agree lots on this

It won't happen for a couple reasons:

1) Goes against the car culture. That's hard to do here in the U.S.
2) Is based on building large-scale projects that require public support in many locations. Hell, when I lived in D.C., they couldn't agree on building anything.

[mobuto]

31. In answer to your first point

Screw the car culture. I think if you make the case that nobody's talking about tearing up existing roads, or preventing you from buying the car of your choice, your culture is preserved. But I think there are larger, more profound cultural questions that really work to the benefit of intercity rail and mass transit.

1. We need to defund the terrorists. Every gallon of gasoline we buy from the Middle East weakens our national security. Even if Osama bin Laden doesn't directly profit from our oil (which he almost certainly does, btw), being dependent on foreign oil means we're a prisoner of Saudi policy. And that's dangerous.

2. We need reliable, redundant forms of transportation. If terrorism knocks out our commercial aviation for a while or blows up a key highway bridge, large parts of the economy will suffer. That damage will be mitigated if users can switch to alternate forms of transportation.

3. We need to rebuild small cities and rural communities. Not only are they a powerful voting block, but they've suffered economically for decades. Rail would help solve the problem - and a politician who actually seems to care about the plight of such places would benefit enormously.

Hell, when I lived in D.C., they couldn't agree on building anything.

I live in DC today. I can guarantee you that D.C is very much a special case. Not only is the city government here less competent than any city government anywhere other than perhaps Baghdad or Mogadishu, but every city government action has to be approved by the Repuublican Congress. Then of course you have the problem that the city is underfunded, because of the crazy tax structure, and the fact that it has no congressional representation to secure federal funding that other cities have. Then you also have the problem that there's no state there - for practically any project, you're going to need the support of Virginia and Maryland, who almost never agree on anything, especially not when it benefits the District. DC just doesn't work.

[Ediacara]

19. I'd love it

One of the problems in Seattle (at least last I checked, it's been a while) is that the mayor, Greg Nickles, is a long time light rail advocate, but the majority of the city is for constructing a monorail. This dichotomy stymies a lot of the monorail commission's work because they keep getting stonewalled by city government; and not just from Nickles, but his predicesor Paul Schell, and also many members of the city council too.

I really wish that Nickles and/or city council members and/or Ron Simms (county exec) would just propose a ballot initiative asking "Monorail or Light Rail: chose one," and then scrap all plans for whoever loses and start building the goddamned thing!

[jono]

21. It'll never happen, though.

Even Sims couldn't put light rail to a vote, because the taxing district covers Snohomish and Pierce counties as well.

[Ediacara]

24. Well maybe Simms and the Snohomish and Pierce execs could....

...actually work together on something :-)

I know, it's a dream, but I am frustrated that, although I no longer live in Seattle, I'd like to come back and actually USE some sort of train there before I'm dead.

As long as there is a fight IN Seattle between light rail and the monorail NOTHING is EVER going to be built in any of the three counties.

[jono]

26. I'm frustrated, too.

I fully agree, and what's most irritating is that it seems as though both agencies are going full-speed-ahead as if there's no problem. If Sound transit gets to the point where they shut down the bus tunnel, I'm going to be really angry!! :(

[mobuto]

4. I'm not familiar with the mass-transit fight in Seatle

but I'm a little concerned by your argument. Why should you pay for people in another part of your metro area to have mass transit?

So they don't clog your roads.

And so they come into Seattle to work, bringing jobs and money with them, rather than stay out in the suburbs.

[Heddi]

11. Even people like me, who live in Ballard

won't be served by it...at least not to the degree that I'm served by Metro.

The proposed monorail route, while running DIRECTLY across the street from my apartment, will make my trip to my job downtown (assuming I still have the same job in 50 years when the thing is finished) even more cumbersome and pain-in-the-buttish than it already is.

Instead of the route I have now, where I take one bus, transfer to another, and arrive at work, I'll have to take the monorail, walk 5 blocks then take another bus to get to work.

And to me---the fact that they're starting this thing out in Ballard/Crown Hill---HELLO!!! THAT IS NOT WHERE ALL THE TRAFFIC IS COMING FROM----why not build the monorail so that it serves the high-commute areas.

People from Ballard/CH/QA can already take pretty much any 15/18 route to downtown. Quick. Easy. Simple.

The people from Ballard/CH/QA are already commuting. we're not driving our cars downtown unless our jobs REQUIRE us to drive our cars downtown. The commute is short, the busses are pretty much predictable. Queen Anne/Crown Hill/Ballard residents aren't the sources of traffic snarls and congestion.

Why not build it to service the east-side? South Seattle? North (like Lynwood/Shoreline/Everett)? THAT is where the traffic is coming from, not Ballard. Not Capitol Hill. Not Magnolia.

But, as a good friend of mine pointed out, Crown Hill and the 15th Ave NW Corridor is pretty much working-class, blue-collar, not-living-in-billion-dollar-homes area. So it's okay if residents of CH/Ballard are facing the fact that a monorail line is going to run 80 feet from their front door. That's okay. Seattle needs low-priced homes anyways, right? WHat a great way to get it! Oh, and don't forget those trashy little shops near 15th & 85th---who cares if Pizza Time or Ace Hardware shuts down....

But don't DARE even MENTION building a monorail on the East Side! Oh no! Our McMansions will have obstructed views! Our malls and gallerias can't take it! Our property values will decline! Forget the fact that all roads leading out of Eastside in the AM, and going to Eastside in the PM are clogged for hours. Forget that an 18 mile trip btwn SEattle & REdmond takes on average 90 minutes! Why, we're not the problem in our single occupancy vehicles! Those BALLARD and CROWN HILL and QUEEN ANNE people are the problem! What, with them already taking mass transit! How dare they suggest that a solution to a growing problem be made...

:eyes:

[Ediacara]

14. I agree with you, but I think I should point out

That it's much more expensive to go to Redmond than it is to go to Ballard, and well, I guess they're building cheap first....

[Heddi]

28. oh yeah, I understand that cost is an issue

(as always), but I feel that there are neighborhoods that could be better served by a monorail than Ballard/Crown Hill and Lower Queen Anne.

And the super sucky part is that once they build the monorail, they're going to cut back on Metro busses that serve areas where the monorail is. That, I understand to a degree, but also, what if the monorail doesn't fit my route....now I have to wait longer, get up earlier, leave work later, walk farther---I know this sounds like "nothing can please Heddi", but that's not the case.

For people to use alternative means of transportation, those modes of transportation must be convenient, affordable, and take the rider as close to their home and/or destination as possible.

If people have to start waiting for a bus that comes once every 45 minutes (as opposed to the 15/18 that comes about every 10 minutes), or if they have to walk 5 blocks to get to a metro stop, or if their bus routes have been changed to where a 2-bus trip now causes one to have to transfer to 3 busses, that's not going to be a selling point.

Also, seattle gets alot of rain. Standing at an uncovered bus-stop for 20 minutes at 6am in December pouring down rain is unpleasant as it is. Alot of people are going to stop taking mass transit alltogether if they have to stand in teh rain LONGER, walk in the rain FARTHER, and switch busses more often (or generally inconvenienced) just because of the Monorail.

Eh, but what do I know? :)

[Beetwasher]

3. Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

Whenever I see this crap, I think of the Simpsons episode when Springfield was conned into buying a crappy monorail. It's a total con game. They got NYC to buy a completely useless one that goes from somewhere in Queens to JFK airport. No one uses it and cost like a billion dollars. These guys got a GREAT con going and lots of suckers buy into it.

[Ediacara]

6. Well it's either slow busses, the monorail, or walking

Maybe the reason that the NYC monorail never worked is because there were already transit alternatives in place?

[Beetwasher]

13. Yes, that's exactly the reason

I don't know much about Seattle's Mass Transit situation, but in NYC there are already other ways to get to JFK, including shuttle buses, the subway that gets you close enough and then a free shuttle from there. The monorail (which I think costs like $5) takes you from queens to JFK (queens) and to get to it you have to take a bus or subway (and pay a fare too!) from any other part of the city anyway, so it makes no sense to take a bus or subway (and pay the fare) to get to the monorail (and pay another $5), when you can just take a bus or subway to get to JFK. It's pretty useless unless you live near the damn thing to begin with.

[Ediacara]

16. That's absurd!

The least they could do is allow you to use a transfer from the bus or subway!

[Beetwasher]

20. Yeah, But Imagine Doing it W/ All Your Luggage Too!

Even if they gave a free transfer, who the hell wants to haul all their luggage from one mass transit system to another.

[Ediacara]

22. I guess that depends on how much luggage you have :-)

But you're right, I would NOT want to with a lot of luggage, but I tend to travel light, and have used mass transit to get to the airport every chance I could. It's just as convenient as a shuttle service, and oh.... about 5% of the cost :-)

[Beetwasher]

25. Yeah, Well, JFK is the International Airport, So People Usually Have

more luggage...Biggest waste of money ever IMO. Since it came out of my taxes, I'm one one of the suckers who had to pay for it :-(

[Cocoa]

8. that's more of a Shelbyville idea...

one of my favorites. RIP Phil Hartman.

[GregW]

27. It there anything donuts can't do???

<sigh>

[mobuto]

9. An interesting article on monorails

from the Washington City Paper. I tend to be more inclined towards a two-rail solution myself, but their argument is intriguing.


http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/archives/cover/2003/cover0307.html

[Zomby Woof]

32. I completely agree

Recently moved from Seattle after 15 years residence. All I can think of is that song and what suckers they are for voting for it. The Tim Eyman state has its political head up its collective ass.

Seattle voted on the monorail twice before, and it came to naught. This third round is the most laughable yet. Seattle is more worried about what other cities think of it than actual pragmatism. A monorail will bring big-city certification, and show the world that by golly, we really did mean it when we built that really short one for the World's Fair back in 1962!

[ssmug]

5. Yeah, but...

...look what it did for Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway. ;-)

[Ediacara]

7. LOL

Welcome to DU! :hi: