A class action lawsuit filed against the Seattle Monorail Project [large PDF], if successful, could mean very big trouble for the agency. The suit lists 5 causes of action, which I summarize:
(1) and (2) The valuation method for calculating the vehicle excise tax is unrelated to market value, unfair, and overstates the valuation for many car owners. [discussed at greater length, here]; The fact that not all cars are taxed is also unfair.
3) The Monorail agency does not rightfully have the power to levy the tax, as that would be an unlawful delegation of legislative power to an improperly formed legislative body.
4) The so-called Motor Vehicle "Excise" Tax is really a property tax in disguise, and therefore some of its provisions violate the state constitution.
5) Seattle residents subject to the tax have no way to appeal their car's valuation, and are thus denied due process.
The suit seeks to declare the Monorail MVET unconstitutional and to enjoin the Monorail agency from collecting it. Obviously that would end the Monorail's sole funding source and put the agency out of business. Even a lesser finding that the valuation schedule needs to be reset on fair market value would shave millions off the agency's budget and put the project in jeopardy.
The suit is currently in the discovery phase. A motion for summary judgment will be heard on March 31st.
UPDATE: Given the Monorail's financial challenges, some wags suggest that the Monorail would need this kind of ridership in order to pay its bills.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 24, 2005 10:22 AM | Email ThisThat won't stop the city from collecting the tax, all it could possibly do would be to prevent the monorail people from getting their hands on it. One way or the other, we still pay for this white elephant.
Posted by: Steve on February 24, 2005 10:35 AMThat won't stop the city from collecting the tax, all it could possibly do would be to prevent the monorail people from getting their hands on it. One way or the other, we still pay for this white elephant.
Posted by: Steve on February 24, 2005 10:35 AMWhy not tax all DUI offenders 10 grand and put that money toward the monorail? Or, hell, raise the bus rates by 50 cents a trip, and make the people who will ride the damn thing actually pay for it. That's what creases me most about the whole monorail thing, that they tax the people who won't use it.
Posted by: dpmiv on February 24, 2005 11:10 AMWhy do people who own cars have to subsidise everyone else's transportation? If someone doesn't have a car, they should be able to pay the true cost of using public transportation (and if they can't - get a better job like the rest of us had to do!).
Posted by: SweetNSassy on February 24, 2005 11:38 AMNow maybe if this monorail went somewhere useful - somewhere there's always traffic maybe? (Which is to say anywhere else...)
Posted by: AnonymousCoward on February 24, 2005 11:48 AMNo on leaving the cave.
No on migration.
No on the Mayflower.
No one visiting the moon.
No on the monorail.
Posted by: Doc on February 24, 2005 12:12 PMFunny, I wouldn't have put traveling to the moon in the same league as the monorail, unless that's a comment in regards to how expensive it will be per passenger.
Posted by: Jason on February 24, 2005 12:26 PMThe Seattle Monorail is a good place to start and yes a good tourist attraction. If it can be done it should be done. And yes if you build it "they" will come although I doubt in the numbers predicted. (am reminded of "them" from the movie of the same name.) Seattle has a real traffic problem and I see little hope of more roads or even if they are built I se em filling up quickly.
SO if you have a better idea......
Most of you are 100% correct in that It (SMP) can not however, be allowed to continue in their current state of financial miscouduct. The same argument can be applied to the Sound Transit boondoggle and the ferry system. Heck to the silly stadiums too.
So you want to make people on public transit to pay their share?
Where do you think the money comes from to maintain our streets? Certainly you don't think it comes from either the gas or motor vehicle taxes do you?
Driving is *hugely* expensive (wear to roads, governmental infrastructure, damage/deaths caused by accidents ... the list is enormous) and my tax dollars subsidize "your" use of roads (I walk and bicycle). Should we apply the same use-tax mentality to driving as you're trying to enforce for public transit?
Looked at from another way, the more people that take the bus or monorail the fewer people on "your streets" and in "your parking lots" which lower the price of gas at the pump, insurance, parking fees ... you name it.
Don't be so narrow minded and look at the whole picture.
Posted by: lee egg on February 24, 2005 12:45 PMAnd how is the monorail that much quicker than the existing bus system? Even if it will cut the average trip in half, is it worth the money it will cost, especailly given the fact that it WILL NOT BENEFIT THOSE THAT PAY FOR IT?
(.....)
(..wait for it....)
NO!
Posted by: dpmiv on February 24, 2005 12:54 PMFunny you should mention parking lots. Where are the monorail riders supposed to park their cars at all these monorail stations? That's a question that has yet to be answered.
Posted by: dpmiv on February 24, 2005 12:57 PMNo fixing social security
No liberating the Europeans from Hitler
No preventing the 2,000,000 Cambodian deaths plus all the others in Loas and Vietnam
No integrity in enforcing the cease fire with Iraq and liberating the people there
No multilateral talks with N. Korea
No abolishing segregation in the south (Robert Byrd etc.)
No election that actually follows the law
And most relevant - no fiscal responsibility to building the mono-strosity
I'll admit I voted for it the first time. But then rationality and conservative values reasserted themselves. I asked myself, "if they're so great why don't we see them everywhere?" and "if it's so cost effective why does the Seattle Center Monorail cost so much to go a few hundred feet?" So bypassing the "feel good data" that the Uselessly Left MSM trotted out I did my own research.
The Monorail must die. Use elevated light rail. It gives us the same access that monorail would do but without the enormous costs.
The public was lied to and deliberately misled (sounds familiar doesn't it?) and wasn't informed of the particulars about monorail systems (for instance, maintenance is roughly 1000% higher for monorail as it is for rail).
Doc, are you so gone in "feel good" that you cannot accept that the monorail is a bad idea?
Even the monorail board KNOWS it isn't feasible. That's why they deliberately hid the bid information until after the election and hide behind "feel good" statments like "it's the right thing to do" (rather than point to cost savings versus elevated light rail).
We *do* need something like it though and that could be elevated light rail.
Posted by: lee egg on February 24, 2005 01:13 PMBut my memory goes back to the beginnings of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. Before joining the Navy, I lived in Oakland and remember the arguments against BART.
What I read here sounds very familiar.
Before posting here, I did a quick Google check on BART, looking for people complaining about it. The only one I could immediately find was that Contra Costa county doesn't want to connect its light rail system with the BART system. They seem to be in a bit of a turf war. (I'm sure that there must be more complaints somewhere. No system that size gets unanimous praise.)
30 years ago, there were complaints that the system was too costly, too short, wouldn't have enough riders. There were almost daily stories in the paper about mismanagement. Now even most of the conservatives seem to like it, although to be fair, that could be because now that it's in place, it would be a bit silly to complain about it.
From what I've read so far (remembering that, as I don't live in Seattle, my research is mainly just out of curiosity) the exact same arguments are being used here.
Assuming that this does get built, I'm wondering if, 30 years from now, will we be pointing at our monorail as a model of public transit?
Posted by: John Barelli on February 24, 2005 01:21 PMIn fact, we long-time Washingtonians are hypocrites - we all bitched about the "Californication" of the Northwest and looked down our noses at all the Californians, their BMWs and conspicuous consumption, yet have stood idly by over the decades while our region has become exactly a mirror image of Cali grid-Locke.
The monorail is not perfect, but it's a start. Arguments about no one ever traveling from Ballard to West Seattle are disingenuous. The DC Metro did not start out big or even go to Reagan National, nor did BART go to SFO until recently. Both systems were built out over the years. We were bitching about the cost 35 years ago (which seems minimal now) and it will only get drastically more and more expensive in terms of actual costs and opportunity costs as smart, rationally-planned metropolitan areas steal away our state's major businesses.
As we continue our Seattle way of bickering and indecision, the region's ability to grow economically just gets more and more stiffled. It is not an accident that pro-growth conservative think-tanks such as the Discovery Institute and many businesses in town support rail mass-transit.
The people voted for the damn thing in effect 4 times now. Enough already with the opposition and the litigation!!
The bus system in the "monorail corridor" is *really* lame and would be better served by a faster, higher capacity alternative that can bypass traffic while at the same time not impede it. (I'm sure you've noticed that busses typically bottleneck the right two lanes of traffic).
My wife and I live in Queen Ann (where, during the election, the streets were paved with "Bush Lied" stickers and the ratio of French and Palestinian flags versus ours was a gazillion to one). We work downtown - about 3 miles from home. The bus takes ... no exaggeration ... one hour to make that distance.
For a good, well-distributed public transit system, huge parking lots aren't necessary. People can walk to stops, ride their bicycles or get dropped off.
The key is we HAVE to start somewhere (though I'm not advocating that my neighborhood is first ). We can't keep putting off creating a good, fast, high-capacity transit system to alleviate the known bottlenecks of our road system.
That said, we shouldn't foolishly go with the monorail because it "feels good". Nor should we go with it just because "we voted for it" ... we were lied to and deliberately misled.
With elevated rail you get monorail's benefits for a fraction of the cost. Plus, it will integrate properly with the rest of the rail systems being planned. A win-win.
Posted by: lee egg on February 24, 2005 01:57 PMThe above is a paid public announcement from a faction that maintains deliberate ignorance in half its brain.
Ignorance of what? Ignorance of the economic benefits provided by an extensive roadway network owned and maintained and freely used by the whole body politic. If one shudders at the 'huge expenses of driving', one would shrivel up and die just trying to comprehend the vastly greater expenses associated with accomplishing the same movement of people and goods and services without those roads and motor vehicles.
And add to those vastly greater expenses those inflicted by a system that does NOT permit individuals to freely select their own routing and scheduling.
Walking and bicycling may be great for one's holier-than-thou feelings, but impose those conditions on everyone and you've imposed the early 19th century on your dear fellow citizens. And unless you've got connections with an infinitely powerful politburo, you'll find those citizens voting the thought into oblivion.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 24, 2005 02:03 PMLast time I parked in Seattle I seem to remember having to pay for it, not only that but the government took "their cut" too. I think that counts as paying my way.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 24, 2005 02:26 PMI'm laughing. Truly.
You obviously didn't read my whole post. I was pointing out that people shouldn't hypocritically denigrate public transit because the riders are being subsidized; driving individual cars is subsidized *far* more.
I don't walk and bike for the "holier-than-thou" feelings, I do it because it gets me to where I need go faster, more reliably and cheaper than I can drive there.
Our transit system is bottlenecked and cannot get better by making more roads (land gets more expensive, with ever increasing number of (ever wider) drivers, driving in ever-larger vehicles). We must find a way to better move the large numbers of people that are all going from the same place to the same place. We are all painfully aware of the congestion in this region and (most people) are aware of the costs that congestion places on our economy and potential growth.
In no way am I advocating that we force people to take public transit. But for the benefit of our economy we MUST provide a better way to move our population around the region. For years I biked across I-90 and marveled at the number of cars parked on the bridge. If while so parked in traffic a series of trains went by, how long do you think it would be before people said to themselves "you know, maybe I could give it a try"? In a well designed system, people will choose it of their own accord. That should be our ultimate goal.
To say "don't do this because it doesn't solve ALL of our problems" is silly and short-sighted. After all, we must start somewhere.
Posted by: lee egg on February 24, 2005 02:37 PMIT'S FIRKIN COOL!
Posted by: Doc on February 24, 2005 02:45 PMYou can't use the understandably low adoption of the HOV lanes as an argument against high-capacity/high-speed transit. They're apples and oranges.
There are two main problems that I see with the diamond lanes.
1) They don't connect all the way through, frequently leaving users stuck in the same traffic or make the existing traffic worse when the lane ends, merging down to reduced number of lanes.
2) The biggest obstacle I see to adopting the HOV lanes is that as “Insufficiently Sensitive” pointed out they restrict people's routing and scheduling. The drivers must do their own work to find other people going the same direction and coordinate schedules. A royal pain in the butt.
HOV lanes do mean however that busses aren't left stuck in the same parking lot as SOV’s (taking the bus is slow enough already) and provides an alternative to sufficiently motivated people.
Posted by: lee egg on February 24, 2005 03:08 PMI agree that there are spots like that, but I90 has an HOV on ramp from down town Seattle all the way to Issaquah with no interuptions (assuming you are going in the high volume direction). Low usage is true for that HOV lane too.
How motivated would these people be if they weren't subsidized by the drivers? Having to stand in the rain, or at the very least park in the rain and walk to the station, wait in the cold for a crowded train (if it is like the busses) where you can't even get a seat. Walking to your destination at the other end in the same weather. The risk of being attacked (someone was raped in the early morning at the Issaquah park and ride) all adds to the attraction.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 24, 2005 03:26 PMAgain, I think HOV have such low adoption rate for individual drivers is due to #2 above: it’s a royal pain to find people with similar routes and schedules. It is really most beneficial to busses.
Our bus system currently leaves people standing, waiting around because the busses are stuck in the same congestion as all the other drivers. You just can’t count on a bus schedule … I know … I tried for a long time. Worse, when you add up all the waiting/walking time, it takes longer far longer than driving. The main benefit I saw when I was bussing it was that somebody else got to deal with all the inconsiderate and butt-head drivers while I rested, leaving me relaxed and happy when I got to my destination.
However, the implementation of a high-capacity/high-speed alternative does work. (Can you imagine what Manhattan, London or any other large metropolis would be like if they didn’t have a train system?) How much longer will the Seattle economy survive without one?
Also, transit systems based on trains have the benefit of easily adjusting the number of seats to meet the demand without hiring more (union) drivers. Something that busses just can't do.
Regarding the personal discomfort of walking in the rain to take the train ... it's up to the individual whether the benefits of fast, reliable transit outweigh the benefits of sitting in your own car parked in traffic. But economically speaking, NOT providing this alternative is simply not an option.
As an aside, if you want to help your argument against transit, I wouldn’t bring up the risk of personal injury … given the rate of mortality on our roads.
Posted by: lee egg on February 24, 2005 03:59 PMAdding more cars per train also has a limit on the length of the platform.
Not putting a system in is an option, business can move to less crowded and expensive places. I see no particular advantage to building yet another 80 story building in Seattle. These businesses can move out to cheaper land, building, and employees. Bellevue is a start, but getting too crowded. There are so many other places where offices can be built where there is room, and closer to where people live.
I am not against public transportation, it just has to be practical, not an experiment. I see no reason why the fare shouldn't cover the cost of running it. As you said, there are advantages to it people should be willing to pay for it. Driving isn't that cheap. 40 miles a day at 30 cents per mile for 20 days is $240 per month and double that with parking. If a round trip fare was less $24 it would be cheaper than driving. I'm pretty sure that would cover the costs.
Posted by: Jonathan on February 24, 2005 04:19 PMAren't these supposed to go to federal court now?
Posted by: Christine G on February 24, 2005 06:19 PMAs for the Monorail, it will be saved, despite our best efforts. I just want something like I-83, that would temporarily ban the city from allowing the Monorail Authority from using City Right of Way unless they send the plan back to the voters to decide if they got it right, or at least put the Green Line back out for bids. Bombardier wants back in, they say they can do it for the original estimate, I say let them bid!
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on February 25, 2005 01:08 AMI'm laughing hysterically, but my reasons are far better than yours.
"people shouldn't hypocritically denigrate public transit because the riders are being subsidized; driving individual cars is subsidized *far* more."
With about one car per individual of Washington population, such a subsidy is far more democratic than one providing commuter comfort to a select urban few at the expense of the majority who can't use it, let alone enjoy it.
"I don't walk and bike for the "holier-than-thou" feelings, I do it because it gets me to where I need go faster, more reliably and cheaper than I can drive there."
Nice when your horizons are so limited. Most of us live in larger and more diverse villages, and have more extensive transportation needs.
"We must find a way to better move the large numbers of people that are all going from the same place to the same place. "
Sorry, that's a caricature. Most of those people have additional commutes at each end of the trip. And you've slammed your mind tight shut against the daily need for errands, purchases of larger-than-lap-sized objects, repairs to the vacuum cleaner, kids to rifle practice, and
job-mandated side trips at random hours and directions. None of those real needs are possible on mass transit.
"For years I biked across I-90 and marveled at the number of cars parked on the bridge."
And that's a grotesque selection of anecdotes. Is that a universal condition? Wrong. You deliberately picked rush hour to marvel at. For about 20 hours a day the main roads pass traffic freely. Add congestion pricing, where the bloke in a rush pays extra for expedience. The freely taken decisions of all those drivers will sum up to freely flowing traffic, at far less cost than for a political 'solution' like the Monorail.
"In a well designed system, people will choose it of their own accord."
For the entire history of central planning, those in power have invariably called their people-control systems 'well designed', or 'well-managed'. Real-world solutions actually
chosen by the people's own accord (think 'automobile', or 'SUV') are usually offensive to said planners, who prefer
'well designed', antidemocratic white elephants like Sound Transit - for which we still await our chance to vote on its new bastardized pay-more get-less and be damned to you version which we DID NOT ELECT.
1. There are more people in the Washington DC metro area than in the Puget Sound area. VASTLY more people.
2. The cost to ride Washington DC Metro one-way is about the same as two-way bus riding here in the Seattle area (two-zone. At peak.) So: it is more expensive than what we have
3. it was all over the paper that they needed MORE MONEY for the Metro system -- that higher per person fee was not paying for the system. They were going to be going for the taxpayers for yet another infusion of money.
So, seems to me, Metro just proves that mass transit systems such as the Metro don't pay for themselves.
I have heard so many stupid arguments (paraphrased) on this issue. "What traffic problem? It takes me 15 minutes to drive to work." Pure genius, since traffic isn't a problem for you it must be a myth. "I won't use the monorail, why should I pay for it" Well, I went to private schools my whole life and don't have any kids, why do I have to pay taxes for schools? These are great rationals people.
It would appear that nothing short of no monorail will satisfy many of you. Well I'm tired of neglecting the problem. We can study, protest, vote, file lawsuits, revote, protest, file lawsuits, propose a new plan, etc. and nothing gets done, but boy did we spend some money to do nothing. I will readily admit that there are some problems. But many of you will admit nothing including that we have a traffic problem. Now whose being naive?
Posted by: Daryl on February 25, 2005 01:40 PMBTW, I spent a week in D.C. and rode the metro everyday. It was very nice. Sure do wish we had one here. What am I saying, if we actually built it what would we have left to complain about.
Posted by: Daryl on February 25, 2005 01:53 PMThe best oppurtunit to have roads pay for themselves, and continue to do so, is denied to the WSDoT. If a road is paid for with tolls, the toll is removed once the project is paid off. Except Ferry Boats, they are trying to have those pay for themselves. Some were built iin 1927, and you still have to pay to ride them, wether on foot or in you car.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on February 25, 2005 02:40 PMI can believe the lack of funding. Mass transit systems get very little federal support even in home of the federal government.
Posted by: M&M on February 25, 2005 03:48 PMTo get to 3.2 million people (http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/oir/datasheet/demographics.htm) here you have to include King, Snohomish, Pierce, AND Kitsap counties.
Here is an evaluation of Puget Sound Region for Transportation purposes:
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13856.html
To get to ITS 3.3 million people, you are talking 6300 square miles.
King County alone (which, yes, is bigger than what I was talking about Puget Sound but now realize that most people think MUCH bigger than I do when they hear the term. Sorry) is 2100 square miles with 1.8 million people.
So yes, the Washington DC metro area has vastly more people *density* (the word I should have used originally) in it than the Puget Sound --
Those extra square miles involves a LOT more expense in creating a metro like system. And we don't have the people to support it that Washington DC does -- and THEY are finding it extremely costly.
Posted by: Sarah of WA on February 25, 2005 04:34 PMNo it's not.
Posted by: CandrewB on February 25, 2005 04:49 PMhttp://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/W/Wa/Washington,_DC.htm
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/S/Se/Seattle,_Washington.htm
Washington D.C.: 61.5 square miles of land, 572,000 people
Seattle: 84 square mile of land, 569,000 people
I
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on February 25, 2005 06:21 PMWhen WSDOT proposed to end the tolls and take away the tollbooths (they existed, I paid them plenty), the enlightened elites in the high-rent district at the east end of the 520 bridge employed a newly-fashionable political tactic to keep them in place. An Environmental Impact Statement! Removing tolls would allegedly support an increase in the number of vulgar car-drivers using the road, and this would distress and discomfit the lordly estate-owners adjoining it.
More than likely, there was an extra concealed motive behind the opposition: those enviro-elites, then as now, felt that taxes should be raised, not lowered, so that government would have more resources to increase the bureaucratic classes.
And that started the court case that determined that tolls were to pay off capital costs of large highway facilities, not to use thenceforth as gummint cash cows.
Those were different times, before the corrupt Washingtone Supreme Court and King County government combined to plunder the citizens on behalf of Safeco Field, Mariner Stadium, Sound Transit, the Monorail, ecetera.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 26, 2005 10:56 AMI heard one rumor that Gov. Rosselini proposed something like that with the Monorail, while Dan Evans proposed completing the Freeway Network(which never was, if you count Seattle's Bay Freeway and R.H. Thompson Expressway), and Dan Evans beet Rosselini in the 1964 election, then the voters were asked in 1968 and 1970 elections to vote on transit and they said no. Our voters will only vote for something that will not work. As evidenced in 1973 and 1996 and possibly 2002. What we got in 1973 was Metro, 1996 a series of starter lines whose opponents say were supposed to be a cure-all so they can attack their failings, and in 2002, we got the Green Line by a mere 300 votes.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on February 27, 2005 05:35 PM