EWolfe Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Remember that when you slap your next tab sticker on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 i just got a $100 ticket because i hadn't slapped it on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I doubt this tax will ever go away. They will see that the monorail debt is paid up and the money is "available". What is the next pet project that the Seattle taxpayers will have to finance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I am so glad that I don't live in Seattle. The people of Seattle only get what they deserve. The monorail would have been a tremendous improvement in trasportation. Now they have nothing to show for the $300 million they have spent. What a waste! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 The monorail was a silly idea from the start. It didn't integrate with the light rail, had no parking, and would have been a very unaesthict piece of concrete. Better suited for Disneyland than public transport. When you add on top of this the extremely poor planning and unrealistic financing plan. Well, it killed itself. Â That said, when I fly to Portland for meetings I'm envious of their light rail system where I don't have to rent a car to zip downtown. Seattle's main fault is in long-range public policy. Sometimes I think what they need is a strongman mayor who can bully through a few visionary projects. Â I'd still rather live in Seattle than the 'burbs, however. Those in-between places are a bit milky for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I thought it was a stupid idea, considering we approved and are already building another rapid transit system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I am so glad that I don't live in Seattle. The people of Seattle only get what they deserve. The monorail would have been a tremendous improvement in trasportation. Now they have nothing to show for the $300 million they have spent. What a waste! Â You still get to pay for our viaduct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 The two systems were complementary. They served different purposes. West Seattle is screwed now. Light rail may get to West Seattle one day, but it will be at least 20 years before it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I thought it was a stupid idea, considering we approved and are already building another rapid transit system. Â Agreed. The funding could have been put to better use if it went into the light rail system instead of this silly idea. The costs vs the benefits just didn't match up. From Ballard to West Seattle? The major conjestion issues are not inter-city, they're getting in and out of Seattle, to the airport and such. Anyway, I'm glad the last nail is in the coffin but the poor planning has left us with a couple of years with car tab bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Yeah, Jim, I have this idea that once we get the light rail started, that we will add onto it, just like every other city that's ever built a light rail system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Yeah, Jim, I have this idea that once we get the light rail started, that we will add onto it, just like every other city that's ever built a light rail system. Let's hope so, but make no mistake, lightrail is many times more expensive per mile than a monorail and even more disruptive during construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Â Depends. Given this project's cost and 0 miles built the cost per mile is, well, infinite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 Â Hard to get worse than that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Let's hope so, but make no mistake, lightrail is many times more expensive per mile than a monorail and even more disruptive during construction. Â If that is true, why don't you see more monorails in Europe? All I see is trains, trains, trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'm not buying that argument that LR costs more than monorail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'm not buying that argument that LR costs more than monorail. Compare ground footprint. Compare land costs. Simple math really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'm not buying that argument that LR costs more than monorail. Compare ground footprint. Compare land costs. Simple math really. Â Um. If I was to think that, then building elevated highways would be cheaper than building on top of dirt. Elevated stuff costs money. That's why bridges are so expensive. I still would like to know why European cities do not have monorails, and have trains at low level instead. Â Maybe the Europeans know something we don't. After all they are more knowledgeable about mass transit than their American fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Cost per passenger is less for light rail because the capacity is much greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I still would like to know why European cities do not have monorails, and have trains at low level instead. BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT THE LAND BEFORE A MASSIVE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE! Â The monorail was supposed to be cheaper because the ground footprint would be smaller and the land could be resold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT THE LAND BEFORE A MASSIVE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE! Â I don't buy that argument. Why? European cities have always been more crowded on a denser per square kilometer area than most areas of the U.S. Higher denser areas in first world countries have always been more expensive, whereever you are in the world. I checked into this about 20 years ago. It was some stupid high school class on Europe vs US. It was cheaper to buy houses in the US when I did my little study. In addition, there are more social taxes going on in Europe inflating the price. Have you ever checked into the price of land in Switzerland? 100 year mortgages are common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I also suspect that in most European states its easier for the governments to seize property for public works projects. Could be wrong, but in general they seem less concerned with property rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I'm interested in how Vancouver set up their sky train. They started years ago, and they keep adding on to it. Vancouver is similar to Seattle in many respects yet they can make their elevated transport system work whereas we can't. Â Do they get lots of federal dollars or is it all local taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double_E Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I'm interested in how Vancouver set up their sky train. They started years ago, and they keep adding on to it. Vancouver is similar to Seattle in many respects yet they can make their elevated transport system work whereas we can't. Do they get lots of federal dollars or is it all local taxes?  I don't know about the financial end of it, but the rest of it's really pretty simple. Canadians don't have this perverse love for and worship of the automobile that most Americans seem to have.  This has got to be one of the lamest, most depressing election results ever. And not just cause it would have involved "my backyard"... West Seattle... I don't give a shit about that. I've only lived here one year, and very possibly may not be living here in a year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I also suspect that in most European states its easier for the governments to seize property for public works projects. Could be wrong, but in general they seem less concerned with property rights. Â I would generally think you are correct on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I also suspect that in most European states its easier for the governments to seize property for public works projects. Could be wrong, but in general they seem less concerned with property rights. I would generally think you are correct on this one. I'm not sure you are correct. Many jurisdictions have private property protection rights afforded them similar to the US, codified in law. France requires compensation before expropriation. The government in the Czech republic is currently fighting to have industrial parks be a valid reason for eminent domain land seizure (something the US has allowed for decades). England has the same traditions of eminent domain as the US (we did inherit their laws). But hey, this is Euro bashing land  I'm sure part of the reason Europe has decent rail is they didn't rip up the entire urban and suburban system after they built it the first go around, like Seattle did when it got rid of the Seattle & Rainier Valley RR, that served downtown to Renton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.