I remember seeing somewhere that one of our former mayors during the
1970's had supported a SCM expansion to the airport. Anyone know
details? Ugh, it's one of those "I remember it!" but "I don't remember
what it looked like or where it was from!"

Daren

Does anyone know break-down issues of the monorail since it opened? I'm
wondering if the SCM ran extremely well up until that fire a few years
ago. Then occasionally another issue sprung up (the pinch crash, the
faulty valve, etc.). It's pretty ironic that now that we're in the 21st
century, our monorail has started to experience some bad headaches.

You think the maintenance budget and/or Council Priorities have
anything to do with it? I mean, this thing is one of our landmarks!

Michael 8-) (mickymse.geo@...) has sent the following
story to you from seattlepi.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Monorail back on track after Saturday's stall
The Seattle Monorail's red train resumed service Sunday at 9
a.m. after a faulty valve in its pneumatic system failed
Saturday afternoon and caused it to stop along the track and
strand 190 people, officials said.

* Read the full article at:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/376265_monorail25.html

---------------------------------------------------------------
Keep track of what's happening around the Northwest, the nation
and the world at http://www.seattlepi.com/ -- updated as news
breaks.

Planetizen pointed its readers to this:

http://www.ohio.com/lifestyle/history/26231894.html

Michael 8-) (mickymse.geo@...) has sent the following
story to you from seattlepi.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Elusive problem on red train keeps monorail closed
The Seattle Center Monorail, taken out of service Monday,
remained shut down Friday as technicians continued to
troubleshoot the electrical problem that sidelined the train.

* Read the full article at:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/374236_monorail09.html

---------------------------------------------------------------
Keep track of what's happening around the Northwest at
http://www.seattlepi.com -- updated all day and as news breaks.

Michael Taylor-Judd 8-)  wanted to share this with you:




Grant Cogswell Alleges Gay Bashing in Belltown | Slog | The Stranger | Seattle's
Only Newspaper
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/08/grant_cogswell_gay_bashed_in_belltown

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Powered by ShareThis
http://sharethis.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This story was sent to you by: Michael

--------------------
Disney's new monorail, its transportation of the future . . . still is
--------------------

Although the new craft has made appearances, riders will have to wait a little
longer.

By David Haldane
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 6 2008

Those yearning to ride Disneyland's long-awaited new monorail found they had to
hang on a little longer Saturday. The Mark VII, which had appeared off and on
late in the week, never made it out of its shelter, to the dismay of some
visitors hoping to step aboard.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/la-me-monorail6-2008jul06,0,4627709.story

Visit chicagotribune.com at http://www.chicagotribune.com

Michael Taylor-Judd 8-)  wanted to share this with you:

Monorail Red debuts at Disneyland (pictures)


Laughing Place Lotion: Monorail Red Makes Its Debut (Laughing Place Lotion) -
LaughingPlace.com: Disney World, Disneyland and More
http://www.laughingplace.com/Lotion-View-701-7.asp

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Powered by ShareThis
http://sharethis.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't drink, but I'm interested in what is so "monorail" about it?
The different taste? The bottle design? If it's the bottle design, I
may be interested in buying one for a souvenir. A SCM beer bottle,
coool. =)

Daren

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Michael Taylor-Judd
<monorail@...> wrote:
>
> Folks want to get together for a drink that night? Maybe talk
about actually getting Rodney's Seattle Transit Riders Union going?
>
>
> http://www.schwartzbros.com/pr_press_storyideas_current.cfm#story4
>
> Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Launches Monorail Ale at Revolution Bar
& Grill
>
> Visit Revolution Bar & Grill on June 23rd and expect a real treat.
> Sierra Nevada Brewery Co. will be launching a new beer designed in
> honor of the Seattle Center Monorail, the nation's first, full-
scale
> commercial monorail system. The Monorail has been testing the
rebuilt
> Blue Car, which will be in service sometime in mid-July. In order
to
> get the required amount of weight, the Monorail has been using new
> Sierra Nevada kegs filled with water. When testing is completed, a
> forklift will be used to transfer the 6,758 gallons of water from
the
> kegs into the Science Center Fountains. It's necessary that only
clean,
> purified water can go into the fountains since animal life is very
> prevalent in and around the fountains.
>
> In honor of its affiliation with the Seattle Center Monorail,
Sierra
> Nevada Brewing Co. is creating a special, limited-offering beer
called
> Monorail Ale. Only about 125 kegs will be made and distributed to
> establishments throughout Seattle, especially along the Monorail's
> route. Since the Monorail runs through the Experience Music
Project,
> what better place to launch the offering than EMP's Revolution Bar
> & Grill? The entire Monorail crew, the Sales team, Wholesalers, and
> Retailers are coming by invitation only. However, Revolution will
be
> open to the public, so come in for Happy Hour and/or dinner and see
> what all the commotion is about.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I'd be one to get a worthy book on it. And as long as the book
doesn't do the slightest amount of diminishing monorail's image, I'm
cool with it. =)
It would then sit next to my other great monorail book which is
about Alweg's history, has the SCM & Space Needle on the cover and
is in german.

Any idea on the cover design, page count, pictures, etc.? =)

Daren


--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
<cleve206@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks.? After about the last 2.5 years of?lymphoma treatment and
recovery, and now catching up on lots of things like going to
beaches,?that could be on the agenda.
>
> Cleve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg & Christine Vassilakos <greg_christine@...>
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 3:33 pm
> Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Stockmeyer,
>
> I hope you or one of the other board members is considering
writing
> a book or at least a magazine article about this. There is a lot
> that went on behind the scenes that should be made public.
>
> Thank you,
> Greg V.
>
> --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
> <cleve206@> wrote:
> >
> > I would say the neglect or waste started back in 1997 (?) when
the
> monorail was first passed.
> > The City council faced a law saying they "shall cause" a
monorail
> to be built.
> > They didn't.? They broke the law.
> > They could have gone to ST and said, hey how 'bout building this?
> > ?They?could have said hey just build half of this X, the other
> half duplicates light rail.
> > The only reason?SMP was created was because they city wouldn't
> obey the law.?
> > The conflict between city government (including several ST board
> members) and monorail (or as I think of it the west side line, I
> don't care all that much whether the rails are one or two or the
> motor is induction or hamster, or the cars are painted yellow or
> turquoise -- it just has to move people fast and tie in to the
other
> line) -- the conflict didn't start in 2005.? It was there since
the
> beginning.
> >
> >
> > Cleve
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daren D <cooldster@>
> > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wed, 21 May 2008 2:20 pm
> > Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't care who it is, although Sound Transit seems more like
the
> > one who should have this as a priority. The Green Line Corridor
> > (GLC) seems more important than expanding light rail north of
> > downtown, south to Tacoma, etc. etc. The GLC's only transit is
> > buses. Then you add the impending viaduct shutdown. And the fact
> > that, like you said Cleve, no one has any planned mass transit
for
> > it. It's like a double slap in the face for the GLC folks and
> we've
> > all known the situation for, I don't know, several years!?
> >
> > I can't wait to watch the "Battle of the Finger Pointers!"
> >
> > Daren
> >
> > --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland
Stockmeyer
> > <cleve206@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes I think the ST 2.0 had a long debt period.? And remember
the
> > monorail plan included a fixed cost for?operations then no
> > operations deficits, while other projects presume the operating
> cost
> > will be largely borne by taxes forever into the future. Even if
> you
> > disagreed that monorail would recover 100% from operations,
still
> at
> > 60% (the mayor's suggested benchmark, admittedly chosen by a
seat
> of
> > the pants type judgment) it's a higher % recovery than most
other
> > transit and much higher than, say, Sounder.
> > >
> > > I think ST?is?now saying their revised plan (2.1 whatever)
would
> > only have a debt period of 12 years and if so that's good,
> obviously.
> > >
> > > What's difficult is that instead of simply presenting total
> > capital cost, total operating cost, ridership, debt cost, debt
> > duration, etc. in a simple fashion allowing one access to cost
per
> > mile, cost per new rider, cost per station etc. there tend to be
> > partisans pro and con?who simply cry?yea or nay on the proposal
> and
> > some of them try to slam you if you ask for data.
> > > We need a simple "good faith estimate" form for all projects,
> like
> > you get when apply for a home loan, so that they are all
measured
> > with the same yardsticks.? Then we would be able to compare
> > achievement with prediction without these endless debates over
> > numbers that require reporters to have dig it all out.?
> > >
> > > Back in the anti?monorail campaign in 2005, the last one, the
> > mayor's folks whilst opposing monorail also stood up and said
they
> > were "determined" to get light rail built "no matter what"--
seems
> > like virtue for the mode?you like is?vice for the one you oppose.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't be that way if one wants a rational approach.? I
think
> > it is obvious that there can be good and bad plans for buses,
> roads,
> > monorail, light rail, horse or donkey carts whatever, so one
> should
> > always have the numbers at the forefront and not engage in blind
> > mode worshipping.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jurgen Brenkert <forums@>
> > > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:56 pm
> > > Subject: RE: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we
> got
> > it down
> > > under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
> > opposed it
> > > despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
> > Brightwater.?"
> > >
> > > The ST proposal that got voted down, and the next proposal has
> 40+
> > year debt
> > > from what I understand.
> > >
> > > Additionally, I happened to be watching one of the board
> meetings
> > and the
> > > board was reconfirming they would have the ability to change
> > whatever was
> > > voted on to whatever they need in the future. I cannot
remember
> > what the
> > > result was, but I believe a good look at the details of the
next
> > proposal
> > > and or how they were planning on changing their charter is in
> > order.
> > >
> > > From: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> > Cleveland
> > > Stockmeyer
> > > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:43 PM
> > > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> > >
> > > the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the
> > concerns about
> > > the financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we
changed
> > to use that
> > > proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover
> > operational
> > > expense from operational revenue which was part of the plan
the
> > mayor
> > > originally supported and which voters had approved.? This
degree
> > of recovery
> > > is achieved in particular?transit lines; the general rule
seems
> to
> > be
> > > certain popular lines can carry that off while an entire
transit
> > system or
> > > network can't because it will include lower ridership
lines.???
> > There was
> > > nothing specific about the monorail ridership or cost numbers
> that
> > drove
> > > opponents to say this degree of operational expense recovery
was
> > > unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in general
> > transit can't
> > > do it.
> > >
> > > The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we
got
> > it down
> > > under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
> > opposed it
> > > despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
> > Brightwater.?
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would
have
> > added a
> > > dozen stations to the "network" that would include the light
> rail
> > line,
> > > giving the light rail-served neighborhoods access to the
> monorail
> > line
> > > destinations and vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20
> > minutes, for
> > > example) (i.e, everyone would have transferred between the
lines
> > and enjoyed
> > > the benefits of the greater coverage offered by two lines
> compared
> > to just
> > > one? line) and the cost of adding those twelve or so?stations
> was
> > about?the
> > > same order of magnitude as the cost of adding just the next
TWO
> > stations
> > > going north from downtown on the light rail line we are
> building.?
> > >
> > > Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links
to
> > Mill Creek
> > > or Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served
a
> > bit by
> > > Sounder and there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W
> > Seattle, Seattle
> > > Center, Ballard or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.
> > >
> > > Cleve
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rdpence03 <rpence@ <mailto:rpence%40cablespeed.com> >
> > > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
> > > Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> > >
> > > Back before their project got really off-track, I commented
more
> > than once
> > > to Monorail
> > > boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious
> > about
> > > building the
> > > monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it
> for
> > them.
> > >
> > > Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned
> nose,
> > or eyes
> > > rolling. My
> > > sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion,
> but
> > they
> > > immediately
> > > understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any
such
> > > arrangement.
> > > -Roger-
> > >
> > > --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com> , "Daren D"
> > <cooldster@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a
> > monorail
> > > > system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but
if
> > you
> > > > [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it
> hit
> > me
> > > > like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
> > > >
> > > > They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK
> project
> > > > going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum
Seattle
> > > > citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would
> love
> > > > another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any
> > brains,
> > > > they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle
demand
> > for a
> > > > monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had
> before
> > the
> > > > financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed
> it.
> > > >
> > > > When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said
to
> > > > themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the
> monorail
> > they
> > > > wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the
> > details,
> > > > they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that
bad?
> > And the
> > > > 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the
> people
> > > > running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have
> the
> > > > experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we
> can
> > do
> > > > it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi
> > Monorail
> > > > System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my
fav, :)
> > But do
> > > > you guys get the idea?
> > > >
> > > > Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who
> > sparked the
> > > > monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look
how
> > far it
> > > > went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would
> have
> > > > become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone
> else
> > who
> > > > followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO,
> JAPAN,
> > and
> > > > KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success
with
> > their
> > > > monorail systems.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass
> transit
> > in
> > > > Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping
the
> > > > monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it
was
> > very
> > > > obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and
SPMA/SMP
> > effort.
> > > > Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY
> > COUNCIL! HEY
> > > > REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY
> > OLYMPIA! &
> > > > all else to whom it may concern. :-|
> > > >
> > > > (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just
> sucks
> > > > because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking,
> outside-
> > the-
> > > > box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit
> > here, and
> > > > providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious
> > choice for
> > > > Seattle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Folks want to get together for a drink that night? Maybe talk about actually
getting Rodney's Seattle Transit Riders Union going?


http://www.schwartzbros.com/pr_press_storyideas_current.cfm#story4

Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. Launches Monorail Ale at Revolution Bar & Grill

Visit Revolution Bar & Grill on June 23rd and expect a real treat.
Sierra Nevada Brewery Co. will be launching a new beer designed in
honor of the Seattle Center Monorail, the nation's first, full-scale
commercial monorail system. The Monorail has been testing the rebuilt
Blue Car, which will be in service sometime in mid-July. In order to
get the required amount of weight, the Monorail has been using new
Sierra Nevada kegs filled with water. When testing is completed, a
forklift will be used to transfer the 6,758 gallons of water from the
kegs into the Science Center Fountains. It's necessary that only clean,
purified water can go into the fountains since animal life is very
prevalent in and around the fountains.

In honor of its affiliation with the Seattle Center Monorail, Sierra
Nevada Brewing Co. is creating a special, limited-offering beer called
Monorail Ale. Only about 125 kegs will be made and distributed to
establishments throughout Seattle, especially along the Monorail's
route. Since the Monorail runs through the Experience Music Project,
what better place to launch the offering than EMP's Revolution Bar
& Grill? The entire Monorail crew, the Sales team, Wholesalers, and
Retailers are coming by invitation only. However, Revolution will be
open to the public, so come in for Happy Hour and/or dinner and see
what all the commotion is about.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks.? After about the last 2.5 years of?lymphoma treatment and recovery, and
now catching up on lots of things like going to beaches,?that could be on the
agenda.

Cleve


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg & Christine Vassilakos <greg_christine@...>
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 3:33 pm
Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!






Mr. Stockmeyer,

I hope you or one of the other board members is considering writing
a book or at least a magazine article about this. There is a lot
that went on behind the scenes that should be made public.

Thank you,
Greg V.

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
<cleve206@...> wrote:
>
> I would say the neglect or waste started back in 1997 (?) when the
monorail was first passed.
> The City council faced a law saying they "shall cause" a monorail
to be built.
> They didn't.? They broke the law.
> They could have gone to ST and said, hey how 'bout building this?
> ?They?could have said hey just build half of this X, the other
half duplicates light rail.
> The only reason?SMP was created was because they city wouldn't
obey the law.?
> The conflict between city government (including several ST board
members) and monorail (or as I think of it the west side line, I
don't care all that much whether the rails are one or two or the
motor is induction or hamster, or the cars are painted yellow or
turquoise -- it just has to move people fast and tie in to the other
line) -- the conflict didn't start in 2005.? It was there since the
beginning.
>
>
> Cleve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daren D <cooldster@...>
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 21 May 2008 2:20 pm
> Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't care who it is, although Sound Transit seems more like the
> one who should have this as a priority. The Green Line Corridor
> (GLC) seems more important than expanding light rail north of
> downtown, south to Tacoma, etc. etc. The GLC's only transit is
> buses. Then you add the impending viaduct shutdown. And the fact
> that, like you said Cleve, no one has any planned mass transit for
> it. It's like a double slap in the face for the GLC folks and
we've
> all known the situation for, I don't know, several years!?
>
> I can't wait to watch the "Battle of the Finger Pointers!"
>
> Daren
>
> --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
> <cleve206@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I think the ST 2.0 had a long debt period.? And remember the
> monorail plan included a fixed cost for?operations then no
> operations deficits, while other projects presume the operating
cost
> will be largely borne by taxes forever into the future. Even if
you
> disagreed that monorail would recover 100% from operations, still
at
> 60% (the mayor's suggested benchmark, admittedly chosen by a seat
of
> the pants type judgment) it's a higher % recovery than most other
> transit and much higher than, say, Sounder.
> >
> > I think ST?is?now saying their revised plan (2.1 whatever) would
> only have a debt period of 12 years and if so that's good,
obviously.
> >
> > What's difficult is that instead of simply presenting total
> capital cost, total operating cost, ridership, debt cost, debt
> duration, etc. in a simple fashion allowing one access to cost per
> mile, cost per new rider, cost per station etc. there tend to be
> partisans pro and con?who simply cry?yea or nay on the proposal
and
> some of them try to slam you if you ask for data.
> > We need a simple "good faith estimate" form for all projects,
like
> you get when apply for a home loan, so that they are all measured
> with the same yardsticks.? Then we would be able to compare
> achievement with prediction without these endless debates over
> numbers that require reporters to have dig it all out.?
> >
> > Back in the anti?monorail campaign in 2005, the last one, the
> mayor's folks whilst opposing monorail also stood up and said they
> were "determined" to get light rail built "no matter what"-- seems
> like virtue for the mode?you like is?vice for the one you oppose.
> >
> > Shouldn't be that way if one wants a rational approach.? I think
> it is obvious that there can be good and bad plans for buses,
roads,
> monorail, light rail, horse or donkey carts whatever, so one
should
> always have the numbers at the forefront and not engage in blind
> mode worshipping.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jurgen Brenkert <forums@>
> > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:56 pm
> > Subject: RE: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we
got
> it down
> > under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
> opposed it
> > despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
> Brightwater.?"
> >
> > The ST proposal that got voted down, and the next proposal has
40+
> year debt
> > from what I understand.
> >
> > Additionally, I happened to be watching one of the board
meetings
> and the
> > board was reconfirming they would have the ability to change
> whatever was
> > voted on to whatever they need in the future. I cannot remember
> what the
> > result was, but I believe a good look at the details of the next
> proposal
> > and or how they were planning on changing their charter is in
> order.
> >
> > From: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Cleveland
> > Stockmeyer
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:43 PM
> > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> >
> > the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the
> concerns about
> > the financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we changed
> to use that
> > proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover
> operational
> > expense from operational revenue which was part of the plan the
> mayor
> > originally supported and which voters had approved.? This degree
> of recovery
> > is achieved in particular?transit lines; the general rule seems
to
> be
> > certain popular lines can carry that off while an entire transit
> system or
> > network can't because it will include lower ridership lines.???
> There was
> > nothing specific about the monorail ridership or cost numbers
that
> drove
> > opponents to say this degree of operational expense recovery was
> > unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in general
> transit can't
> > do it.
> >
> > The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got
> it down
> > under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
> opposed it
> > despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
> Brightwater.?
> >
> > Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would have
> added a
> > dozen stations to the "network" that would include the light
rail
> line,
> > giving the light rail-served neighborhoods access to the
monorail
> line
> > destinations and vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20
> minutes, for
> > example) (i.e, everyone would have transferred between the lines
> and enjoyed
> > the benefits of the greater coverage offered by two lines
compared
> to just
> > one? line) and the cost of adding those twelve or so?stations
was
> about?the
> > same order of magnitude as the cost of adding just the next TWO
> stations
> > going north from downtown on the light rail line we are
building.?
> >
> > Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links to
> Mill Creek
> > or Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served a
> bit by
> > Sounder and there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W
> Seattle, Seattle
> > Center, Ballard or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.
> >
> > Cleve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rdpence03 <rpence@ <mailto:rpence%40cablespeed.com> >
> > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
> > Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> >
> > Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more
> than once
> > to Monorail
> > boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious
> about
> > building the
> > monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it
for
> them.
> >
> > Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned
nose,
> or eyes
> > rolling. My
> > sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion,
but
> they
> > immediately
> > understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such
> > arrangement.
> > -Roger-
> >
> > --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com> , "Daren D"
> <cooldster@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a
> monorail
> > > system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if
> you
> > > [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it
hit
> me
> > > like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
> > >
> > > They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK
project
> > > going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> > > citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would
love
> > > another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any
> brains,
> > > they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand
> for a
> > > monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had
before
> the
> > > financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed
it.
> > >
> > > When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> > > themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the
monorail
> they
> > > wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the
> details,
> > > they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad?
> And the
> > > 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the
people
> > > running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have
the
> > > experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we
can
> do
> > > it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi
> Monorail
> > > System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :)
> But do
> > > you guys get the idea?
> > >
> > > Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who
> sparked the
> > > monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how
> far it
> > > went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would
have
> > > become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone
else
> who
> > > followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO,
JAPAN,
> and
> > > KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with
> their
> > > monorail systems.
> > >
> > > I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass
transit
> in
> > > Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> > > monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was
> very
> > > obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP
> effort.
> > > Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY
> COUNCIL! HEY
> > > REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY
> OLYMPIA! &
> > > all else to whom it may concern. :-|
> > >
> > > (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just
sucks
> > > because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking,
outside-
> the-
> > > box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
> > >
> > >
> > > P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit
> here, and
> > > providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious
> choice for
> > > Seattle.
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mr. Stockmeyer,

I hope you or one of the other board members is considering writing
a book or at least a magazine article about this.  There is a lot
that went on behind the scenes that should be made public.

Thank you,
Greg V.


--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
<cleve206@...> wrote:
>
> I would say the neglect or waste started back in 1997 (?) when the
monorail was first passed.
> The City council faced a law saying they "shall cause" a monorail
to be built.
> They didn't.? They broke the law.
> They could have gone to ST and said, hey how 'bout building this?
> ?They?could have said hey just build half of this X, the other
half duplicates light rail.
> The only reason?SMP was created was because they city wouldn't
obey the law.?
> The conflict between city government (including several ST board
members) and monorail (or as I think of it the west side line, I
don't care all that much whether the rails are one or two or the
motor is induction or hamster, or the cars are painted yellow or
turquoise -- it just has to move people fast and tie in to the other
line) -- the conflict didn't start in 2005.? It was there since the
beginning.
>
>
> Cleve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daren D <cooldster@...>
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 21 May 2008 2:20 pm
> Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't care who it is, although Sound Transit seems more like the
> one who should have this as a priority. The Green Line Corridor
> (GLC) seems more important than expanding light rail north of
> downtown, south to Tacoma, etc. etc. The GLC's only transit is
> buses. Then you add the impending viaduct shutdown. And the fact
> that, like you said Cleve, no one has any planned mass transit for
> it. It's like a double slap in the face for the GLC folks and
we've
> all known the situation for, I don't know, several years!?
>
> I can't wait to watch the "Battle of the Finger Pointers!"
>
> Daren
>
> --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
> <cleve206@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I think the ST 2.0 had a long debt period.? And remember the
> monorail plan included a fixed cost for?operations then no
> operations deficits, while other projects presume the operating
cost
> will be largely borne by taxes forever into the future. Even if
you
> disagreed that monorail would recover 100% from operations, still
at
> 60% (the mayor's suggested benchmark, admittedly chosen by a seat
of
> the pants type judgment) it's a higher % recovery than most other
> transit and much higher than, say, Sounder.
> >
> > I think ST?is?now saying their revised plan (2.1 whatever) would
> only have a debt period of 12 years and if so that's good,
obviously.
> >
> > What's difficult is that instead of simply presenting total
> capital cost, total operating cost, ridership, debt cost, debt
> duration, etc. in a simple fashion allowing one access to cost per
> mile, cost per new rider, cost per station etc. there tend to be
> partisans pro and con?who simply cry?yea or nay on the proposal
and
> some of them try to slam you if you ask for data.
> > We need a simple "good faith estimate" form for all projects,
like
> you get when apply for a home loan, so that they are all measured
> with the same yardsticks.? Then we would be able to compare
> achievement with prediction without these endless debates over
> numbers that require reporters to have dig it all out.?
> >
> > Back in the anti?monorail campaign in 2005, the last one, the
> mayor's folks whilst opposing monorail also stood up and said they
> were "determined" to get light rail built "no matter what"-- seems
> like virtue for the mode?you like is?vice for the one you oppose.
> >
> > Shouldn't be that way if one wants a rational approach.? I think
> it is obvious that there can be good and bad plans for buses,
roads,
> monorail, light rail, horse or donkey carts whatever, so one
should
> always have the numbers at the forefront and not engage in blind
> mode worshipping.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jurgen Brenkert <forums@>
> > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:56 pm
> > Subject: RE: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we
got
> it down
> > under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
> opposed it
> > despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
> Brightwater.?"
> >
> > The ST proposal that got voted down, and the next proposal has
40+
> year debt
> > from what I understand.
> >
> > Additionally, I happened to be watching one of the board
meetings
> and the
> > board was reconfirming they would have the ability to change
> whatever was
> > voted on to whatever they need in the future. I cannot remember
> what the
> > result was, but I believe a good look at the details of the next
> proposal
> > and or how they were planning on changing their charter is in
> order.
> >
> > From: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Cleveland
> > Stockmeyer
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:43 PM
> > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> >
> > the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the
> concerns about
> > the financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we changed
> to use that
> > proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover
> operational
> > expense from operational revenue which was part of the plan the
> mayor
> > originally supported and which voters had approved.? This degree
> of recovery
> > is achieved in particular?transit lines; the general rule seems
to
> be
> > certain popular lines can carry that off while an entire transit
> system or
> > network can't because it will include lower ridership lines.???
> There was
> > nothing specific about the monorail ridership or cost numbers
that
> drove
> > opponents to say this degree of operational expense recovery was
> > unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in general
> transit can't
> > do it.
> >
> > The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got
> it down
> > under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
> opposed it
> > despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
> Brightwater.?
> >
> > Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would have
> added a
> > dozen stations to the "network" that would include the light
rail
> line,
> > giving the light rail-served neighborhoods access to the
monorail
> line
> > destinations and vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20
> minutes, for
> > example) (i.e, everyone would have transferred between the lines
> and enjoyed
> > the benefits of the greater coverage offered by two lines
compared
> to just
> > one? line) and the cost of adding those twelve or so?stations
was
> about?the
> > same order of magnitude as the cost of adding just the next TWO
> stations
> > going north from downtown on the light rail line we are
building.?
> >
> > Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links to
> Mill Creek
> > or Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served a
> bit by
> > Sounder and there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W
> Seattle, Seattle
> > Center, Ballard or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.
> >
> > Cleve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rdpence03 <rpence@ <mailto:rpence%40cablespeed.com> >
> > To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
> > Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
> >
> > Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more
> than once
> > to Monorail
> > boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious
> about
> > building the
> > monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it
for
> them.
> >
> > Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned
nose,
> or eyes
> > rolling. My
> > sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion,
but
> they
> > immediately
> > understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such
> > arrangement.
> > -Roger-
> >
> > --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com> , "Daren D"
> <cooldster@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a
> monorail
> > > system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if
> you
> > > [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it
hit
> me
> > > like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
> > >
> > > They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK
project
> > > going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> > > citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would
love
> > > another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any
> brains,
> > > they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand
> for a
> > > monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had
before
> the
> > > financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed
it.
> > >
> > > When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> > > themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the
monorail
> they
> > > wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the
> details,
> > > they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad?
> And the
> > > 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the
people
> > > running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have
the
> > > experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we
can
> do
> > > it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi
> Monorail
> > > System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :)
> But do
> > > you guys get the idea?
> > >
> > > Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who
> sparked the
> > > monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how
> far it
> > > went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would
have
> > > become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone
else
> who
> > > followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO,
JAPAN,
> and
> > > KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with
> their
> > > monorail systems.
> > >
> > > I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass
transit
> in
> > > Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> > > monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was
> very
> > > obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP
> effort.
> > > Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY
> COUNCIL! HEY
> > > REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY
> OLYMPIA! &
> > > all else to whom it may concern. :-|
> > >
> > > (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just
sucks
> > > because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking,
outside-
> the-
> > > box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
> > >
> > >
> > > P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit
> here, and
> > > providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious
> choice for
> > > Seattle.
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Do you think they might have orchestrated a couple "man-of-the-people"
moments for Rob McKenna to get him elected to AG? Because as we all
know by now, he turned a blind eye to the blatant Seattle Monorail
Project swindle.

What did he do? He offered to take a look at the SMP fiasco after the
fact to ascertain what went wrong and what we might do differently in
the future. Pffsstt.

Then it comes to light that it was Mr. McKenna who had a major hand in
writing proposed ex post facto legislation snuck in last year to help
the SPMA pull off the swindle.

From the Mar 24 – Mar 30, 2005 issue of The Stranger
Monorail Monopoly
The Monorail's Latest PR Mess: Excessive Land Appropriations?
by Sandeep Kaushik

Since voters resoundingly endorsed the monorail by voting down a
recall effort last November, the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) has
acted like the proverbial prodigal son. SMP leaders have tested the
public's patience, frittering away support with a series of
boneheaded moves: a politically foolish (and DOA) effort to prod the
legislature into extending the length of monorail bonds to 60 years;
gifting Executive Director Joel Horn, even as revenues continue to
lag, with a fat raise (upping his take to a regal $187,000); and
imposing a culture of secrecy and spin on the public agency slick
enough to make Bush press flack Scott McClellan proud.

Now, in what appears to be only the latest public relations fiasco,
the agency appears to be using its governmental power to take
advantage of some property owners, condemning more land than they
need to build the initial Green Line. In fact, the owners claim--not
without reason--that SMP is engaging in an unethical, and perhaps
illegal, land grab. The affected properties are likely to rise in
value when the project is finished, and SMP could then sell them off
to private developers at a hefty profit.
___________________________________

Or, just pull the plug on the project, flip the properties to your
developer connections, and appropriate the proceeds from the sales.

Here is what Justin Sutton, the founder of the ITC, has to say about STU. All of
your comments are encouraged and welcome.آ  As to Rapid Transit, the ITC Is my
choice and I am ready to work with anyone who wants to be part of making the
dream come true.آ 




-----Original Message-----

From: Justin Sutton <justin@...>

To: martinringhofer@...

Sent: Wed, 21 May 2008 6:29 pm

Subject: RE: STU



Ok, nice music with the animation I watched showing the system installation, and
certainly the basic function of the system is a no-brainer with a triple-wheel
on a tube-like structure that is known as the "String-Rail".آ  It is an
interesting plan that can work as shown, but, there is nothing that holds the
vehicles onto this tention-cable-steel-tube-epoxyfilled-rail system.آ  It is not
unlike al ot of bridge systems that use tension cables, it just a very tiny
tension bridge system, and they flat out admit the system replaces the "bumps"
of a cable car with and I quote:




آ 


"This means that modules passing over support towers feel more like a bus going
over a hill rather than the usual "bumps" experienced with cable cars.")آ 
Source:آ آ http://www.alternatetransport.com/html/description.html


آ 


As it is shown I would not want to ride that system even once, unless it was
going very slowly and close to the ground in case of a derailment.


آ 


It would be safer to employ a rail car more akin to the wheel systems they use
on roller costers which at least lock the vehicle to the rail.آ آ 


آ 


So, in brief, my only recomendation is to change the wheel configuration...آ  I
can't imagine why he would not have figured that out already...آ آ  otherwise,
it is still a wheeled system suffering the limits of a wheel and the vehicles on
this system would have to be enourmously heavy to stay on the string-rail in a
good wind storm, not to mention what would happen to the vehicle at the speeds
they are claiming.


آ 


Regarding the overall fabrication of the string rail as shown in the one
animation that I watched, it is very much time consuming to assemble, almost
impossible to repair if damaged.آ  The ladder structures are simple enough but
when fully assembled will have thousands of feel of welds which represent a
massive amount of time in fabrication, again, not quickly repaired either.آ آ 


آ 


Regarding scaling, or the range of applications, there does not appear to be
much detail on routing functions, networking and internetworking functions,
switching, or turns of any reasonable radiiآ in the system, which would also beg
the question of the design of the vehicles shown and thier ability to adapt
thier small triple-wheel assembly for curves in the system.


آ 


Certainly, this system isآ not designed with any concept of mass production in
mind or modularity for rapid repair.آ  The whole idea of depending on concrete
for structural installation gives it a shelf-life of the concrete used, and it
takes a long time to mess around with concrete because you have to wait for it
to cure.


آ 


I would guess that they have done a good failure mode analysis, but it would be
my guess that metal fatigue would be a bigآ issue with the heavy loads they are
moving across this string-rail unless they use this system at half it's
projected load cacity.آ آ  Since the wheeled system puts the entire load of the
vehicle in a very small place, the forces acting on the metal strip on top of
the string rail would be very large causing huge sheer forces along it's
length.آ آ 


آ 


As for the triple-wheel design in the video, there does not seem to be any
reasonable amount of surface area to provide breaking, nor does the site make a
very good effort to describe the actual powertrane from engine to wheel to
forward motion.آ 


آ 


After looking it over, I started to remember seeing it before...


آ 


Sincerely,


آ 


Justin Sutton


Founder and Managing Partner


The Interstate Traveler Company, LLC


9594 Main Street


Whitmore Lake, MI 48189


734-449-4480


www.InterstateTraveler.us


Divinus Provodencia et Veritas Aeternum




-------- Original Message --------

Subject: STU

From: martinringhofer@...

Date: Wed, May 21, 2008 7:18 pm

To: justin@...





What do you know about STU


آ 


http://www.alternatetransport.com/



-----Original Message-----

From: Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes@...>

To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wed, 21 May 2008 3:56 pm

Subject: Re: [FoM] "If you can dream it, you can do it." ~ Walt Disney



Found it!آ آ آ  http://www.alternatetransport.com/آ آ آ 


On 5/21/08, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes@...> wrote:  >  > I'm
impressed with the ITC vision.  There's also an inventor in Russia that  >
came up with a similar concept, but I'm having trouble finding the link now. 
>  > Chad  >  > On 5/21/08, martinringhofer@...
<martinringhofer@...> wrote:  >>  >> The ITC is powered by
nitrogen fuel cells and solar energy. Besides the  >> transportation
benefits -- is the creation of power with clean potable  >> drinking water
-- as well as revenue for the systems owners such as cities,  >> counties,
ports -- and private corporations involved in its construction and  >>
operation.  >>  >>  >>  >>  >>  >> The
Seattle Monorail would have cost $2 billion for 18 miles of track.  >>
Right about the time it was first approved, the ITC made a proposal to the 
>> Washington State Legislature to create a transportation network called
the  >> "Washington Interstate Traveler (WIST) system which would have
furnished  >> over 300 miles of rail including 20 miles of side track, 44
cloverleaf  >> stations, 444 pedestrian cars, 400 car ferries, and much
more for less than  >> the Seattle Monorail's 18 miles.  >> 
>>  >>  >>  >>  >> The ITC will connect Everett,
Seattle, Olympia to Spokane and locations  >> along the way, would carry
freight and people at a fraction of the time and  >> cost -- thereby
creating a future not possible with current modes of  >> transportation.
Just imagine: from Seattle to Spokane in less than 2 hours -  >>
passengers could use their time as on a ferry or airplane and the internet. 
>> The ITC brings its own financing and do not cost the owners and
shareholders  >> anything because A. ITC finances and B. the ITC generates
revenues -- not  >> debt.  >>  >>  >>  >> 
>>  >> In 2003 a barrel of oil was $30 to today's $130. The ITC will
be a new  >> transportation system along the Dwight Eisenhower
Superhighway which would  >> connect all points across America, and open
up 80% of the now unpopulated  >> vast continent to a new and exciting
future (  >>
http://questionitnow.com/educationb/2005/12/hydrogen-super-highway.html). 
>> New airports will spring up in desert areas; new resorts will spring up
>> everywhere now unreachable. At the ITC stations will be electric
vehicles  >> for rent which operate 120 miles per charge, at the clean
cost of 2 cents  >> per mile – not $4 a gallon of fossil fuel that
pollutes and warms the globe.  >>  >>  >>  >>  >> 
>> The ITC moves people in the air, on the ground – via MAGLEV ( 
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_(transport)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\
Maglev_%28transport%29>  >> ).  >>  >>  >>  >> 
>>  >> Imagine Seattle to New York in 10 hours for less then
airfare.  >>  >>  >>  >>  >>  >> … and
then there is the rest of the world – many under-developed countries  >>
having no highway transportation systems at all. This could well become a 
>> major work project for a new administration with the greatest pressure
in  >> history to reduce its dependency on fossil fuel and its impact on
all  >> aspects of our life.  >>  >>  >>  >> 
>>  >> "If you can dream it, you can do it." ~ Walt Disney  >>
>>  >>  >>  >>  >> REFERENCE  >>  >> 
>>  >>  >>  >>  >>
http://www.interstatetraveler.us/Regions/USA/Michigan/Detroit/Woodward.At-Grade.\
htm  >>  >>  >>  >>  >>  >>  >> 
>>  >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
>>  >>  >> ------------------------------------  >> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Links  >>  >>  >>  >>  >  >
> --  > Chad Lupkes  > http://chadlupkes.blogspot.com          --  
Chad Lupkes  http://chadlupkes.blogspot.com      [Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]      ------------------------------------    Yahoo!
Groups Links    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/    <*> Your email
settings:      Individual Email | Traditional    <*> To change settings
online go to:      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/join     
(Yahoo! ID required)    <*> To change settings via email:     
mailto:friendsofthemonorail-digest@yahoogroups.com      
mailto:friendsofthemonorail-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com    <*> To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     
friendsofthemonorail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com    <*> Your use of Yahoo!
Groups is subject to:      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Found it!

http://www.alternatetransport.com/

On 5/21/08, Chad Lupkes <chadlupkes@...> wrote:
>
> I'm impressed with the ITC vision.  There's also an inventor in Russia that
> came up with a similar concept, but I'm having trouble finding the link now.
>
> Chad
>
> On 5/21/08, martinringhofer@... <martinringhofer@...> wrote:
>>
>> The ITC is powered by nitrogen fuel cells and solar energy. Besides the
>> transportation benefits -- is the creation of power with clean potable
>> drinking water -- as well as revenue for the systems owners such as cities,
>> counties, ports -- and private corporations involved in its construction and
>> operation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Seattle Monorail would have cost $2 billion for 18 miles of track.
>> Right about the time it was first approved, the ITC made a proposal to the
>> Washington State Legislature to create a transportation network called the
>> "Washington Interstate Traveler (WIST) system which would have furnished
>> over 300 miles of rail including 20 miles of side track, 44 cloverleaf
>> stations, 444 pedestrian cars, 400 car ferries, and much more for less than
>> the Seattle Monorail's 18 miles.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The ITC will connect Everett, Seattle, Olympia to Spokane and locations
>> along the way, would carry freight and people at a fraction of the time and
>> cost -- thereby creating a future not possible with current modes of
>> transportation. Just imagine: from Seattle to Spokane in less than 2 hours -
>> passengers could use their time as on a ferry or airplane and the internet.
>> The ITC brings its own financing and do not cost the owners and shareholders
>> anything because A. ITC finances and B. the ITC generates revenues -- not
>> debt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In 2003 a barrel of oil was $30 to today's $130. The ITC will be a new
>> transportation system along the Dwight Eisenhower Superhighway which would
>> connect all points across America, and open up 80% of the now unpopulated
>> vast continent to a new and exciting future (
>> http://questionitnow.com/educationb/2005/12/hydrogen-super-highway.html).
>> New airports will spring up in desert areas; new resorts will spring up
>> everywhere now unreachable. At the ITC stations will be electric vehicles
>> for rent which operate 120 miles per charge, at the clean cost of 2 cents
>> per mile – not $4 a gallon of fossil fuel that pollutes and warms the globe.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The ITC moves people in the air, on the ground – via MAGLEV (
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_(transport)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mag\
lev_%28transport%29>
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Imagine Seattle to New York in 10 hours for less then airfare.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> … and then there is the rest of the world – many under-developed countries
>> having no highway transportation systems at all. This could well become a
>> major work project for a new administration with the greatest pressure in
>> history to reduce its dependency on fossil fuel and its impact on all
>> aspects of our life.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "If you can dream it, you can do it." ~ Walt Disney
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> REFERENCE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
http://www.interstatetraveler.us/Regions/USA/Michigan/Detroit/Woodward.At-Grade.\
htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Chad Lupkes
> http://chadlupkes.blogspot.com




--
Chad Lupkes
http://chadlupkes.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would say the neglect or waste started back in 1997 (?) when the monorail was
first passed.
The City council faced a law saying they "shall cause" a monorail to be built.
They didn't.? They broke the law.
They could have gone to ST and said, hey how 'bout building this?
?They?could have said hey just build half of this X, the other half duplicates
light rail.
The only reason?SMP was created was because they city wouldn't obey the law.?
The conflict between city government (including several ST board members) and
monorail (or as I think of it the west side line, I don't care all that much
whether the rails are one or two or the motor is induction or hamster, or the
cars are painted yellow or turquoise -- it just has to move people fast and tie
in to the other line) -- the conflict didn't start in 2005.? It was there since
the beginning.


Cleve
-----Original Message-----
From: Daren D <cooldster@...>
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 21 May 2008 2:20 pm
Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!







I don't care who it is, although Sound Transit seems more like the
one who should have this as a priority. The Green Line Corridor
(GLC) seems more important than expanding light rail north of
downtown, south to Tacoma, etc. etc. The GLC's only transit is
buses. Then you add the impending viaduct shutdown. And the fact
that, like you said Cleve, no one has any planned mass transit for
it. It's like a double slap in the face for the GLC folks and we've
all known the situation for, I don't know, several years!?

I can't wait to watch the "Battle of the Finger Pointers!"

Daren

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
<cleve206@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I think the ST 2.0 had a long debt period.? And remember the
monorail plan included a fixed cost for?operations then no
operations deficits, while other projects presume the operating cost
will be largely borne by taxes forever into the future. Even if you
disagreed that monorail would recover 100% from operations, still at
60% (the mayor's suggested benchmark, admittedly chosen by a seat of
the pants type judgment) it's a higher % recovery than most other
transit and much higher than, say, Sounder.
>
> I think ST?is?now saying their revised plan (2.1 whatever) would
only have a debt period of 12 years and if so that's good, obviously.
>
> What's difficult is that instead of simply presenting total
capital cost, total operating cost, ridership, debt cost, debt
duration, etc. in a simple fashion allowing one access to cost per
mile, cost per new rider, cost per station etc. there tend to be
partisans pro and con?who simply cry?yea or nay on the proposal and
some of them try to slam you if you ask for data.
> We need a simple "good faith estimate" form for all projects, like
you get when apply for a home loan, so that they are all measured
with the same yardsticks.? Then we would be able to compare
achievement with prediction without these endless debates over
numbers that require reporters to have dig it all out.?
>
> Back in the anti?monorail campaign in 2005, the last one, the
mayor's folks whilst opposing monorail also stood up and said they
were "determined" to get light rail built "no matter what"-- seems
like virtue for the mode?you like is?vice for the one you oppose.
>
> Shouldn't be that way if one wants a rational approach.? I think
it is obvious that there can be good and bad plans for buses, roads,
monorail, light rail, horse or donkey carts whatever, so one should
always have the numbers at the forefront and not engage in blind
mode worshipping.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jurgen Brenkert <forums@...>
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:56 pm
> Subject: RE: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got
it down
> under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
opposed it
> despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
Brightwater.?"
>
> The ST proposal that got voted down, and the next proposal has 40+
year debt
> from what I understand.
>
> Additionally, I happened to be watching one of the board meetings
and the
> board was reconfirming they would have the ability to change
whatever was
> voted on to whatever they need in the future. I cannot remember
what the
> result was, but I believe a good look at the details of the next
proposal
> and or how they were planning on changing their charter is in
order.
>
> From: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Cleveland
> Stockmeyer
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:43 PM
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
> the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the
concerns about
> the financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we changed
to use that
> proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover
operational
> expense from operational revenue which was part of the plan the
mayor
> originally supported and which voters had approved.? This degree
of recovery
> is achieved in particular?transit lines; the general rule seems to
be
> certain popular lines can carry that off while an entire transit
system or
> network can't because it will include lower ridership lines.???
There was
> nothing specific about the monorail ridership or cost numbers that
drove
> opponents to say this degree of operational expense recovery was
> unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in general
transit can't
> do it.
>
> The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got
it down
> under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
opposed it
> despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
Brightwater.?
>
> Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would have
added a
> dozen stations to the "network" that would include the light rail
line,
> giving the light rail-served neighborhoods access to the monorail
line
> destinations and vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20
minutes, for
> example) (i.e, everyone would have transferred between the lines
and enjoyed
> the benefits of the greater coverage offered by two lines compared
to just
> one? line) and the cost of adding those twelve or so?stations was
about?the
> same order of magnitude as the cost of adding just the next TWO
stations
> going north from downtown on the light rail line we are building.?
>
> Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links to
Mill Creek
> or Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served a
bit by
> Sounder and there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W
Seattle, Seattle
> Center, Ballard or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.
>
> Cleve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdpence03 <rpence@... <mailto:rpence%40cablespeed.com> >
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
> Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
> Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more
than once
> to Monorail
> boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious
about
> building the
> monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it for
them.
>
> Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned nose,
or eyes
> rolling. My
> sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion, but
they
> immediately
> understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such
> arrangement.
> -Roger-
>
> --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com> , "Daren D"
<cooldster@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a
monorail
> > system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if
you
> > [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit
me
> > like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
> >
> > They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project
> > going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> > citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love
> > another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any
brains,
> > they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand
for a
> > monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before
the
> > financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.
> >
> > When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> > themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail
they
> > wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the
details,
> > they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad?
And the
> > 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people
> > running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the
> > experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can
do
> > it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi
Monorail
> > System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :)
But do
> > you guys get the idea?
> >
> > Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who
sparked the
> > monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how
far it
> > went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have
> > become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else
who
> > followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN,
and
> > KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with
their
> > monorail systems.
> >
> > I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit
in
> > Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> > monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was
very
> > obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP
effort.
> > Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY
COUNCIL! HEY
> > REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY
OLYMPIA! &
> > all else to whom it may concern. :-|
> >
> > (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks
> > because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-
the-
> > box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
> >
> >
> > P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit
here, and
> > providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious
choice for
> > Seattle.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm impressed with the ITC vision.  There's also an inventor in Russia that
came up with a similar concept, but I'm having trouble finding the link now.

Chad

On 5/21/08, martinringhofer@... <martinringhofer@...> wrote:
>
> The ITC is powered by nitrogen fuel cells and solar energy. Besides the
> transportation benefits -- is the creation of power with clean potable
> drinking water -- as well as revenue for the systems owners such as cities,
> counties, ports -- and private corporations involved in its construction and
> operation.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Seattle Monorail would have cost $2 billion for 18 miles of track.
> Right about the time it was first approved, the ITC made a proposal to the
> Washington State Legislature to create a transportation network called the
> "Washington Interstate Traveler (WIST) system which would have furnished
> over 300 miles of rail including 20 miles of side track, 44 cloverleaf
> stations, 444 pedestrian cars, 400 car ferries, and much more for less than
> the Seattle Monorail's 18 miles.
>
>
>
>
>
> The ITC will connect Everett, Seattle, Olympia to Spokane and locations
> along the way, would carry freight and people at a fraction of the time and
> cost -- thereby creating a future not possible with current modes of
> transportation. Just imagine: from Seattle to Spokane in less than 2 hours -
> passengers could use their time as on a ferry or airplane and the internet.
> The ITC brings its own financing and do not cost the owners and shareholders
> anything because A. ITC finances and B. the ITC generates revenues -- not
> debt.
>
>
>
>
>
> In 2003 a barrel of oil was $30 to today's $130. The ITC will be a new
> transportation system along the Dwight Eisenhower Superhighway which would
> connect all points across America, and open up 80% of the now unpopulated
> vast continent to a new and exciting future (
> http://questionitnow.com/educationb/2005/12/hydrogen-super-highway.html).
> New airports will spring up in desert areas; new resorts will spring up
> everywhere now unreachable. At the ITC stations will be electric vehicles
> for rent which operate 120 miles per charge, at the clean cost of 2 cents
> per mile – not $4 a gallon of fossil fuel that pollutes and warms the globe.
>
>
>
>
>
> The ITC moves people in the air, on the ground – via MAGLEV (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_(transport)).
>
>
>
>
>
> Imagine Seattle to New York in 10 hours for less then airfare.
>
>
>
>
>
> … and then there is the rest of the world – many under-developed countries
> having no highway transportation systems at all. This could well become a
> major work project for a new administration with the greatest pressure in
> history to reduce its dependency on fossil fuel and its impact on all
> aspects of our life.
>
>
>
>
>
> "If you can dream it, you can do it." ~ Walt Disney
>
>
>
>
>
> REFERENCE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.interstatetraveler.us/Regions/USA/Michigan/Detroit/Woodward.At-Grade.\
htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Chad Lupkes
http://chadlupkes.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The ITC isآ poweredآ by nitrogen fuel cells and solar energy. Besides the
transportation benefits -- is the creation of power with clean potable drinking
water -- as well as revenue for the systems owners such as cities, counties,
ports -- and private corporations involved in its construction and operation.


آ 


The Seattle Monorail would have cost $2 billion for 18 miles of track. Right
about the time it was first approved, the ITC made a proposal to the Washington
State Legislature to create a transportation network called the "Washington
Interstate Traveler (WIST) system which would have furnished over 300 miles of
rail including 20 miles of side track, 44 cloverleaf stations, 444 pedestrian
cars, 400 car ferries, and much more for less than the Seattle Monorail's 18
miles.


آ 


The ITC will connect Everett, Seattle, Olympiaآ to Spokane and locations along
the way, would carry freight and people at a fraction of the time and cost --
thereby creating a future not possible with current modes of transportation.
Just imagine: from Seattle to Spokane in less than 2 hours - passengers could
use their time as on a ferry or airplane and the internet. The ITC brings its
own financing and do not cost the owners and shareholders anything because A.
ITC finances and B. the ITC generates revenues -- not debt.


آ 


In 2003 a barrel of oil was $30 to today's $130.آ The ITC will be a new
transportation system along the Dwight Eisenhower Superhighway which would
connect all points across America, and open up 80% of the now unpopulated vast
continent to a new and exciting future
(http://questionitnow.com/educationb/2005/12/hydrogen-super-highway.html). New
airports will spring up in desert areas; new resorts will spring up everywhere
now unreachable. At the ITC stations will be electric vehicles for rent which
operate 120 miles per charge, at the clean cost of 2 cents per mile – not $4 a
gallon of fossil fuel that pollutes and warms the globe.


آ 


The ITC moves people in the air, on the ground – via MAGLEV
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_(transport)).


آ 


Imagine Seattle to New York in 10 hours for less then airfare.


آ 


… and then there is the rest of the world – many under-developed countries
having no highway transportation systems at all. This could well become a major
work project for a new administration with the greatest pressure in history to
reduce its dependency on fossil fuel and its impact on all aspects of our life.


آ 


"If you can dream it, you can do it." ~ Walt Disney


آ 


REFERENCE


آ 


http://www.interstatetraveler.us/Regions/USA/Michigan/Detroit/Woodward.At-Grade.\
htm




آ 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To me it seems almost too easy for the folks at Sound Transit, City
Council, RTID, etc. to just check out a few links about monorail.
These are 2 of my favorite.

Hitachi:
http://www.hitachi-
rail.com/products/monorail_system/overview/index.html

The Monorail Society:
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Where.html

=)

I don't care who it is, although Sound Transit seems more like the
one who should have this as a priority. The Green Line Corridor
(GLC) seems more important than expanding light rail north of
downtown, south to Tacoma, etc. etc. The GLC's only transit is
buses. Then you add the impending viaduct shutdown. And the fact
that, like you said Cleve, no one has any planned mass transit for
it. It's like a double slap in the face for the GLC folks and we've
all known the situation for, I don't know, several years!?

I can't wait to watch the "Battle of the Finger Pointers!"

Daren

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, Cleveland Stockmeyer
<cleve206@...> wrote:
>
> Yes I think the ST 2.0 had a long debt period.? And remember the
monorail plan included a fixed cost for?operations then no
operations deficits, while other projects presume the operating cost
will be largely borne by taxes forever into the future. Even if you
disagreed that monorail would recover 100% from operations, still at
60% (the mayor's suggested benchmark, admittedly chosen by a seat of
the pants type judgment) it's a higher % recovery than most other
transit and much higher than, say, Sounder.
>
> I think ST?is?now saying their revised plan (2.1 whatever) would
only have a debt period of 12 years and if so that's good, obviously.
>
> What's difficult is that instead of simply presenting total
capital cost, total operating cost, ridership, debt cost, debt
duration, etc. in a simple fashion allowing one access to cost per
mile, cost per new rider, cost per station etc. there tend to be
partisans pro and con?who simply cry?yea or nay on the proposal and
some of them try to slam you if you ask for data.
> We need a simple "good faith estimate" form for all projects, like
you get when apply for a home loan, so that they are all measured
with the same yardsticks.? Then we would be able to compare
achievement with prediction without these endless debates over
numbers that require reporters to have dig it all out.?
>
> Back in the anti?monorail campaign in 2005, the last one, the
mayor's folks whilst opposing monorail also stood up and said they
were "determined" to get light rail built "no matter what"-- seems
like virtue for the mode?you like is?vice for the one you oppose.
>
> Shouldn't be that way if one wants a rational approach.? I think
it is obvious that there can be good and bad plans for buses, roads,
monorail, light rail, horse or donkey carts whatever, so one should
always have the numbers at the forefront and not engage in blind
mode worshipping.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jurgen Brenkert <forums@...>
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:56 pm
> Subject: RE: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got
it down
> under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
opposed it
> despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
Brightwater.?"
>
> The ST proposal that got voted down, and the next proposal has 40+
year debt
> from what I understand.
>
> Additionally, I happened to be watching one of the board meetings
and the
> board was reconfirming they would have the ability to change
whatever was
> voted on to whatever they need in the future. I cannot remember
what the
> result was, but I believe a good look at the details of the next
proposal
> and or how they were planning on changing their charter is in
order.
>
> From: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Cleveland
> Stockmeyer
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:43 PM
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
> the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the
concerns about
> the financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we changed
to use that
> proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover
operational
> expense from operational revenue which was part of the plan the
mayor
> originally supported and which voters had approved.? This degree
of recovery
> is achieved in particular?transit lines; the general rule seems to
be
> certain popular lines can carry that off while an entire transit
system or
> network can't because it will include lower ridership lines.???
There was
> nothing specific about the monorail ridership or cost numbers that
drove
> opponents to say this degree of operational expense recovery was
> unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in general
transit can't
> do it.
>
> The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got
it down
> under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still
opposed it
> despite other projects today being of that duration, such as
Brightwater.?
>
> Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would have
added a
> dozen stations to the "network" that would include the light rail
line,
> giving the light rail-served neighborhoods access to the monorail
line
> destinations and vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20
minutes, for
> example) (i.e, everyone would have transferred between the lines
and enjoyed
> the benefits of the greater coverage offered by two lines compared
to just
> one? line) and the cost of adding those twelve or so?stations was
about?the
> same order of magnitude as the cost of adding just the next TWO
stations
> going north from downtown on the light rail line we are building.?
>
> Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links to
Mill Creek
> or Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served a
bit by
> Sounder and there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W
Seattle, Seattle
> Center, Ballard or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.
>
> Cleve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdpence03 <rpence@... <mailto:rpence%40cablespeed.com> >
> To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
> Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!
>
> Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more
than once
> to Monorail
> boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious
about
> building the
> monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it for
them.
>
> Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned nose,
or eyes
> rolling. My
> sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion, but
they
> immediately
> understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such
> arrangement.
> -Roger-
>
> --- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com> , "Daren D"
<cooldster@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a
monorail
> > system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if
you
> > [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit
me
> > like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
> >
> > They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project
> > going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> > citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love
> > another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any
brains,
> > they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand
for a
> > monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before
the
> > financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.
> >
> > When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> > themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail
they
> > wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the
details,
> > they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad?
And the
> > 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people
> > running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the
> > experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can
do
> > it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi
Monorail
> > System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :)
But do
> > you guys get the idea?
> >
> > Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who
sparked the
> > monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how
far it
> > went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have
> > become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else
who
> > followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN,
and
> > KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with
their
> > monorail systems.
> >
> > I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit
in
> > Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> > monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was
very
> > obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP
effort.
> > Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY
COUNCIL! HEY
> > REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY
OLYMPIA! &
> > all else to whom it may concern. :-|
> >
> > (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks
> > because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-
the-
> > box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
> >
> >
> > P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit
here, and
> > providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious
choice for
> > Seattle.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I think this is spam &/or junk. (-_-)

Can moderator please remove this? You can delete this (mine) message,
too.

Yes I think the ST 2.0 had a long debt period.? And remember the monorail plan
included a fixed cost for?operations then no operations deficits, while other
projects presume the operating cost will be largely borne by taxes forever into
the future. Even if you disagreed that monorail would recover 100% from
operations, still at 60% (the mayor's suggested benchmark, admittedly chosen by
a seat of the pants type judgment) it's a higher % recovery than most other
transit and much higher than, say, Sounder.

I think ST?is?now saying their revised plan (2.1 whatever) would only have a
debt period of 12 years and if so that's good, obviously.

What's difficult is that instead of simply presenting total capital cost, total
operating cost, ridership, debt cost, debt duration, etc. in a simple fashion
allowing one access to cost per mile, cost per new rider, cost per station etc.
there tend to be partisans pro and con?who simply cry?yea or nay on the proposal
and some of them try to slam you if you ask for data.
We need a simple "good faith estimate" form for all projects, like you get when
apply for a home loan, so that they are all measured with the same yardsticks.?
Then we would be able to compare achievement with prediction without these
endless debates over numbers that require reporters to have dig it all out.?

Back in the anti?monorail campaign in 2005, the last one, the mayor's folks
whilst opposing monorail also stood up and said they were "determined" to get
light rail built "no matter what"-- seems like virtue for the mode?you like
is?vice for the one you oppose.

Shouldn't be that way if one wants a rational approach.? I think it is obvious
that there can be good and bad plans for buses, roads, monorail, light rail,
horse or donkey carts whatever, so one should always have the numbers at the
forefront and not engage in blind mode worshipping.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jurgen Brenkert <forums@...>
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:56 pm
Subject: RE: [FoM] Re: What if ...!






"The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got it down
under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still opposed it
despite other projects today being of that duration, such as Brightwater.?"

The ST proposal that got voted down, and the next proposal has 40+ year debt
from what I understand.

Additionally, I happened to be watching one of the board meetings and the
board was reconfirming they would have the ability to change whatever was
voted on to whatever they need in the future. I cannot remember what the
result was, but I believe a good look at the details of the next proposal
and or how they were planning on changing their charter is in order.

From: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cleveland
Stockmeyer
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:43 PM
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FoM] Re: What if ...!

the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the concerns about
the financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we changed to use that
proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover operational
expense from operational revenue which was part of the plan the mayor
originally supported and which voters had approved.? This degree of recovery
is achieved in particular?transit lines; the general rule seems to be
certain popular lines can carry that off while an entire transit system or
network can't because it will include lower ridership lines.??? There was
nothing specific about the monorail ridership or cost numbers that drove
opponents to say this degree of operational expense recovery was
unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in general transit can't
do it.

The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got it down
under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still opposed it
despite other projects today being of that duration, such as Brightwater.?

Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would have added a
dozen stations to the "network" that would include the light rail line,
giving the light rail-served neighborhoods access to the monorail line
destinations and vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20 minutes, for
example) (i.e, everyone would have transferred between the lines and enjoyed
the benefits of the greater coverage offered by two lines compared to just
one? line) and the cost of adding those twelve or so?stations was about?the
same order of magnitude as the cost of adding just the next TWO stations
going north from downtown on the light rail line we are building.?

Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links to Mill Creek
or Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served a bit by
Sounder and there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W Seattle, Seattle
Center, Ballard or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.

Cleve

-----Original Message-----
From: rdpence03 <rpence@... <mailto:rpence%40cablespeed.com> >
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!

Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more than once
to Monorail
boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious about
building the
monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it for them.

Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned nose, or eyes
rolling. My
sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion, but they
immediately
understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such
arrangement.
-Roger-

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com> , "Daren D" <cooldster@...>
wrote:
>
> Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a monorail
> system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if you
> [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit me
> like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
>
> They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project
> going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love
> another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any brains,
> they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand for a
> monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before the
> financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.
>
> When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail they
> wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the details,
> they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad? And the
> 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people
> running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the
> experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can do
> it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi Monorail
> System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :) But do
> you guys get the idea?
>
> Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who sparked the
> monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how far it
> went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have
> become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else who
> followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN, and
> KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with their
> monorail systems.
>
> I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit in
> Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was very
> obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP effort.
> Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY COUNCIL! HEY
> REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY OLYMPIA! &
> all else to whom it may concern. :-|
>
> (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks
> because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-the-
> box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
>
>
> P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit here, and
> providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious choice for
> Seattle.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

** **

**

<http://www.arababts.com/index.php>

أخبار الهيئة <http://www.arababts.com/news.php>

فوائد التبرع <http://www.arababts.com/pages.php?id=7>

بحوث و دراسات <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=3>

الدم و أمراض الدم <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=6>

بنوك الدم <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=1>

الطب و الصحة <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=8>

المخدرات و السموم و المنشطات <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=2>

الطب البديل <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=5>

الشريعة و الطب <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=4>

تكنولوجيا و تقنيات <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=10>

نبضات تربوية <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=11>

وجوه و أعلام <http://www.arababts.com/cat.php?id=12>
**

**

[image:
http://www.arababts.com/news.php?id=6]<http://www.arababts.com/news.php?id=6>
**

<http://www.arababts.com/vb>* *

<http://www.arababts.com/newsletter.php>* *

* *

* <http://www.aljoood.com/forums/index.php?>*

* <http://www.arababts.com/vb/>*

* <http://www.aljoood.com/forums/index.php?>*



*
<http://www.aljoood.com/forums/index.php?>*<http://www.arababts.com/news.php?id=\
13>
* <http://www.arababts.com/vb/>*

** **
** **

<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1278>

*برنامج لتعليم الرياضيات للمرحلة الابتدائية + شرح بالصور*
** **
** **

* <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1278>
* <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1278>*
http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1278*



<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1278>

اضغط هنا لمشاهدة باقى الموضوع<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1278v>

*هنا تجد المتابعة المستمرة
للتطورات<http://www.arababts.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=27&order=desc>
*

*في عصر الحاسوب الآلي من
برامج.<http://www.arababts.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=27&order=desc>
*

تم تجديد البرنامج العالمي المشهور Windows
Live<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=172>

اعرف جهازك فيه فيروس او لا بدون بر
نامج<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=291>

محول الصوتيات العربى الرائع<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=447>

حل مشكلة اللغة في الهوتميل
الجديد<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=132>

شرح كامل وبالتفصيل لأسرار
الهوتميل<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=316>

برنامج قارئ الكتب الالكترونية<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=406>

برنامج الى صلاتي <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=386>

أسطوانة نور البيان لتعليم الأطفال و الناشئين القراءة والكتابة من خلال
القرآن<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=455>

برنامج معالج انهيار الويندوز Ashampoo(R) WinOptimizer
4.10<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=430>

هام جدا لكل مستخدم الهوتميل<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=382>

برنامـج التوبــة <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=369>

أسطوانة موسوعة الباوربوينت الإسلامى تشمل الكثير من العروض
الدعوية<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=349>

المطوف-رفيقك إلى البيت العتيق<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=341>

اليكم كااسبر سكاي مدى الحياة
!!!<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=194>

برنامج (( صحيح البخاري )) . بحجم
خيالي<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=271>

اسطوانة لتعليم مناسك الحج
والعمرة<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=285>

كيف تعرف ان الرسالة المرسلة تمت
قرأتها<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=295>

ارفع ملفاتك على الأنترنت من غير الدخول لمواقع الرفع مع شرح
بالصور<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=229>

طريقة تصطيب ويندوز xp مع الشرح
بالصور<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=246>

اجعل بريدك يرد علي جميع رسائلك
الواردة<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=209>

برنامج الصور الشهير ACDSee 8.0.39
كاملاً<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=199>

حل أخطاء الماسنجر ببرنامج صغير مع
الشرح<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=726>

Internet Download Manager 5.12.FuLL بميزات جديده للتحميل بسرعه
هائله<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=721>

برنامج يحسب عمرك بالسنة والشهر واليوم والساعة والدقيقة
والثانية..<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=509>

إسطوانة موسوعة المعلومات
والبلدان<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=658>

تعلم اخراج السي دي من الجهاز عندما يكون مطفأ ......
بالصور<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=538>

برنامج سكرتيرك الخاص داخل
الكمبيوتر<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=767>

تعريب الويندوز جاهز للتحميل<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=769>

سماتك من فصيلة دمك <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=469>

المصحف الإلكترونى المسموع <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=555>

كيف اضيف لغة عربية الى جهازي ؟<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=499>

طريقة التخلص من فيروس Copy.exe<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=601>

برنامج جميل لأطباء العظام Orthopaedic Knowledge Update
1-8<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=575>

برنامج عربي يحمي المجلدات والملفات بكلمة مرور + شرح
مصور<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=579>

برنامج لتحميل القرآن الكريم كاملا في 5 ثواني بصوت 28
قارئ<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=582>

اعرف سرعتك الفعلية علي الانترنت وسرعة
الدونلود<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=589>

حصريا مع اشقر طريقة التحميل من النت بسرعه هائله بدون
برامج<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=355>

للمتزوجين وخصوصا النساء .. برنامج لتحديد ومتابعة الحيض و الحمل و
الولاده<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=451>

برنامج TotalRecorder للتسجيل جميع الاصوات
للكمبيوتر<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=480>

برنامج للرقابه العائليه على
الماسنجر<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=522>

برنامج راديو الإذاعة الصغير
والممتع<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=381>

لكل من لا يملك كيبورد عربي <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=445>

  أخيرا الإصدار الأخير من نسختى Vista Ultimate System 2008 SP3 من
تصميمى<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=507>

كيف تستطيع ان تثبت موضــــوع دون الـــرجـــــوع الــــى المـــشـــرف
!!!!!<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=378>



اختراع الهوت ميل <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=894>

حذف الملفات المؤثره على سرعة
النظام<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=757>

: قبل أن تكتب أي ( آيه من القرآن الكريم ) تفضل
هنا<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=878>

شرح مفصل لضغط الwindows باستخدامNorton
Ghost<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=808>

Oo لعبة مسلية عن فصائل الدم Oo<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=830>

هل برنامج الانتي فيروس لديك يعمل بكفاءة
..جرب<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=838>

RealPlayer v11.0.1 <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=846>

برنامج HDDlife لفحص حرارة الكمبيوتر ( مهم جدا
)<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=810>

برنامج يصدر تحذير .. يخبرك اذا كان الموقع آمن او غير آمن ( مهم جدا
)<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=817>

تم اطلاق الرسيفر الاسلامي \ انظر
الصوره<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=802>

Spider Player <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=762>

GOM Player 2.1.8.3683 <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=800>

تعليم اللغة الإنجليزية <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=804>

برنامج التنظيف: CCleaner
2.02.527<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=191>

أكبر جدة <http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=678>





     *ومن دواعي سرورنا أن نقدم الدعوة العامة
لجميع أهل الاختصاص
و العامة من الناس
لتشريفنا بالزيارة والتسجيل في*

* موقع الهيئة العربية لخدمات نقل الدم ...
لنكون معاً نحو صحة أفضل ...
بموقع يعتبر من المواقع المرجعية الرسمية ..
والمنبثق من جامعة الدول العربية
موقع أفتتح لكم أحبابنا الكرام و من أجلكم *

[image: الموقع] <http://www.arababts.com/index.php>   [image:
المنتديات]<http://www.arababts.com/vb/index.php>



<http://www.arababts.com/vb/showthread.php?t=87>

* <http://www.aljoood.com/forums/index.php?>
<http://www.arababts.com/vb/><http://www.arababts.com/news.php?id=6>
*

*الرئيسية <http://www.arababts.com/index.php> |
الأخبار<http://www.arababts.com/news.php>
| المنتديات <http://www.arababts.com/vb> |
الكتاب<http://www.arababts.com/author.php>
| ألبوم الصور <http://www.arababts.com/gallery.php> |
الأفلام<http://www.arababts.com/video.php>
| المكتبة <http://www.arababts.com/book.php>
مطبوعات الهيئة <http://www.arababts.com/newsletter.php> | دليل
المواقع<http://www.arababts.com/dir.php>
| اتصل بنا <http://www.arababts.com/contact.php> *

**

**
**


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got it down
under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still opposed it
despite other projects today being of that duration, such as Brightwater.?"

The ST proposal that got voted down, and the next proposal has 40+ year debt
from what I understand.

Additionally, I happened to be watching one of the board meetings and the
board was reconfirming they would have the ability to change whatever was
voted on to whatever they need in the future.  I cannot remember what the
result was, but I believe a good look at the details of the next proposal
and or how they were planning on changing their charter is in order.

From: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cleveland
Stockmeyer
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:43 PM
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FoM] Re: What if ...!

the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the concerns about
the financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we changed to use that
proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover operational
expense from operational revenue which was part of the plan the mayor
originally supported and which voters had approved.? This degree of recovery
is achieved in particular?transit lines; the general rule seems to be
certain popular lines can carry that off while an entire transit system or
network can't because it will include lower ridership lines.??? There was
nothing specific about the monorail ridership or cost numbers that drove
opponents to say this degree of operational expense recovery was
unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in general transit can't
do it.

The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got it down
under 40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still opposed it
despite other projects today being of that duration, such as Brightwater.?

Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would have added a
dozen stations to the "network" that would include the light rail line,
giving the light rail-served neighborhoods access to the monorail line
destinations and vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20 minutes, for
example) (i.e, everyone would have transferred between the lines and enjoyed
the benefits of the greater coverage offered by two lines compared to just
one? line) and the cost of adding those twelve or so?stations was about?the
same order of magnitude as the cost of adding just the next TWO stations
going north from downtown on the light rail line we are building.?

Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links to Mill Creek
or Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served a bit by
Sounder and there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W Seattle, Seattle
Center, Ballard or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.

Cleve

-----Original Message-----
From: rdpence03 <rpence@... <mailto:rpence%40cablespeed.com> >
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!

Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more than once
to Monorail
boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious about
building the
monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it for them.

Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned nose, or eyes
rolling. My
sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion, but they
immediately
understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such
arrangement.
-Roger-

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:friendsofthemonorail%40yahoogroups.com> , "Daren D" <cooldster@...>
wrote:
>
> Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a monorail
> system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if you
> [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit me
> like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
>
> They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project
> going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love
> another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any brains,
> they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand for a
> monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before the
> financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.
>
> When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail they
> wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the details,
> they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad? And the
> 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people
> running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the
> experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can do
> it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi Monorail
> System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :) But do
> you guys get the idea?
>
> Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who sparked the
> monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how far it
> went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have
> become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else who
> followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN, and
> KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with their
> monorail systems.
>
> I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit in
> Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was very
> obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP effort.
> Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY COUNCIL! HEY
> REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY OLYMPIA! &
> all else to whom it may concern. :-|
>
> (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks
> because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-the-
> box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
>
>
> P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit here, and
> providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious choice for
> Seattle.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

the element of truth in concerns about the monorail were the concerns about the
financing specifically the MVET growth rate which we changed to use that
proposed by the mayor's economist, and the plan to recover operational expense
from operational revenue which was part of the plan the mayor originally
supported and which voters had approved.? This degree of recovery is achieved in
particular?transit lines; the general rule seems to be certain popular lines can
carry that off while an entire transit system or network can't because it will
include lower ridership lines.??? There was nothing specific about the monorail
ridership or cost numbers that drove opponents to say this degree of operational
expense recovery was unrealistic, there was only a general argument that in
general transit can't do it.

The duration of the debt was the next objection but after we got it down under
40 years using the lower MVET growth rate folks still opposed it despite other
projects today being of that duration, such as Brightwater.?

Meanwhile, what we were proposing was a project that would have added a dozen
stations to the "network" that would include the light rail line, giving the
light rail-served neighborhoods access to the monorail line destinations and
vice versa (Roosevelt to Ballard in about 20 minutes, for example) (i.e,
everyone would have transferred between the lines and enjoyed the benefits of
the greater coverage offered by two lines compared to just one? line) and the
cost of adding those twelve or so?stations was about?the same order of magnitude
as the cost of adding just the next TWO stations going north from downtown on
the light rail line we are building.?

Certainly we have not heard why ST would propose adding links to Mill Creek or
Fife or?Tacoma when some of those areas?are already served a bit by Sounder and
there is no proposal at all to first hook up?W Seattle, Seattle Center, Ballard
or any part of Seattle NW of downtown.


Cleve


-----Original Message-----
From: rdpence03 <rpence@...>
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 6:17 pm
Subject: [FoM] Re: What if ...!






Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more than once to
Monorail
boardmembers and fans: If the Monorail Board is really serious about building
the
monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it for them.

Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned nose, or eyes
rolling. My
sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion, but they
immediately
understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such arrangement.
-Roger-

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, "Daren D" <cooldster@...> wrote:
>
> Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a monorail
> system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if you
> [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit me
> like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
>
> They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project
> going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love
> another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any brains,
> they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand for a
> monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before the
> financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.
>
> When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail they
> wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the details,
> they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad? And the
> 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people
> running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the
> experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can do
> it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi Monorail
> System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :) But do
> you guys get the idea?
>
> Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who sparked the
> monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how far it
> went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have
> become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else who
> followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN, and
> KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with their
> monorail systems.
>
> I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit in
> Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was very
> obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP effort.
> Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY COUNCIL! HEY
> REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY OLYMPIA! &
> all else to whom it may concern. :-|
>
> (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks
> because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-the-
> box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
>
>
> P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit here, and
> providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious choice for
> Seattle.
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

After the SMP board heard Joel's $11B finance plan and rejected it, and Joel and
Tom resigned, I was tasked with the job of getting a new executive director.? I
called all leading transportation players and politicians and told them all
everything is on the table including any ST takeover or merger.? None were
interested.? One of the first calls made was to ask Tim Ceis if he wanted to do
be the executive director;?not interested.??During this whole period the mayor
and certain ST board members on the Seattle City Council were not interested in
any kind of negotiation or workout arrangement and the mayor's deputy
specifically said no matter how much we cut the line to make it more affordable
and more financeable?thee mayor would make no commitment at all to support it
before the voters.? The SMP revised the finance plan to remove billions of
dollars of excess interest, and then,?cut the line from 14 miles to the 10.5
miles from WS to Dravus that we put on the ballot, to reduce costs and finance
charges even more; we even?used the mayor's proposed (lower) MVET growth rate
which had been the largest bone of contention.??During this whole period the
mayor and the council members on the ST board were saying the monorail (a) must
be put on the very next ballot in the Fall leaving us a short period of time to
rework things and refusing to consider a slightly longer period that would let
us go to the ballot in the next Spring when additional savings or options could
have been explored to reduce finance costs even further, (b) the mayor told the
contractor the project was kaput, leading the contractor to withdraw its team
and not even spend the money to explore additional savings; (c) the mayor and
those councilmembers opposed the ballot measure, (d) the mayor announced
opposition before meeting with our new ED to go over the new reduced finance
plan, and (e) a council member who was on the ST board, I believe, whom I
personally contacted, refused to even meet with me to discuss the revised
finance plan.? After the vote was lost, several of us on the board and off
contacted the city council and?others, to say "we have this real estate, someone
should buy it all to build some kind of transit network" or "someone should buy
it to put up dense housing including affordable housing and BRT stops" and there
was no interest and no action.
ST board members from Seattle either actively opposed the continuation of the
project or stood aside and were "neutral" in the fight for continuation of the
project.? Continuation of the project and the agency was necessary to have
something to take over.? What is sad is that we did have a largely fixed price
contract (that is, protected against the risk of inflation in construction
costs, which has plagued so many other projects since 2005) and it included
operations for 15 years, and?Fluor was on the hook to accept changes in scope
all the way thru December 2005.....so if other entities had been trying to
improve the monorail instead of trying to kill it, the entire finance picture
could have been further improved.? For example, the City could?have??not imposed
costs on the SMP (when SMP collects taxes to pay money to the City, it is not a
true cost to the public and the City benefits) (or compare?the proposed
streetcar network; the estimate is $600 million but there is no cost charged by
the City to itself for taking right of way).???

Good luck working with ST.?? Neither they nor the monorail opponents who have
proposed transit for this corridor have come up with any specific alternative
plan, despite the need to replace Viaduct capacity and keep?W Seattle and
Ballard/NW Seattle connected when the viaduct is down.

Cleve Stockmeyer

-----Original Message-----
From: Daren D <cooldster@...>
To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 18 May 2008 1:28 pm
Subject: [FoM] What if ...!







Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a monorail
system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if you
[still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit me
like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!

They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project
going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love
another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any brains,
they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand for a
monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before the
financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.

When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail they
wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the details,
they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad? And the
5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people
running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the
experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can do
it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi Monorail
System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :) But do
you guys get the idea?

Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who sparked the
monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how far it
went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have
become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else who
followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN, and
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with their
monorail systems.

I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit in
Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was very
obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP effort.
Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY COUNCIL! HEY
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY OLYMPIA! &
all else to whom it may concern. :-|

(-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks
because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-the-
box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.

P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit here, and
providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious choice for
Seattle.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Back before their project got really off-track, I commented more than once to
Monorail
boardmembers and fans:  If the Monorail Board is really serious about building
the
monorail, they should contract with Sound Transit to build it for them.

Comment was always met with a quizzical look, or an upturned nose, or eyes
rolling.  My
sense was that they saw the element of truth in my suggestion, but they
immediately
understood that monorail politics absolutely prohibited any such arrangement.
-Roger-

--- In friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com, "Daren D" <cooldster@...> wrote:
>
> Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a monorail
> system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if you
> [still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit me
> like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!
>
> They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project
> going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle
> citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love
> another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any brains,
> they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand for a
> monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before the
> financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.
>
> When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to
> themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail they
> wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the details,
> they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad? And the
> 5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people
> running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the
> experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can do
> it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi Monorail
> System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :) But do
> you guys get the idea?
>
> Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who sparked the
> monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how far it
> went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have
> become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else who
> followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN, and
> KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with their
> monorail systems.
>
> I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit in
> Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the
> monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was very
> obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP effort.
> Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY COUNCIL! HEY
> REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY OLYMPIA! &
> all else to whom it may concern. :-|
>
> (-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks
> because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-the-
> box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.
>
>
> P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit here, and
> providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious choice for
> Seattle.
>

Why not consider this system being put in by Detroit. 100% clean and GREEN.


?


www.InterstateTraveler.us










-----Original Message-----

From: Paul Schafer <paul9955@...>

To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com

Cc: MartinRinghofer@...

Sent: Mon, 19 May 2008 9:14 am

Subject: [FoM] Re: ST monorail before the voters













Whoops, meant to send to the whole list...

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Schafer

To: MartinRinghofer@...

Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:14 AM

Subject: Re: ST monorail before the voters



Again, don't forget: It's not a monorail people were against, which you can
plainly see from all the yes votes. As Daren explains, it was the funding model
and the incompetent leadership of the monorail project there at the end that
sank the project, not the mode of transportation itself.



- Paul



----- Original Message -----

From: MartinRinghofer@...

To: paul9955@...

Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:58 PM

Subject: Re: ST monorail before the voters



G I V E IT UP! People voted NO. What part of NO do people not get?



In a message dated 5/18/2008 9:33:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
paul9955@... writes:

I think it's a great idea, Daren.



- Paul Schafer



----- Original Message -----

From: Daren D

To: friendsofthemonorail@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:28 PM

Subject: [FoM] What if ...!



Lately, I've been wondering how can Sound Transit build a monorail

system in Seattle. (I know what some people may think, but if you

[still] have a dream, dreams never die, I say!) And then it hit me

like a light switch: put a ST monorail before the voters!



They have some momemtum/credibilty with the current LINK project

going on and all and I'm sure the same 54%-ish minimum Seattle

citizens who approved a monorail system back in 2002 would love

another opportunity for monorail. If Sound Transit has any brains,

they would certainly have noticed/monitered the Seattle demand for a

monorail from the 4 SOLID YES votes the SMP monorail had before the

financial-slap, dummied-down version that was vote #5 killed it.



When it died, Sound Transit should have stepped up and said to

themselves, 'Wow, after 5 votes, Seattle didn't get the monorail they

wanted/deserved. What happened?' Then after finded out the details,

they tell themselves, 'So, Seattle wants a monorail that bad? And the

5th vote had nothing to do with monorail itself, but the people

running it and financial experience.' ... 'Well we (ST) have the

experience and all. That SMP agency may have failed, but we can do

it, Seattle. How does a Sound Transit Advanced Urban Hitachi Monorail

System sound?!' Ok, I put Hitachi, because they're my fav, :) But do

you guys get the idea?



Don't quote me on this, but wasn't it Dick Falkenbury who sparked the

monorail effort here in Seattle in the early 1990's? Look how far it

went? I can't imagine how much WORSE monorail's image would have

become if Dick hadn't stepped up when he did, and everyone else who

followed... And all the while ADVANCED cities like TOKYO, JAPAN, and

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA, for example, enjoy great success with their

monorail systems.



I don't know about you, but as far as the future of mass transit in

Seattle is concerned, I'm rather shocked NO ONE is keeping the

monorail interest Seattle has, in mind, especially when it was very

obvious during the RiseAboveItAll, Elevated.org, and SPMA/SMP effort.

Lake Union Streetcar? WTF?!? HEY MAYOR DICKELS! HEY CITY COUNCIL! HEY

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (RTID)! HEY OLYMPIA! &

all else to whom it may concern. :-|



(-_-) It seems I am only hearing my own echo... that just sucks

because I thought Seattle was a green, forward-thinking, outside-the-

box planning, transit-oriented, world-class city.



P.S. If Sound Transit is so eff-ing focused on mass transit here, and

providing "several options", monorail should be an obvious choice for

Seattle.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----------------------------------------------------------

Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL
Food.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]