ossed out his thoughts reviewing the merits of light rail vs. monorail (“Monorail system seems like a good idea for this area,” May 13). In essence, he stated quite clearly that we have geographic limitations in our I-5 corridor with limited land available for either highway construction or the disruptive nature of a land-based light rail system. He goes on to say what we do have is air and water, so he envisions an elevated monorail and a high speed ferry system to relieve congestion. I like that.
As we all know, Sound Transit (light rail) went $1.2 billion over the $3.9 billion we taxpayers approved way back in 1996, with not much delivered. Light rail faces tremendous obstacles with the cost yet to be quantified, disruptions of businesses and neighborhoods, and the tunneling required if it ever heads north costlier by the day.
Many of us, early on, were and are proponents of the monorail concept. We have yet to see a comprehensive, unbiased cost benefit analysis light rail vs. monorail. We feel that the monorail would have lower construction and operating costs and a higher passenger usage.
Over the years, I have been a rider on a number of elevated trains, all delightful, scenic rides. The monorail would appear to be a natural for the I-5 greenbelt. I envision the monorail as a boon to tourism, with people riding above traffic and enjoying the view.
Is it possible that Sound Transit is a stodgy bureaucracy and has tunnel vision for light rail? And that’s it? If so, ‘tis a costly pity.
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
