Three days ago, after the monorail agency released its new financial plan—cutting costs by up to 64%—The Seattle Times buried the news and ran a headline story instead about a damning city council study that focused on the monorail’s previous financial plan—a plan the monorail board had already rejected.

Yesterday, the monorail responded to the misleading council study w/ a substantive letter that deserves attention—especially as voters prepare to take up this issue one more time on Nov. 8. The supposedly objective Seattle Times ignored the SMP letter.

The Stranger is accused of being biased in favor of the monorail. We do support the monorail. However, in an environment like this—where major facts in the debate are ignored by the Seattle Times—our open bias simply provides a balance to their embedded bias.

So, in the name of bias (or balance) here’s that letter:

October 27, 2005 City Hall 600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2 PO Box 34025 Seattle, WA 98124-4025

Dear President Drago and Councilmember Licata:

We are providing a response to the “Preliminary Review of the Seattle Monorail Project Green Lineâ€� submitted to the Council on October 25, 2005. First of all, the Report is marred by numerous factual errors. These include, among many, inaccurate statements regarding indemnification, performance standards contained in the Operate and Maintain Contract, capacity of the system, and the means to adjust service. These factual errors could have been avoided had your consultants followed the standard business practice of allowing SMP to review and comment on the preliminary findings.

The Report ignored current information, but also chose to feature data that has little overall impact on the Project while disregarding or trivializing vital information. For example, much was made of the anticipated cost of the tourist pass, and that concern turned into a conclusion that the system cannot break even by 2020.  The projected tourist revenues were validated in several studies, but remain a relatively small percentage of overall revenues. Further, given the low average fare used by SMP in its forecast, the consultant could have recommended that fares be increased to address concerns about any revenue shortfall. In my experience, riders will pay a higher fare for a premium service, which the Green Line will provide. Our ridership experts have conducted sensitivity analyses showing that the fare can be adjusted with little or no impact on ridership. On September 23rd, the Council voted to revoke the Transit Way Agreement. This rendered a financial review moot since Council chose to terminate our ability to deliver the system. Despite your prior action, the Council chose to release the Report. We are disappointed that Council chose to release and publicly review this Report without input from SMP. This is particularly troubling given that the Council and the consultants were aware that SMP had completed a new Finance Plan. In addition, as a result of previous concerns on issues such as system capacity and ridership raised by Council opponents of the Project, we looked forward to the opportunity to update the Council on those matters. Regrettably, Council chose to allow its agents to represent inaccurate and outdated information on key Project elements such as ridership, fare revenue, and the financiability of the Project.  Ironically, the Report does not even address the primary question posed by the Council: does SMP have the financial resources to complete construction of the first phase of the Green Line and to support the first five years of operations? (See Resolution 30693, § 6.) As you know, the answer to this question is clearly yes. SMP has developed a "best in class� finance plan that will allow bonds to be sold to pay all costs of construction and will provide for full retirement and termination of all debt in a reasonable time. Your consultants did not even look at the current plan. Instead, they chose to focus on a variety of issues, but without providing relevant information that would allow the reader to balance the points on each side of an issue and then to reach his/her own conclusion based on the facts. In criticizing many details, the Report ignores many aspects of the Project that, in my experience, will lead to tremendous ridership and a quality transit experience. The document cites none of the benefits of the Project. The first phase will run trains every six minutes at a reliability rate of virtually 100%. The travel times will be known and predictable, and the advanced technology and design of the system will allow the flexibility to manage all types of service, including special events.  Furthermore, the Project is ready to begin, with negotiated contracts and a fixed price for designing, building, operating, and maintaining the Green Line, substantially lowering the taxpayers' risk for design related changes, resulting in a much lower risk of cost increases than for other major projects in the region. In my decades of hands-on transit experience, the Project has all the hallmarks for success. We hope to have the opportunity to respond to any Council concerns. Our offer to brief you and your colleagues on the new Finance Plan remains open, as does our willingness to brief the full Council at a public meeting. Sincerely, John Haley Interim Executive Director