Adtranz (Part of Daimler-Benz and a manufacturer
of small monorails and people movers. Their installed systems
include Newark Int'l Airport, Las Colinas APT, SeaTac Shuttle
Transit System, Las Vegas McCarran Airport, and Miami
Metromover.)
Their two page response expresses an interest in the ETC
project, but states, "At this time, we have elected not
to provide a formal submittal to you in regard to the
Project. A critical and necessary component of any large
scale public works project is the availability of necessary
funds in order to carry out the project. While a fully funded
project would be preferable, Adrtanz has participated in
transit projects where other financing mechanisms are
included to augment the available public funding...However,
we are not aware of any large scale systems that have been
implemented purely by the private sector and therefore it is
our preference to delay our interest in the Seattle elevated
project until such public funding support can be
identified."
Aerobus International, Inc. - It is a suspended
light rail transit system using pre-stressed aerial cable.
They say that the complete cable system "resembles those
used in suspension bridges such as the famed Golden Gate
bridge." They use rubber tires on aluminum rails
attached to the cable. "The tires move smoothly along
parallel roadbed tracks to provide relaxed, scenic trips for
riders." They claim the design allows them to build at
"60 to 80 percent of most other elevated transit
systems." The system has apparently been built twice,
"an installation was sold in Canada where Aerobus
operated at a ski resort. Later a two mile system was
installed at a horticulture exposition in Mannheim,
Germany." They have no system currently in operation.
"The Mannheim installation drew the attention of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). The UMTA commissioned a report on the Aerobus technology. The UMTA report concluded that the Mannheim system demonstrated the feasibility of the system concept for urban applications."
They support the franchise concept, saying it provides
"the most cost efficient and practical way to supply the
citizens of Seattle with an elevated transportation
system." Their preference would be for a DBOM
contractual arrangement with a franchise agreement where
"an Aerobus International owned operating company would
lease the rights to operate a mass transit system form the
city of Seattle. Aerobus International would provide and
retain ownership of the vehicles and equipment. The right of
ways, and all improvements to real property would remain the
property of the city of Seattle and would be leased to the
Aerobus operating company as a part of the franchise
agreement.
The firm said it does not have sufficient information to propose a preferred route. They did express an appreciation for the concept of starting out "with a small section of the total proposed network and 'roll out' the other sections as capital becomes available and operational experience is gained." They expressed a concern that typical demand in the central business district has peaks in the morning and afternoon, leaving much stock idle for much of the day. "A more desirable usage pattern is often found around college campuses. Typically students will travel to and from campus throughout the day...This makes for a more even demand pattern and more efficient use of the transportation system."
As with most respondents, they would expect the public sector to secure the necessary right of ways. In addition, they would expect the city to "issue bonds or arrange other financing to build the tracks and other real property improvements for the system." These bonds would be repaid from lease payments made by Aerobus. Finally, the "city would need to guarantee a minimum ridership level contingent upon the Aerobus operating company providing acceptable levels of service."
Their response was the most comprehensive of the seven received to date.
Aerorail Development Corporation - They are in the
process of developing a suspended system and recently formed
a partnership with "a well known and highly respected
design and manufacturing company related to the aviation
industry in addition to an equally respected design and
construction company related to the rail industry.
Unfortunately, the actual members of this association cannot
(be) revealed at this early date in the teaming due to
confidentiality agreements."
They indicated that their preference would be for a DBOM
contractual model and they would propose to run the system
from N 145th to SeaTac Airport. As to their interest in
putting money into the project, they wrote, "Respondent
will not be responsible for equity investment into the
project." They added, that because of the bureaucratic
requirements of obtaining federal funding, "Aerorail
usually presents a financing plan not dependent upon Federal
funds...Aerorail has been working with an investment banking
firm to develop a viable financial package for constructing
Aerorail public transit systems."
They believe the farebox would not only cover O&M costs, but also provide for debt service and pay for the system within twenty years. As to their financing strategy, they wrote, "First maximize the amount of transportation revenue bonds. Second, determine the amount of tax-backed debt that can be supported. Third, after optimizing the amount of direct debt, determine the remaining amount of capital needed from other sources as grants and/or subordinate debt financing from the State and County."
Futrex, Inc. - They are developing a steel wheeled/steel railed cantilevered suspension system, that is dual-sided. They have a quarter-scale model currently operating in Charleston, South Carolina (largely constructed with federal funds), and expect to soon begin construction on a 1.4 mile full-scale prototype installation.
Their response to the ETC was informational, rather than
formal. Their Vice President for Planning and Development,
Thomas Waldron, wrote, "Because FUTREX is now focusing
all of its management attention and resources on the
execution of the Prototype program, we unfortunately are not
in a position to be fully responsive to ETC's Request for
Expressions of Interest. We would, however, like to make ETC
fully aware of our emerging technology, and convey FUTREX's
interest in competing for all or a portion of the envisioned
elevated transit network once a Request for Proposals is
issued."
HSST Development Corporation (HDC) - (High Speed
Surface Transport) This is the Japanese developer of the mag
lev system, which was one of the systems highlighted at the
Monorail conference in March 1998. Linear induction motors
propel the magnetically levitated system, with its trains
floating above the fixed guideway. The only contact point is
for the electric power collection system.
While generally considered a high speed inter-city service system, they claim to have adapted it for both high and low speed applications. The low speed is necessary be able "to negotiate tight turns to minimize impact on existing buildings and infrastructure" within urban environments.
They are currently involved in two public/private partnerships to build systems in Japan, both with lengths of five miles, although one is expect to eventually be 27 miles in length. They have also organized a consortium in the US with partners, including Lockheed Martin Control Systems, Raytheon, and ICF Kaiser Engineering. The consortium will be seeking federal TEA21 dollars.
Like other respondents, HSST says it is interested in the ETC project, but seems to be waiting for the project to be fleshed out in greater detail. They said they "would like to decide the financial contribution (they would make) after organizing the team for this project," but they also said they believe "it might be required for the realization of the elevated guide-way system that infrastructure of the system would be financed by public sector." They have not declared a preference as to the scope of contact (i.e. D/B, D/B/O), the length of contract, or selected preferred corridors.
Jakes Associates & Marubeni Corporation - Jakes has long shown an interest in the ETC project. Dick has been in regular contact with the firm and even paid to fly one of their people to Seattle to see and discuss some of his ideas. The firm describes itself as a provider of "creative transportation solutions for urban areas by promoting 'passenger friendly transit' based on innovative conceptualization and planning." (Description from a previously provided brochure.)
In the three page response, Jakes says they have "discussed" the ETC project with Marubeni, which it describes as a $110 billion conglomerate and as "one of the very few companies worldwide which undertakes major privately financed urban transportation projects..." They also state that Forbes Magazine ranked Marubeni as the ninth largest company in the world.
While stating "we could make it happen in Seattle," they added "We have selected at this time not to completely respond to your request, as we feel that the Seattle opportunity has not matured to the point of substantial investments in time and resources." They did, however, ask for an opportunity to meet with the ETC and seemed to imply that Marubeni would also participate in such a meeting.
LX Dev., Inc. - This proposal comes from Curtis
Hamilton, a frequent visitor at ETC meetings. It LXT21 system
"is an elevated fixed guideway that accommodates air
levitated vehicles, traveling in a non-contact mode."
The automated system would use linear motors for
acceleration, speed control, and braking.
"Vehicle capacity, guideway layout, and station configuration will not be determined until the feasibility study is completed." The firm has not yet put together its engineering, construction, and operations team, but expects to have done so by the time it submits an RFP response.
Their initial corridor preference, made without the benefit of a feasibility study, would be from "the Duwamish area to downtown Seattle and along the waterfront with connections to the Port of Seattle." They also envision extensions from West Seattle to downtown.
Their goal would be to keep the public construction
contribution to less than 20%, with it potentially coming
from federal TEA21 funds. Their response does not address how
the balance in funding might be secured.
Mitsui USA - Japan's largest general trading company partners with the long established Japanese monorail manufacturer, Hitachi, in this response. The two firms have been working together on monorail projects for nearly thirty years. They have constructed a number of "urban-type" monorail systems in Japan and are currently involved in the construction of several more.
They would prefer a design/build/test model contract, but "would be interested in studying operation and maintenance services on a contractual basis with a local partner in the U.S." Their experience suggests that the construction of a "typical" 10-kilometer monorail system from study to inaugural service would take four years to complete.
Mitsui would expect the system owner to "provide the
Project Definition, Draft Environmental Impact Assessment,
Techno-Commercial Feasibility Study and whatever preparatory
activities required in association with setting routes and
obtaining governmental approvals."
They indicate that public sector financing will be necessary for construction financing and operating subsidies. "While private revenues may constitute a minor portion of the funding for the proposed project, the majority of the funding for all scopes of the project...from federal, state and/or the city of Seattle sources will be required."
Owen Transit Group, Inc. - The Georgia firm is the developer of a dual-sided monorail, which is not in active service or demonstration. They have three systems they are trying to sell, but are suggesting their HighRoad Urban/Suburban system for Seattle.
They would prefer a DBOM contact, but aren't offering any of their own funds. They "would request that the Authorized Government obtain all funding to design and build the system using available Federal funds for 80% of construction costs and authorize local revenue bonds to pay for the remaining 20% of the system costs. As an alternative, the Authorized Government would provide funds (other than Federal funds) to cover the basic 80% of construction costs."
They would then operate the system "within available farebox revenues." In addition, "this would require that the successful system provider generate sufficient revenues to retire the local revenue bonds over a reasonable time period (30 years)."
The response states that they have not studied or evaluated various corridors, but they reference a "completion date of a 41-mile system," implying that envision the Initiative 41 routing. However, they "would have the rights to determine routes and station locations in order to assure sufficient ridership to support the operating costs, revenue bonds, and operating profit goals."
Pathfinder Systems PRT - They have a conceptual design for a suspended PRT system, which they outlined at one of the ETC technology briefings of last summer. More recently, they proposed a partnership with the ETC as part of their three-phased development program. They say they are currently in the process of obtaining funding for this development, which will include production design and construction, and which they expect to have completed in approximately 3-1/2 years.
Their RFI response is primarily a review of their PRT concept. On the final page they state, "Our Review of the ETC's 'Request for Expression of Interest' dated March 1, 1999 had led us to the conclusion that the ETC is currently primarily interested in developing new corridor transit systems rather than providing access/circulation systems for existing regional transit stations, neighborhoods and activity centers. These access/circulation systems would clearly increase ridership on these existing and future corridor transit systems. We do not believe that a corridor transit system is an optimum application of the Pathfinder PRT at this time. This factor, combined with a yet undeveloped PRT system, strongly suggests that it would be premature for Pathfinder Systems Inc. to participate in the June 1999 RFP."
Railsafe - The Seattle-based firm proposes a
two-way loop "system which connects the major activity
centers and the neighborhoods around downtown Seattle,"
including the Seattle Center, South Lake Union, Convention
Center, First Hill, International District (with Sound
Transit connection), the new stadiums, ferry terminal, and
the Pike Place Market/Denny Regrade. The density and
clustered demand of downtown offer "the best chance of
developing an operationally profitable transit system."
While their goal is "to maximize the level of private investment by developing a system that has the greatest certainty of generating ongoing operating profits," but they believe that a combination of public and private funds will be necessary for the project's capital costs. They do not envision a need for public operational subsidies.
Railsafe was one of few respondents to specifically address the political challenges of this project, labeling them as "most daunting." While committed to meeting the challenges, "Doing so requires an excellent concept to energize the effort, thoughtful selection of technology, scrupulous involvement of the public, and rarely seen cooperation between government and private business."
They prefer the design/build/test/operate/maintain contractual model, which they believe "directly ties to the franchisee's ability to earn a return on its investment to the system's long term performance." They envision a three-phase contract. The first of these would involve the awarding of an exclusive franchise to the private sector partner to develop a specific, concrete proposal addressing issues of station plans, routing, capacity, service life, technology, assessment of impacts, ridership forecasts, anticipated fares, anticipated operating profits, and total capital costs. This phase would also include "a detailed financing plan, specifying the structure and amount of the private and public contributions to the project."
The second phase would be for construction, during which
the ETC, City, and franchisee would work collaboratively to
secure necessary permits and reviews. The City would be
responsible for allowing "staging in its public
right-of-ways." The third phase would be for system
operation, under public oversight.
While stating that it is too early to propose specific schedules for each of these phases, "In very general terms - assessing the project's feasibility will take about a year; designing the system and developing all supporting arrangements will take a couple of years; permitting and construction will take several years; and testing will take a few months."
Seattle Monorail Team - It is a consortium consisting of:
Bombardier Transit Corporation - the largest manufacturer of passenger rail systems and vehicles in North America;
Granite Construction Company - one of the nation's oldest and largest civil construction contractors with extensive experience building major transportation projects on a design/build/finance basis;
Carter & Burgess, Inc. - one of the nation's "most innovative and fastest growing" engineering, architectural and construction management firms;
Salomon Smith Barney - a leading investment banking firm for major transportation projects; and
Laise Corporation - which would coordinate and facilitate activities of the partners in the strategic planning and marketing during the franchise and financing phase.
Last December, Clark County, Nevada awarded this same
team, for its client, the Monorail LLC (MGM Grand/Bally's), a
franchise for the private financing, construction and
operation of a public monorail transit system in Las Vegas.
They contend that the combination of their experience working
in Las Vegas and in their own independent projects makes them
"uniquely qualified to advise the ETC on the structuring
of an RFP."
They would propose to begin by finding local partners with whom they would work to "determine the financial viability of an initial monorail line, as a franchise to be awarded by the City of Seattle on a 'SuperTurnkey' basis." (They define "Super Turnkey" to include complete design, construction, testing, commissioning, training, ongoing operations and maintenance, and project financing.) If that study determines the project is viable, they would "help create an entity to be awarded the franchise, prepare the franchise application, prepare the funding and financing plan, and serve as the design/build and operations and maintenance contractor for the initial monorail line."
Their RFI response did not identify any routing or
corridor selection, instead stating that such a selection
would be made on the basis of a number of criteria. These
include such things as high transit commuting potential, the
ease of construction, minimizing private property acquisition
from non-participants, and compatibility with other transit
services. They added, that "most major new transit
initiatives that succeed start modestly and then grow
incrementally, based upon the success of the initial
link(s)...Accordingly, we recommend that the monorail program
adopt an incremental development strategy based upon the
selection and implementation of an initial line."
Based on their Las Vegas experience, they outlined the
possible structure of a private franchise using either
complete private funding or with partial public funding. With
completely private financing, they would envision the
franchise team working with non-recourse, tax-free debt
backed by project revenues (fares and advertising revenues),
plus participant contributions. "Tax-free status would
be achieved through the use of a non-profit special purpose
corporation (SPC) to serve as the monorail owner and operator
of the system. The SPC would contract out the design,
construction, operation and maintenance (O&M) of the
system." The SPC would pay no income tax (although
Nevada and Washington have state income taxes).
If a fully privately funded project proved unreasonable for whatever reason, they would propose to close the "funding gap" with federal, state, or local funding. The franchise approach would still be used, but the City would "work to obtain the documentation necessary to enable the project to qualify for federal or other public funds. In parallel, the private sector would work to design, construct, test, commission, install, and operate the monorail...This approach would require a unique blend of private franchising with federal or other public funding that never has been done before for a public transit system."
Under either scenario, they would expect the public sector to provide funding for preliminary engineering (for accurate costs), investment grade ridership studies (necessary for private investment), and EIS or EIR preparation and review. They would also expect a waiver of state and local sales, B&O, and property taxes.
They envision an initial effort to determine the
project's feasibility. This would take one to two months
which would be used to complete a preliminary ridership and
revenue study and preliminary construction and O&M cost
estimates for the initial segment are assembled. This initial
step would also include using this data to determine if the
project could be financed without federal funding.
Assuming the Team, ETC, and City find these results encouraging, the next phase of six months to a year would have the Team and Franchisee entering into a Phase I agreement to prepare the Franchise Agreement and Conceptual Engineering required for the Franchise. The franchisee would contract with the Team to complete preliminary engineering, prepare a guaranteed maximum price and independent Investment Grade Ridership and Revenue Study. Smith Barney would prepare and market the financing package and the close of financing and Notice to Proceed on the turnkey D/B contract would be given to the franchisee.
It would take approximately four years to move through the design and construction of the initial line. They would envision a contract with the ETC and/or City of thirty years. The O&M contract would be structured in five year increments, with automatic price adjustments to cover inflation.
TJG, Inc. (The Jefferson Group) - This SeaTac based firm proposes an automated PRT circulator/feeder/distributor "Omni-Trans System" in the University District. They envision a one-way system of 7 to 10 miles, with up to 14 off-line stations, constructed at a capital cost of $85 to $150 million (under $15 million per mile). They would have stations at the UW Medical Center, three locations on the east side of the UW campus, stations within the residential and commercial fabric of the U District, and at Sound Transit stations.
"It is estimated that this system might attract between 18-24,000 trips per day from a daytime population of more than 75,000 people." It is their belief that the high concentration of potential riders provides the "ability to generate revenues sufficient to make it economically viable." However, they would want this belief tested through a study to be "commissioned by the ETC or the city." Assuming the results of such a study are favorable, they "would be prepared to share the cost of the additional studies needed to assure a successful project." They estimate such studies would cost $500,000 and take one to two years to complete. They would expect the system to require no operating subsidies and to return "much" of its capital costs over time. They did not address the issue of financing system construction.
They envision using both three-passenger and six-passenger vehicles, operating with 0.5 second headways. They would use a linear synchronous motor system, capable of carrying 12,000 passengers per hour per direction. They would prefer a design/build/test/operate/maintain model.
Urbanaut People Mover System - The president of Urbanaut is Einar Svensson, a structural licensed professional engineer and a principal with the ALWEG Company when it built the existing monorail. He attended the one-year anniversary party and brought story boards explaining his system. He says he is working with three other firms on this proposal. He describes the firms as 1) an international agency that has been involved in financing, 2) an international transportation agency with extensive experience in design and manufacture of rolling stock, and 3) a reputable international construction company.
They are proposing an "Urbanaut Circulator" in
downtown, covering 7.5 miles and 16 stations. It would
contain "3 stages with 3 loops," with
"possible future trunk line extensions to and from the
Northwest, North, Northeast, East across the two Lake
Washington bridges, and likewise can be planned in several
Southerly directions."
They would be interested in a DBOM contractual model and has "an international financing agency who is an interested partner in this proposal."
For more information, visit the website of the Elevated Transportation Company .
Information about most of these vendors can be obtained at the page of the Innovative Transportation Technologies website .
Last modified: May 26, 1999