Seattle, WA
Op-Ed: Seattle Monorail Should Honor Transfers, Be Treated Like Real Transit » The Urbanist
Seattle landmarks are woven into the city’s identity: the Space Needle, Gas Works Park, Pike Place Market, Humpy the Salmon. They’re playful, iconic, and accessible to locals and visitors alike. The monorail should belong in that same category. It is a piece of transportation infrastructure history that helps residents move through the city and remark on times gone by. Instead, it is becoming a premium attraction aimed at visitors, rather than a practical option for everyday riders.
Fresh off hiking fares on the nearly-one-mile-long monorail to $4.00, Seattle Monorail Services is getting rid of transfer credits to other transit services in a blow to riders. In early December, ORCA informed riders that starting January 1, 2026, monorail fares paid with ORCA E-purse will no longer receive the two-hour transfer credit. Every ride will require full payment, even if the rider tapped onto another service minutes earlier.
For transit users who rely on transfers to move through the city, this is a step backward. It is also a policy decision that treats the monorail as an exception to regional transit norms — or perhaps not a service intended for use by locals, at all.
Taking the 1 Line from Lynnwood and transferring to the monorail to attend Pride, Seattle Eats, or any number of other events in Seattle Center just jumped from $4 per person to $7 per person. Fortunately, many Climate Pledge Arena events come with monorail cost bundled in the ticket cost.
History of the Seattle Monorail
Seattle’s monorail began as a showpiece, built in 1962 for the Century 21 World’s Fair. The idea wasn’t to serve commuters, but rather to dazzle visitors and move crowds between downtown and the fairgrounds. For more dazzling during the World’s Fair, Seattle Center had rollercoasters, which I, for one, am in favor of bringing back.

” data-medium-file=”https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives.jpg” data-large-file=”https://i3.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives-1024×666.jpg?ssl=1″ fifu-data-src=”https://i3.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives-1024×666.jpg?ssl=1″ alt=”” class=”wp-image-188343″ srcset=”https://i3.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives-1024×666.jpg?ssl=1 1024w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives-768×499.jpg 768w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives-646×420.jpg 646w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives-696×452.jpg 696w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/large_8183_The-Seattle-Monorail-via-Seattle-Municipal-Archives.jpg 1114w” sizes=”(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px”/><figcaption class=)
The monorail system worked as millions rode it in its first year, and the sleek elevated trains helped cement the city’s Jet Age identity. But the system was never expanded, and the short two-stop alignment was left behind as a novelty once the fair ended.
Seattle actually tried to scale that vision into real transit. In 1968 and 1970, voters were asked to approve the Forward Thrust plan, a regional rapid transit system combining tunnels, elevated lines, and stations across the city. Both measures earned a majority, but Washington law required 60% voter approval to issue bonds. The transit proposals failed, and the federal funds earmarked for Seattle were redirected to Atlanta (where only a simple 50% majority vote was required), funds that ultimately seeded MARTA.
Meanwhile, Seattle spent decades without rapid transit, and the monorail became a relic of a future that never materialized. Fortunately, Seattle eventually invested in light rail and continues to do so despite financial hurdles.
But before light rail buildout, Seattle made one more attempt to turn the monorail into a network. From the late 1990s through the mid-2000s, voters backed the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority, which pursued the elevated “Green Line” from Ballard through Downtown to West Seattle. The citizen-led program struggled with escalating costs, uncertain financing models, and political backlash.
Map of the proposed Seattle Monorail Project, superimposed on Link (2021 extent) and Sounder. (Mliu92, CC 4.0)After five public votes, the project was dissolved in 2005 without breaking ground. What remained was the original 0.9-mile segment. Still iconic, still beloved by tourists, but functionally unchanged since the Eisenhower era.
Recent fare hike
In 2024, the City and the contracted operator of the monorail announced another round of fare increases. Adult fares rose from $3.50 to $4.00, a 14% jump in a single adjustment.
The monorail fare hike was much steeper than those on other transit services in the region. King County Metro buses moved from $2.75 to $3.00, a 9% increase. Sound Transit’s Link light rail standardized fares at $3.00 regardless of trip distance, in a win for long-distance commuters. Even in larger cities with higher living costs, like New York and San Francisco, transit fares remain lower at around $2.85–$2.90 for metro service. The monorail is now one of the most expensive local transit rides per mile in the country.
For many riders, fare increases alone would be frustrating but manageable. Seattle transit often requires combining services: a bus from a neighborhood, a train downtown, then the monorail to a shift at Seattle Center or an event at Climate Pledge Arena. The regional ORCA card system has long made this a possibility. Riders are given a two-hour transfer window so multiple trips are counted as part of the same journey rather than priced separately.
That saving grace is about to end with the end of monorail transfer credits in 2026.
Email sent by MyORCA on December 2nd, 2025. (MyORCA) The monorail has always been an unusual piece of infrastructure. The city owns the physical system, but operations are handled by a private contractor. That arrangement gives the operator strong incentives to raise revenue, while riders are left without the protections and policies that apply to publicly-run transit service.
The argument for ending transfer credits is that monorail operating costs have risen, and maintenance is essential to preserving a historic system. That is a reasonable concern. Transit infrastructure requires investment, but charging riders twice within two hours, once for a bus or train and again for the monorail, does not preserve the system; it discourages the very people who use it most consistently. The monorail should not be the transfer exception.
Ridership rebound
“But Sam hardly anyone takes the monorail anyway. Why does it matter?” I hear you say. Despite its short route and just two stops, the monorail sees real usage. The Seattle Times reported that the monorail hit its highest ridership in over a decade in early 2023. Buoyed by Seattle Kraken hockey fans, the monorail recorded 533,000 rides in the first quarter of 2023, 150,000 more than during the same period in 2022, and over 100,000 more than in the same four months of 2019. That’s about 4,000 rides per day.

” data-medium-file=”https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126.jpg” data-large-file=”https://i3.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126-1024×768.jpg?ssl=1″ fifu-data-src=”https://i3.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126-1024×768.jpg?ssl=1″ alt=”” class=”wp-image-175650″ srcset=”https://i3.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126-1024×768.jpg?ssl=1 1024w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126-768×576.jpg 768w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126-560×420.jpg 560w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126-696×522.jpg 696w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126-265×198.jpg 265w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Climate-Pledge-Arena-Doug-Trumm-20220126.jpg 1280w” sizes=”auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px”/><figcaption class=)
In 2023, the monorail carried nearly 2.1 million passengers and in 2024 approached 2.2 million trips, offering a strong indication that, given the right circumstances, the monorail serves a concrete transit need, not just occasional tourists.
Admittedly, other transit lines get far more ridership. In 2024, the region’s six ORCA transit agencies delivered about 151 million trips, up from roughly 134 million in 2023, a 12% increase. Within that total, Sound Transit alone logged 41.5 million trips in 2024, up by more than 4 million from 2023 (about an 11% year-over-year increase).
The Link light rail system operated by Sound Transit carried 30.8 million passengers in 2024 and averaged about 90,050 weekday riders system-wide. Recent months have seen ridership climb even higher: as of May 2025, Link weekday boardings exceeded 112,000, a 23% increase over May 2024.
For the monorail, much of that boost came from event traffic. With the arrival of the Seattle Kraken hockey franchise and the rebound in concert and arena events at Climate Pledge Arena after the 2020 pandemic, a notable portion of fans used the monorail (or other transit) to avoid heavy traffic and gridlock around Seattle Center. Now, with a new Professional Women’s Hockey League hockey team and the FIFA World Cup on the horizon the entire city’s infrastructure needs to be ready, with transit running at peak efficiency to handle the load. Mega events act as a canary in a coal mine, stress testing our transportation network.

” data-medium-file=”https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR.jpg” data-large-file=”https://i1.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR-1024×768.jpg?ssl=1″ fifu-data-src=”https://i1.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR-1024×768.jpg?ssl=1″ alt=”A small crowd waits for the doors to open on a monorail train at Seattle Center” class=”wp-image-188264″ srcset=”https://i1.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR-1024×768.jpg?ssl=1 1024w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR-768×576.jpg 768w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR-560×420.jpg 560w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR-696×522.jpg 696w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR-265×198.jpg 265w, https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/IMG_20240827_150858277_HDR.jpg 1280w” sizes=”auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px”/><figcaption class=)
But the monorail’s renewed popularity and potential to help shoulder the load during World Cup games doesn’t mean its pricing should shift even further toward tourists. If anything, high ridership underscores its value as part of a functioning public-transport network.
Possible solutions
Unlike most transit systems in Washington, the Seattle Center Monorail is not a drain on the public purse. The monorail’s operations are uniquely funded through fare revenue rather than taxpayer subsidies, and even returns money to the City of Seattle annually under a concessions agreement. That revenue covers day-to-day operations, and equipment upgrades, an almost unheard-of arrangement in U.S. transit.
But the monorail’s success doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Its elevated track and supporting pylons occupy the public right-of-way along 5th Avenue and Belltown corridors, forming a permanent footprint above some of the city’s most heavily used streets. Riders may not feel it, but the system relies on the city’s public infrastructure and airspace to operate.
Seattle’s broader goals like reducing car dependency, cutting emissions, and encouraging public transit depend on regional coordination. Breaking fare integration works in the opposite direction. If the monorail is truly a civic asset, it should align with the rest of the city’s transportation policies.
There are realistic solutions. The City of Seattle can require that the monorail restore ORCA transfer credit as a condition of its operating agreement. The City can tie future fare increases to best practices other agencies typically follow, such as conducting public outreach, publishing a cost-benefit analysis noting ridership impacts, and providing a public forum to debate the tradeoffs.
Most importantly, Seattle leaders can treat the monorail as part of the transit network rather than an isolated, revenue-dependent attraction. None of these changes require a huge funding infusion or an expansion of the system (even if I think it would be cool if they expanded the monorail). They simply require prioritizing residents over ticket revenue.
I ride the monorail more than most living in Lower Queen Anne/Uptown. It avoids traffic, provides a distinct view of the city, and remains one of Seattle’s most recognizable transit experiences. It should not be reserved for tourists or special occasions. Public transportation should be priced to serve the public. If it brings joy while doing so, that is even better.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross is a Seattle based public servant, returned Peace Corps volunteer, and self-described nerd. He works to promote sustainable development backed by mixed-method research. All opinions expressed are his alone and do not reflect attitudes of any organizations he is affiliated with.
Seattle, WA
VIDEO: Mayor Wilson proposes renewing, expanding Seattle Transit Measure by doubling the sales-tax percentage that funds it.
Through the end of this year, 0.15% of the sales tax you pay funds the voter-approved Seattle Transit Measure. That would double to 0.30% if the City Council and Seattle voters approve the renewal/expansion that Mayor Katie Wilson officially introduced this afternoon. She said it’ll make living in Seattle more affordable by enabling more people to “live car-free or car-light.” She acknowledged that raising the sales tax isn’t ideal but noted that it’s one of the few revenue-raising tools available under state law. Besides paying for more transit – 280,000 additional Metro bus trips a year, 100,000 more than the current measure funds – it also would pay for 22,000 free ORCA transit passes, more than double what the city provides now, said acting SDOT director Angela Brady during the announcement event at City Hall. The passes are now available to Seattle Promise scholars, low-income Seattle Preschool Program families, and Seattle Housing Authority residents. The measure’s renewal/expansion would also make those passes available to Housing Choice Voucher participants.
The mayor’s announcement says the Transit Measure isn’t just about buses: It also would “support the design and delivery of Sound Transit’s West Seattle Link Extension, Ballard Link Extension, and Graham Street Station.” The 0.30% sales tax would generate an estimated $138 million average per year for the 10 years of this measure, which is proposed to go to voters in November. Council review starts this Thursday and will be led by District 1 City Councilmember Rob Saka, who chairs the council committee that oversees transportation. We’ll add the specific text of the proposal when we get it; the slide deck for Thursday’s council meeting is now available, and we’ll add some highlights from that soon.
Seattle, WA
Seattle mayor is violating city law over CCTV cameras ahead of FIFA World Cup, CM says
SEATTLE — With less than two weeks before Seattle hosts matches during the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup, Seattle City Council Public Safety Committee Chair Bob Kettle is escalating his criticism of Mayor Katie Wilson’s decision not to activate newly installed CCTV cameras in the Stadium District and suggesting she is violating established law.
In a sharply worded letter sent Monday, Kettle argues that the mayor’s decision to pause activation of the city’s Technology-Assisted Public Safety Pilot Program is inconsistent with city law and the ordinances approved by the Seattle City Council.
RELATED | Mayor Wilson hosts discussion on surveillance and security, takes questions from public
“I believe that she is not operating according to the ordinances, the law with respect to the stadium ordinances, and her duties under the charter,” Kettle said in an interview on Tuesday.
The dispute centers on 22 CCTV cameras that have already been installed in and around Seattle’s Stadium District but remain inactive as city leaders debate privacy concerns and the circumstances under which the system should be used.
Kettle said the approaching World Cup is what prompted him to send the letter.
“Basically, we’re less than two weeks out from the World Cup, and we’re not ready,” Kettle said. “We have capacity with these stadium cameras, they’re up, they’re installed, but they’re not turned on.”
In his letter, Kettle argues that the council already approved the surveillance technology through council-approved ordinances, specifically outlining the limited circumstances under which the program can be paused.
According to Kettle, those conditions include situations where the city is compelled to release camera data for civil immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care investigations, or reproductive healthcare matters, or when city leaders determine the technology is being used for those purposes.
RELATED | City leaders say Seattle ready for World Cup, despite concerns with surveillance, drones
“Neither condition has occurred that would merit a temporary program pause,” Kettle wrote.
The councilmember contends that the Seattle Municipal Code and the approved surveillance impact report provide no authority for the mayor to indefinitely delay the program’s implementation beyond those specified exceptions.
The mayor’s office has defended its position, saying activation decisions will be guided by public safety experts and intelligence assessments ahead of the World Cup.
“Mayor Wilson continues to consult public safety officials regarding circumstances that might warrant use of the expanded set of cameras during the FIFA World Cup,” the mayor’s office said in a previous statement. “We appreciate councilmembers’ perspectives, and those will be part of ongoing discussions.”
The previous statement continued:
“With regard to credible threats: Identifying a credible threat involves multiple experts from federal, state, and local agencies monitoring and assessing various streams of information. In collaboration with one another, they weigh incoming intelligence and jointly recommend whether to elevate security operations. Mayor Wilson’s decision whether to activate the Stadium District cameras will be informed by this group’s recommendation.”
The mayor’s office has been asked if there is a change in perspective given Kettle’s letter. In a new statement obtained by KOMO News on Tuesday, the mayor’s office said Wilson’s position remains “unchanged.”
“Per our legal review, we believe council has the authority to pause the use of adopted surveillance technology but cannot require its use,” the mayor’s office said in Tuesday’s statement. “The Mayor is ensuring that our use of surveillance technology is protective of civil rights, liberties, and privacy and provides sufficient data privacy safeguards. The Mayor has a duty to make sure our use of these technologies is responsible.”
Kettle argues that waiting for a specific threat before activating the cameras misunderstands modern security planning.
SEE ALSO | Seattle mayor’s verbal missteps prompt national and viral attention, leadership questions
“There are credible concerns,” Kettle said, citing worries about drones and other security issues surrounding a major international event.
He pointed to examples, including the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, arguing that public officials often do not receive advance warning before attacks occur.
“This idea that you’re going to get a credible threat warning is not right. It’s not the professional standard,” Kettle said. “The 22 cameras are installed, they’re ready to go, they just need to be turned on.”
Opponents of the camera expansion have raised concerns that footage could potentially be sought by federal immigration authorities or used in ways that conflict with Seattle’s sanctuary city policies.
Kettle dismissed those concerns, arguing that the council built extensive safeguards into the legislation governing the cameras.
“We don’t have facial recognition,” Kettle said, noting the city established restrictions and oversight measures as part of the technology program.
He also argued that federal agencies have their own surveillance capabilities and do not need Seattle’s camera network to conduct enforcement operations.
Kettle said he sought legal guidance before sending the letter and believes the mayor’s decision is inconsistent with the ordinances governing the program.
“I asked the question, if Mayor Harrell had to do all this in terms of ordinances, why is it that Mayor Wilson does not?” Kettle said. He said attorneys reviewing the issue identified concerns centered on the language governing when the program may be “paused.”
While Kettle stopped short of calling for legal action against the mayor, he said he wanted to publicly highlight what he views as a conflict between the administration’s actions and council-approved law.
“Her move related to the pause is not right, and essentially a violation,” Kettle said.
Kettle said Seattle is the only one of the 11 World Cup host cities that does not have its full camera system operational and warned that the city is running out of time.
“We have to take action now to get ourselves ready for the World Cup,” he said. “That is ensuring that we have all the pieces in place, and that we’re using the capacities that we have to their full ability.”
Kettle said he was scheduled to meet with members of the mayor’s team on Tuesday and hopes a resolution can be reached before the first World Cup matches arrive in Seattle.
Seattle, WA
Melinda French Gates is done ‘cheering on Seattle from the sidelines’ — she’s buying into the bet to bring the Sonics back | Fortune
Melinda French Gates, a billionaire philanthropist and businesswoman, will join the Seattle Kraken as a minority investor, pending NHL approval.
French Gates, 61, is the ex-wife of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. She and her $30 billion net worth, according to Forbes, join an ownership group headlined by majority owner and managing partner Samantha Holloway, as well as investors David Wright, Andy Jassy and longtime Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer.
“As a longtime Seattle resident, it means a lot to me to have the chance to make this investment in our city and its future,” French Gates said in a statement. “I’m a big believer in the power of sports, and after many years of cheering on Seattle from the sidelines, I’m excited to have an even deeper connection to the Seattle sports community.”
French Gates has never previously had an ownership stake in a major professional sports franchise. She will do so at a time when the Kraken ownership group is positioning itself to own an NBA franchise should the NBA return to the Emerald City for the first time since the SuperSonics were relocated to Oklahoma City nearly 20 years ago.
In March, the Kraken ownership group announced the creation of One Roof Sports and Entertainment, which serves as the umbrella brand of the organization to “oversee a growing portfolio of properties and fuel new opportunities.” At the time, Holloway announced that One Roof would pursue an NBA team in Seattle, should the league move forward with expansion.
Holloway also announced in March that the group had entered an agreement to purchase additional equity in Climate Pledge Arena from Oak View Group, and would make the organization the majority owner of the building. OVG has retained a minority stake.
French Gates, who grew up in Dallas and received a bachelor’s degree in computer science and economics, as well as an MBA from Duke, currently heads Pivotal, a group of organizations she founded to accelerate the pace of social progress for women and young people in the United States and around the world.
French Gates previously founded and co-chaired the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy.
“I am excited to welcome Melinda to our ownership group,” Holloway said in a statement. “Melinda is an impressive business leader, philanthropist and importantly, a Seattle sports fan. We share many of the same values, including a deep commitment to Seattle and a belief in building organizations that create lasting impact.”
-
Lifestyle8 minutes agoWe’re having a main character summer. Are you? : It’s Been a Minute
-
Technology16 minutes agoMicrosoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman says there are three labs that matter — and he wants Microsoft to be the fourth.
-
World23 minutes agoUS ally Kuwait condemns ‘brutal and ongoing Iranian attacks’ after airport was hit
-
Politics26 minutes agoSpencer Pratt surges to runoff in LA mayor’s race after angry voters send message to Karen Bass
-
Health31 minutes agoOne extra serving of processed meat a day linked to higher cancer risk
-
Sports38 minutes agoAJ Brown trade outcome: Dianna Russini paid a heavy price while Mike Vrabel emerged unscathed
-
Technology41 minutes agoCould your Samsung phone replace your passport?
-
Business46 minutes agoRent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns