Your editorial (the one on page A6, not page 1, Oct. 12) finally got it right: We need a plan.

But we also need to understand what a plan is. It is not the daily press releases from Seattle Monorail Project that they have still another "plan" to make the monorail affordable.

It means gathering together knowledgeable people to first define the problem (quantify it, not just that traffic is a mess) and then offer candidate solutions. The candidate solutions are vetted, staff work is performed, the public is consulted (but not allowed to drive the solution), financing is evaluated, and potential contractors invited in for ideas and solution concepts.

The process leads to a documented concept study that lays out alternatives considered, costs, schedules, risks and why the preferred concept was selected The last part is very important since there is always some junior construction manager in the audience who has a better idea.

I believe the biggest problem with the monorail and now the viaduct replacement is that a solution was advanced along with unsubstantiated financial claims that led to unrealistic expectations.

A dose of hiding facts also played a part in the monorail's problems.

A 21st Century Forward Thrust makes a lot of sense.

The mayor wants to spend money on streetcars for a billionaire (which are tourist items, not transportation vehicles - if they were, why were they removed all over the country in favor of buses?), juice up Key Arena for a bunch of multimillionaires, fix up the Mercer mess for the same billionaire, build "Big Dig 2" for the downtown millionaires and who knows what else?

Sims is trying to get re-elected so he finally gave in on the Southwest move to King County Airport.

So let's scrap the monorail as a start and begin working on a plan after 'silly season' is over Nov. 8.

Mike Wayte

Beach Drive