Take the "A" Train ... Please

San Francisco has BART, a sleekly beautiful interurban system. Washington, D.C., has Metro. Chicago has the antique but serviceable "El" with all its municipal and interurban connections. New York has its gritty but efficient subway system. Atlanta has MARTA. Los Angeles has its Red and Purple lines.

These are all heavy rail systems, running off of electrified third rails. Seattle voted down an excellent, comprehensive area-wide system proposed in 1969. Seattle today has no heavy rail.

Portland has MAX, carrying passengers through downtown and to outlying areas. Colorful Los Angeles has its Gold, Blue and Green lines. Vancouver has its successful SkyTrain.

These are light rail systems, more like streetcars but running on dedicated off-road routes, for the most part, and powered by overhead lines. Seattle is building a light rail line from downtown to the airport, due to open in 2009, and is planning an extension northwards to the University, which may open in 2016. That's all we have in the way of light rail.

I'm depressed.

The light rail authorized to date will be nice for users of the airport, and the extension will be convenient for students. But it does not come close to a comprehensive rail transit system. And Tuesday, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have provided funding for an additional 50 miles of light rail, extending the system into Pierce County to the south and Snohomish County to the north. The measure lost by a decisive margin.

This city has enormous difficulty in carrying through on any project. Part of our problem seems to be the local press. Whenever a public project is suggested, the newspapers are full of excited stories and beautiful architectural drawings. Everyone professes excitement. The project goes forward. Then comes the election to provide financing. All of a sudden, new forces within the newspapers' management seem to surge to the surface. Stories of cost overruns and faulty estimates abound. Headlines warn voters of the increases to come in their tax bills if the measure is approved. Questions are raised -- does this project, paid for us all, only serve certain elite groups (or only poor folks, depending on the project), although paid for by everyone?

An editorial written by a senior editor in one of the two dailies, shortly before the election, was filled with dark forebodings of the money to be wasted, the boondoggle being thrust upon us. He ended with his coup de grâce-- ask yourselves, he wrote, how much good am I -- yes, me, myself, as an individual -- going to get out of this transit system? Ah yes, the attitude that made this country great: "What's in it for me?"

What's in it for me, of course, besides the fact that I think rail transit is inherently cool, is an electrically powered system of mass transit, separated for most of its route from motor vehicle traffic, and able to move people about the city, and to and from work, with a minimum amount of CO2 emissions, a minimum amount of energy consumption, and a maximum amount of speed.

Which brings us to the Sierra Club. I'm a long-time member and fervent supporter of the Sierra Club. The Club has done wonderful work in setting aside wilderness areas and parks, work for which future generations will owe them immense gratitude. But the local chapter of the Sierra Club may well have tipped the balance in ensuring defeat of the rapid transit measure. The problem, for the Club's decision makers, was that the proposition also authorized a large amount of road and bridge construction. They opposed making it easier to drive cars.

I'm not an automobile enthusiast. I love visiting New York and European cities, places where you can spend days traveling around by transit, without needing a car and where a car is merely an encumbrance. But Seattle is not that kind of city yet. It wouldn't have been, even with 50 more miles of rail transit, and even with an excellent Metro bus system. A large percentage of the population will need to depend on motor vehicle transportation for the foreseeable future. As the density of transit routes and the frequency of service increase, that percentage will decrease. But for now, traffic is a nightmare. Road improvements are necessary. The objective is to improve roads and bridges with as little impact on the surrounding community as possible.

To the Sierra Club, half measures were unacceptable. They were unwilling to accept increased road construction in order to get the improved rail transit that will make even greater road construction in the future less necessary. I think that was a mistake.

So I'm depressed. I'm depressed that Seattle has talked about rail transit for so many decades, and has so little to show for it. I'm depressed at the part that the media have played in the debacle of this election. I'm depressed at the role played by the Sierra Club, an organization with whom I feel close ties.

And I'm generally depressed at our inability as a community to make decisions and work together to accomplish what we set out to do.