Reflections of a Transit Activist about Light Rail across Lake Washington

March 28th was the first day that light rail transit began public service. It also was a day that cleared up a major life history issue for me.

In 1980, a group of activists that opposed the official design of the expansion of the I-90 crossing of Lake Washington submitted over 27,000 petition signatures (we only needed 19,000 to qualify) for Seattle Initiative 21—which provided for a way to build transit and have fewer car lanes across the bridge through a federal highway provision called, "Withdrawal-and-Substitution." The method had already worked for Portland's Banfield Expressway Project—fewer highway lanes, coupled with the first link of Max light rail. The Seattle initiative would provide a way for the regional partners including Seattle, Bellevue, Mercer Island, and King County to agree to a better design of the highway project.

Powerful interests challenged our Initiative in court. Astoundingly, our Initiative was nullified. For me, as leader of the volunteer signature-gathering effort, this virtually erased our work.

Forty-six years later, I rode the first public light rail crossing. I slipped into the VIP line and onto the train. I was in the same car as Senator Cantwell. It was a glorious trip across the Lake. Moreover, I resolved a dark area in my personal memory.

Here are some reflections on the history and issues of this project:

The initiative did not propose a design; we proposed a process, as the initiative was a City of Seattle initiative but the design had to be based on regional agreement between Bellevue, Mercer Island, King County, and Seattle. We were encouraged that Mayor Charles Royer had already proposed a toned-down highway—six highway lanes, as opposed to eight, with light rail in the center.

Did I get exactly what I wanted with today's freeway? No, I wanted fewer highway lanes. But, because of delays, some good elements were added: bicycle lanes and a lidded park in Seattle's Central Area. The key dream for me is there: the light rail line, and it appears to be well-designed (quiet and smooth). A missing part of the end result is public restrooms at the transit stations.

In some ways, our initiative effort was a blip in the history, because the chief causes of the delay were a lawsuit by neighbors of the Seattle portion of the freeway expansion that was based on the State Highway Department trying to build the project without an environmental impact (EIS) plan. The Leschi Improvement Council (now Leschi Community Council) joined the lawsuit as a complainant. Our community council joining the suit was a "first"—the first time a community council was recognized as an affected party by federal courts. It took the Highway Department twelve years to establish an EIS that was satisfactory to the Federal District Court. For many years, we citizen activists were labeled as "obstructionists" who delayed and increased the costs of public projects; but the true villain of the delay in my mind was our own highway department which scoffed at the federal environmental protection act, then had to deliver.

The highway was built with 90 percent federal funding, and provided rail tracks buried in the bridge. When years later, regional voters approved bond issues for the light rail system, the costs had to be paid mainly by regional citizens, though some funding was federal. I'll have to research how that worked but I think the federal involvement only supported planning costs.

Our Initiative 21 helped in the sense that minds had to be changed. We were a car-based culture. Over time, we regional citizens became more open about and ultimately supportive of more efficient transit. My hope is that the debate about our initiative helped change minds.

There is another complexity to the history—did we achieve the most efficient result? More costly heavy rail would provide more carrying capacity but it would be confined like light rail to a limited transportation corridor. Alternatively, a regional bus system would provide more immediate service in a broader area at lower cost but with less comfort and less attractive to commuters. Looking back, I would favor a regional bus system if we had more attractive buses (more like Microsoft's commuter buses) together with better cleaning and ventilation.

Overall, I was blown away at how smooth, quiet, and visually stunning the ride on light rail across the Lake is. The ample view due to tall spacious windows made me forget the hard seats. Even hard seats were a plus by making cleaning easier. The experience of riding light rail across Lake Washington helps make this region an exceptionally beautiful place to be and there's the treasure.

I recommend the trip to all. Pick a sunny day.

~John Barber