Eastside’s light rail expansion is good for the climate and the economy

Sound Transit’s 2 Line opening last weekend on the Eastside drew about 17,500 people, confirming the promise of light rail.

For supporters, even the 6 miles completed of the eventual 14-mile corridor between Microsoft’s campus in Redmond, through Bellevue, and across Lake Washington to Seattle is progress.

Skeptics question spending $3.7 billion for the entire 14-mile, 10-station line to Seattle that might bring relatively small ridership. They note the botched construction on and around the floating bridge that pushed back completion of the line and worry whether crime on mass transit and the post-pandemic world of remote-or-hybrid work will make such a project worthwhile.

Although I hear complaints about safety on Link, my experiences have been uniformly safe and comfortable, certainly better than on buses. I recall a bumpy, uncomfortable bus ride from the University of Washington to downtown I frequently made before light rail. After that, it took me 10 minutes or less for the same journey.

My colleague Mike Lindblom has reported the situation in detail. In addition to the above issues, Link light rail has faced changing top leadership and grim downtown Seattle stations needing maintenance, sometimes forcing riders to contend with fentanyl users and rare (but resonating with the public) assaults.

The United States possesses around 27 light rail systems, more than any other nation. To be sure, similarly sized cities around the world often enjoy subways or other “heavy rail” mass transit on a scale far beyond that of America. Light rail operations carry fewer passengers compared with their heavy rail cousins.

As of this past year, San Diego, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle and Portland showed the highest ridership. By contrast, L.A. offered the lengthiest system (95 miles), closely followed by “road warrior” Dallas, Philadelphia, San Diego and Portland (60 miles).

Link’s system runs a total of around 31 miles. When the system is completed in 2041, it will total about 116 miles.

Seattle is still recovering from the mass transit system we might have won. In 1968 and 1970, a plan for a subway mostly funded by the federal government was defeated by voters.

Even modestly sized American cities once enjoyed rail transit in the form of streetcars and electric-powered interurban systems linking towns together, not to mention an abundance of commuter trains.

This faded most places with the rise in popularity of the automobile and the growth of car-dependent suburbia. The once-crowded streetcars were also doomed by cities forcing fares on the operators that were too low to keep the streetcars competitive. (The tale that General Motors wrecked the streetcars with its bus monopoly is largely considered a myth by transportation historians.)

In 2023, around 44% of federal infrastructure spending went to highways compared with only 22% for Amtrak and light rail. Public transportation in America has suffered a collapse in funding and commitment by government at all levels going back half a century.

I first encountered modern light rail when I lived in San Diego, where the San Diego Trolley debuted in 1981. At the time, it ran only from downtown to the Mexican border. I rode it and enjoyed the experience but failed to grasp its utility. Even so, as a young reporter I wrote about the system’s potential. Today it spans much of the metropolitan area on three different lines.

While I was working for the late, great Rocky Mountain News in Denver during the early 1990s, light rail again came into my consciousness. Initially, the Regional Transportation District opened a 5-mile segment downtown. Light rail was planned for Charlotte, N.C., when I lived there in the late 1990s (it opened in 2007).

Finally, I really became acquainted with the concept in Phoenix. Valley Metro, the regional transit agency, embarked on a starter line in 2008, running from the edge of Mesa, through Tempe and through downtown and Midtown Phoenix northwest for a total of 20 miles. It has since been extended far into Mesa and as far north as the now-defunct Metrocenter regional mall.
As a columnist for The Arizona Republic, I supported light rail in the face of often hysterical opposition.

Such opposition is also found in supposedly “progressive” Seattle, where many voted against the Sound Transit initiatives and become incensed when I advocate building the First Avenue Streetcar.

But thanks to light rail, I haven’t been car burdened for 14 years. I don’t miss Happy Motoring.

Light rail can’t be seen without a connection to human-caused climate change. In Seattle, Link runs on hydropowered electricity, offering an option to greenhouse-gas-emitting automobiles.

The same can be said for the connection to economic development. For example, when the 2 Line is complete, it will offer tech employees an agreeable way to reach the Eastside offices of Amazon, Microsoft and numerous other Big Tech outposts and startups.

To be sure, light rail construction sometimes disrupts existing businesses — this generates big coverage in the media but the same is true for highway projects, which is mentioned less often. By contrast, when completed, light rail brings customers and offers opportunities for transit-oriented development near stations.

A partisan divide affects light rail as it does so much of America. Republicans generally are skeptical of this infrastructure, citing high costs and relatively low ridership. Democrats generally support it.

But this isn’t always the case. In Oklahoma City, the heart of a red state, a 5-mile streetcar line opened downtown in 2018.

The success of light rail in the Puget Sound region will depend on keeping promises made to the voters, keeping trains safe and on time, as well as ensuring that projects come in as scheduled and on or under budget.

Editor’s note: This column has been updated to clarify the writer’s journey from the University of Washington to downtown.