Seattle’s Link LRT is now the worst performing light rail on the West Coast and U-Link won’t change that. I’d explain why the Link extensions south and east have more potential than U-Link, but you’ve got still got your blinders are on. You don’t have to believe my contribution to the national light rail movement means much, but I’m certain it’s more than all the posters here put together have accomplished. National advocates look to Seattle for how NOT to build light rail. Keep the humor coming. It’s not a bad thing though it’s all you’ve got.

And it’s true. Seattle has the worst new light rail system in all of America. I would have said all of North America, but have you been to Vancouver? The SkyTrain there is just a nightmare. The trains come every two minutes, and out in the suburbs the stations are actually magnets for high-density development. It’s like they built the transit system around the premise that Canadians are a bunch of lazy, impatient troglodytes (which is true, but that’s another story).

Anyway, at this point I think Sound Transit’s light rail experiment is such a disaster, it’s just a lost cause. What’s the point of having a “Vision Line” when the rest of the line shows a shocking lack of vision?

Speaking of lost cause, you know what, the same could be said for the Seattle metro area itself. It’s true, several credible metrics place us as the worst place in the world. We are a metropolis of losers.

Frankly, the only reason I’m even still living here is the regular appointments I have with my probation officer.

I began advocating for light rail in 1992 and in 1993-94 toured the nation promoting Portland and the MAX system to planning department officials of many cities.

In 94, I helped persuade the Greenpeace community of San Diego to reverse their opposition to a planned trolley extension through Mission Valley. Some sabateur I suspect led them to believe harm would come to the San Diego Riverbed. Just the opposite proved to be the case as the riverbed today is in fine shape with year-round water flow, lush vegetation and a returning salt marsh on Mission Bay. Greenpeace members were led to believe a lie.

I returned to Portland in 1995 and found a record of many journalists from cities I’d visited had done stories on Portland. I got involved with Oregon’s premier light rail group AORTA (Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates) originators credited for the MAX system which opposed the MAX South/North proposal. Higher standards were not met with S/N MAX and it was finally rejected late 1998.

By Spring of 1999, Interstate MAX was introduced as a replacement and the improvement over S/N MAX won renewed support. Interstate MAX eliminated ‘displacements’, took a route supported by the community, rebuilt Interstate Ave similar to Seattle’s MLK, added an extra mile of track and 3 stations, and cost less.

I did not win many friends within the ‘establishment’ for opposing the S/N MAX. Many environmental groups thought the world would end if S/N were rejected by voters. At the same time, my own work with ‘circulator’ concepts led me to support the Portland streetcar system, though I had to disagree with some members of AORTA. Through these years I kept up my advocacy mostly on Western States cities, most lately Honolulu which should break ground on their light rail next year.

Winning public support for light rail systems is important, but it doesn’t happen when transit activists take a narrow viewpoint. The opposition to Seattle’s rail transit is not diminished when advocates dismiss credible, though contrary viewpoint. Of the new start light rail systems and those that have expanded in the US, Seattle’s is the worst. Congratulations, losers. Seattle represents the USA quite well. We’re dead last by world standards in other ways as well.

Chris Stefan@41. Not in your wildest dreams will you ever come even close to doing for the national light rail scene what I have over the years. You’re an amateur. The cut/cover tunnel is simply the far better tunnel option. If you did the simplest comparative analysis you’d realize this, chump.

He’s got some sort of thing about tunnels, which he seems to be opposed to for transit, but favor for cars as long as they are cut-and-cover.

Actually, it’s the biggest destination in the northwest. What other location has so many taxis and shuttles going to it, even all the way from Bellingham and eastern Washington. What other location has so many outlying parking lots? And these are just the passengers and their families. There’s also the tens of thousands of employees

A rail route to the airport gives a lot of bang for the buck in terms of getting people out of cars. It’s an intermodal transportation center. And visitors rate cities based on whether they have a rail line from the airport to downtown. That’s why I’ve always preferred Chicago, and why I now fly into SFO though I previously would have flown to Oakland (and avoided San Jose).