ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Surface Rail

Dear ETS!

As a resident of Rainier Valley, I'm offended by your cursory, kneejerk coverage of the issue of rail alignments in my neighborhood. Contrary to what you imply, there are many Valley residents who disagree with Save Our Valley (SOV) about whether light rail should be in a tunnel down here. Even the establishment South District Journal, which, like ETS!, favors tunnel proponents in its coverage, has the honesty to acknowledge (and quote) dissenting voices. I'm also annoyed by your implication that "white" environmental activists in the North End, who have been arguing for years against putting light rail in a tunnel under Capitol Hill and the U District, are somehow racist because they apply the same logic to the South End.

I agree with many of SOV's concerns about surface rail; in fact, I'd say they've made a positive contribution to this process by forcing Sound Transit to think seriously about those problems and their mitigation. I strongly disagree, however, with their solution. In fact, that's my problem with the history of that group--it defined not only the problem but the solution right from its first meeting, without bothering to have a dialogue with other people in the community who had been thinking and talking about the same questions for the past three years.

There are good reasons for supporting surface rail on Martin Luther King. Some of them are the same reasons SOV opposes it. In particular, it would slow down traffic. Martin Luther King is, quite simply a dangerous street. Children have died crossing that street. I have to laugh when SOV proponents complain that a rail line would make MLK hard to cross; it's already taking your life in your hands to cross anywhere without a stoplight. Is it racist to say that South End drivers (or even the white ones) should be forced to slow down a little? Is it racist to say that South End drivers should be encouraged to get out of their cars and take transit? I'm of European descent--maybe that disqualifies me from saying anything; or does it mean that I can only criticize other European Americans? Or is it racist to believe that a vision of moving our society away from auto dependence is a "white" vision, and therefore doesn't have anything to offer to people of color?

Surface rail offers opportunities for community amenities, for more public space, for pedestrian improvements, for bicycle improvements--all things that the North End has been getting for years and that Rainier Valley never does. Try finding a decent bike route along Martin Luther King or Rainier! Try finding a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood outside of Columbia City. On Capitol Hill, stores like Safeway redevelop to increase their walk-in traffic; in Rainier Valley, developers refuse to build unless they can surround their stores with parking. That's real inequity, and it won't be reversed as long as South End residents keep swallowing the notion that auto access has to be preserved above all else.

There are good reasons for opposing a tunnel through Rainier Valley. The biggest one is the cost. ETS!, which rails against sinking millions in public funds into stadiums and symphony halls and considers the downtown bus tunnel a boondoggle, is buying the idea of a half a billion dollar tunnel through Rainier Valley without even considering whether it makes sense. SOV has promoted the idea that a tunnel is an amenity; I, for one, would rather ride where I can see where I am; would rather not spend several minutes a day getting between an underground station and the street; and would rather see money spent on surface improvements than have ten times that much literally poured down a hole in the ground! Keep in mind, too, that the suburban interests on the Sound Transit board will undoubtedly demand--and get--their own "equity" in bus service and commuter rail for every additional dollar that's spent on Seattle light rail, just as they have up till now.

It's great that SOV is a multi-racial group. I'm glad they've pointed out the environmental impacts of surface light rail so well. It doesn't, however, mean they have all the answers. I could also point out that the SOV leaders I see most often quoted are a Seafirst bank manager and a dentist, associations which a paper like ETS! might be cynical about, if the group happened to be one it disagreed with. It appears that much of SOV's impetus has come from business owners, including a number of auto-oriented businesses along MLK. I'm sure there are many other people who simply agree with SOV's message and have no particular financial interest in keeping cars zooming down Martin Luther King and light rail out of sight and out of mind. In either case, they don't speak for me as a resident of the Valley. Perhaps we don't share the same visions of a less auto-dependent future. I wonder if ETS! does.

--Mike Wold

Finally, I regularly commute by bus out to the University District and back to downtown, because I don't own a car. While the downtown bus tunnel was expensive to build and needs regular maintenance, it's one of the highlights of my journey--especially on windy, rainy miserable days when the traffic on surface streets is at a standstill (which is nearly every Mon.-Fri. in Seattle, as far as I can tell). I really don't mind getting to my destination in 15 minutes and spending a whole 90 seconds walking through a dry bus tunnel. It's only when I emerge and hit the street in downtown that I turn up my collar, pull up my hood, and scurry past FAO Schwarz and Planet Hollywood in a hurry to get home. If it takes a decent subway to get people out of their cars and to their destinations on time, so be it. In the meantime, our energies are better spent fighting for amenities like bike lanes, public spaces, and pedestrian improvements (as SOV has done), and also insisting on restrictions on cars (i.e., increased parking fees, lower speed limits, more crosswalks and traffic lights, and banning cars altogether from some parts of the city). That's what will get people out of their cars--not niggling over surface vs. underground rail.