Ms. Arbury, who grew up in Seattle and is now a school principal in Enumclaw, Wash., added: “It’s just that people are so funny here. They like to argue every small point.”  Regardless of shifts in the economy, political priorities or public sentiment, it is almost universally perceived that much of the delay can be attributed to a mysterious and maddening phenomenon known as the “Seattle process.”  Plodding seems to prevail over production. It is said to be rooted in everything from the supposed social reserve of the region’s many Scandinavian and Japanese immigrants to a ruminative tendency nurtured by rainy winters. Economic booms and busts, particularly linked to the fortunes of Boeing, one of Seattle’s longtime economic anchors, have also fostered hesitation. The challenging topography is an issue, too.  And there is the continuing debate over whether Seattle, distinctively secluded in the mountains and maritime mist, should even aspire to be like other cities. Change, regardless of whether it is made in the name of a greener, less congested future, has plenty of skeptics. (One camp promotes “Lesser Seattle.”)  A firm fact is that all these matters will be discussed, deliberatively and intelligently. There will be grave concern. Wit will duel resignation.  “Talk big, debate long, do little. Rinse, repeat,” David Brewster wrote in the local online journal Crosscut.  Talking about the Seattle process has become part of the process.  “It’s one of those cities that is introspective to the point of no return,” said Mr. Ellis, 87. “But on the other hand, every now and then they do gutsy stuff.”  In fact, some make the case that gutsy is gaining momentum, Seattle-style. The city has one of the nation’s most aggressive recycling and food-and-yard-waste programs; it has taken direct action to combat global warming, including reducing its carbon emissions. This year, after nearly a decade of debate, an agreement was reached among city, county and state leaders to replace an earthquake-damaged freeway downtown with a tunnel that will cost more than $4 billion. (Reminder: an agreement here does not necessarily equal construction.)  The tone of city politics has shifted to the point that a recent flurry of coverage surrounding Mayor Greg Nickels’s run for a third term centered on whether his aggressive tactics have made him resemble the political boss of Chicago, Richard M. Daley. It is unclear whether Mayor Daley shares Mr. Nickels’s affection for smooth jazz.  And perhaps most importantly, last fall, as some governments elsewhere were cutting projects amid the economic downturn, voters here overwhelmingly approved an $18 billion expansion of the light rail system that will take it deep into Seattle’s suburbs. There was $145 million, too, for parks.  With the light rail expansion, ridership is expected to grow to about 280,000 in 2030 from 26,600 projected for next year, after the current line connects to the airport in December.  Not that after all these years too many people are bragging.  Bruce Gray, a spokesman for Sound Transit, the regional agency that oversees the rail line and some bus and commuter train services, volunteered that Seattle was “decades behind other cities.”  “We’re here; we’re building more,” Mr. Gray said.  The fact that Seattle is behind on transit is something of a sore point for Mr. Ellis. He noted that Seattle was set to receive $900 million in federal money had voters approved the subway plan in 1968. (A 60 percent vote was needed, but the proposal received 51 percent.) The money ended up going to Atlanta, which used it to build Marta, its bus and rail service.  Mr. Ellis insists he is not bitter. He said he saw signs of change, though he was careful, of course, not to draw conclusions.  “When you ask an optimist if people are at a turning point, he’s always going to say, ‘I hope so,’ ” Mr. Ellis said, “and that’s what I’m saying.”  An article on Saturday about the opening of a long-planned light rail system in Seattle misstated the cost of the first phase. It is $4.7 billion, not $3.9 billion, which was the estimate when voters approved the rail line in 1996.  A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: After Years of Debate, Light Rail Trains Enter Town. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
In the city of Seattle, often known more for its infrastructure process than its progress, a light rail line is offering up new urban ambition.