I grew up in the city and have never seen much reason to travel north of Carkeek Park, south of the Columbia City Alehouse or east of the Arboretum. (Unless I needed to catch a flight or get to a trailhead.)

Living, working and playing in the city just jibes well with my Northwest enviro-ethic.

Seattle, however, remains a frustratingly difficult place to simply travel across town without a car. Mega-projects like light rail or the monorail are great for getting people into and out of the city, but do not effectively improve intracity travel. A practical solution to the problem would be a series of discrete micro-projects that link our neighborhoods together.

Tokyo's famous Yamanote train line serves as a model for how small streetcar or trolley projects could reconnect our city. The circular Yamanote line serves as a central hub that connects Tokyo's myriad of transportation options and it runs every five minutes or so.

Seattle would be well-served to construct its own small-scale Yamanote line in the heart of the city, and the ideal place would be circumnavigating Lake Union. The route is simple and the grade is ideal for light rail or a streetcar: flat and wide around the entire perimeter of the lake. The route would travel roughly from the soon-to-be-built South Lake Union Park, around Eastlake and then across the Ship Canal at the University Bridge. It would then follow Northlake, pass through Fremont and wrap back around down Westlake.

On its own, this route would provide easy access to many of Seattle's densest and fastest-growing neighborhoods.

More important, the Lake Union loop would serve as a springboard for other micro-projects. The line would easily connect with the new South Lake Union streetcar, providing a fast and direct connection with South Lake Union and downtown. A short spur line up Stone Way to Green Lake could easily be added, as could a line leaving Fremont and heading down Leary Way to Ballard and on to Golden Gardens.

Best of all, these projects could be voted on, built and financed incrementally. Voters would be faced with simple, discrete projects that would make tangible differences in their daily lives. Moreover, construction timelines would be reasonable. Because the central portion of Seattle is so small, most lines would not be more than a few miles.

Micro-projects would also give voters reasonable tax choices, rather than the "bet the farm" tax proposals necessary to fund regional and state mega-projects.

I admire our civic ambition and vision for a world-class Seattle in the new millennium. But mega-projects are slow, expensive and politically difficult. Embracing a long-term strategy of using micro-projects to link Seattle's urban villages would help dodge many of those obstacles and give city dwellers what they really want: a convenient, affordable and home-grown way to enjoy the city they love.

Matt Senechal lives in Seattle.