And I agree with the sentiment expressed in Ed Murray's op-ed: Let's use some creativity and imagination to figure out a way to make this work.

But I also worry about statements like this from the Seattle Times article:

Brian Parker, representing the board of a First Hill condominium, said he would vote and work against future Sound Transit ballot measures. State Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, whose district includes First Hill, said the neighborhood's past support for Sound Transit "will turn into opposition, even for my tax-loving constituents."

It's sort of the opposite of the "NIMBY" attitude: if it won't come to my backyard, it shouldn't happen at all. This worries me. While I think we should build it right the first time, if they can't make it work, is it really better to have no light rail than one without a first hill stop? This seems to be the problem Seattle has always had with mass transit; we can't agree on the best way, and no one wants to compromise. At this point, I say compromise is better than stalemate.

Another thought: Can someone explain what the deal is with the possibility of losing federal funds? A comment on this subject yesterday cited a Stranger article which talks about this:

While the $350 million station would serve 9,500 riders daily...Licata says that number includes just 200 riders who aren't currently using transit, which would "knock Seattle Transit out of qualifying" for $650 million in federal funding needed to complete the line.

I'm confused. It's not serving enough new riders? Too many new riders? It's stealing too many riders from other systems? Can anyone clarify this?

...just my laymans understanding - could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time!)

matching federal funds are based on how many new riders you're going to get. i don't see where licata is getting his numbers, but his arguement is that the station won't get enough new riders to qualify it for matching federal funds. i'd like to see where he got his numbers, and where ST got their numbers that murray quoted in his op-ed piece (stating that servicing First Hill and Capitol Hill would increase ridership from 27,000 to 60,000... those can't be all people leaving the bus system)

as for ST light Rail not happening- it's too late. it's on its way already. Parker and Murray are just throwing a fit (and, in my opinion, rightfully so) because they pretty much got screwed and had really short notice. they're talking about supporting opposition to the eventual Sound Transit 2 program, which will expand light rail.

if they really end up helping the opposition to ST2, they're jerks, with or without the First Hill station.

i think not building the First Hill station is a HUGE mistake (the Mayor used to agree) but there's no way in hell i'm going to vote against ST2. period.

1) Delaying this already delayed project further (let's face it, local voters are tired of transit dragging its feet), and

2) A $1,000,000,000 difference ($350,000,000 for the station, and $650,000,000 in lost Federal funds).

The voters aren't going to be too happy with ST if they don't fulfill their original promise of Airport to UW in the first section - and this just won't happen without ditching the First Hill stop. In a perfect world, we would have that stop, but there are interesting ways to serve the (already served) neighborhood. Licata likes the idea of extending the trolley up Madison - or there could be Express busses that run from Madison and Broadway to the Broadway ST station.

There are ways to make this work, but (realistically) keeping the station (sadly) isn't one of them...

...seeing as how two of those stations will be in his district. I'm sure his constituents in the University District and Wallingford and Roosevelt would just love it if he opposed stations that would serve them.

This hissy-fit of his is below him. It's poltics - move on.

1.) This is the most dense part of the city.

2.) We were given about a weeks notice that this was going to happen.

In my mind, that combination is too deadly to make a decision so quickly. I fail to see why supporting Sims and McIver's request into looking into another method to get a First Hill light rail station is bad.

In the end, it might be financially impossible, and I'm willing to admit that. However, to make this decision (or to allow the public to know about it) over the course of one week is bullshit.

ST Light Rail is being built in the south. Another look at First Hill should be done quickly, but I fail to see how the public would crap themselves if STLR opened through Westlake and was delayed 6 months to a year to allow another look at servicing the most dense part of the city.

Taking another look won't delay the line through Westlake.

this dense area is already well served by transit, and adding the station would only add 200 new transit riders per day - not really worth our $350,000,000, or the feds $650,000,000.

And I do understand your issues with the public involvement - sometimes though, Seattle wades through a little too much public process. A tough decision had to be made, and luckily we had the leadership needed to bite the bullet and move this project forward.

Love the debate, btw! :)

okay, so let's say the First Hill station on gets 200 new riders per day. however, by ST own measure (and maybe this is old data) ridership would increase by several thousand by adding both Capitol and First Hill.

by my account then, thousands of bus riders would be ditching the bus and going to STLR. of course, apparently this doesn't meet the bush admin's new rules regarding fed subsidies, but it would mean less and less people in buses, meaning less buses on the road, meaning a better solution to traffic.

i also agree that i found it to be a positive sign that a seattle/washington state agency said bullocks to too much public process, but this really had none at all (that i'm aware of!)

...this has been being talked about for almost three weeks now (which I recognize isn't a lot of time, but is longer than you've been saying).

one or two articles in the PI and times that discuss the possibility of something happening is hardly an open public discussion.

i don't think it was made explicit that first hill was in serious danger until ed murray's op-ed piece 3 days ago, and then the flurry of reports after that leading up to the vote yesterday.

that article itself says "the agency's board will have to decide in the next several weeks whether to include the First Hill station in the extension north"

that article hardly made it seems inevitable.

...your letters would've been more effective back then. For once a decision was made quickly and decisively in this town. There's no need to wait for an official vote to be scheduled for citizens to get involved and let their opinions known - in fact it's preferable.