Great back-and-forth (linked below) starring City Council Member Nick Licata v. Council Members Jean Godden and Richard Conlin. Licata’s defending his amendmentwhich I wrote about in this week’s CounterIntelto prevent the mayor from earmarking 9,300 bus service hours to Paul Allen’s South Lake Union trolley. (When it comes to buses, dollars are measured in bus service hours.) Nickels’s plan would commit nearly $1 million to the South Lake Union trolley prior to an analysis of citywide need, according to Licata. The debate will be settled when the full council votes on Monday. So far, it looks like Licata only has 4 out of 5 votes necessary to win the fight.

Godden: I must note Councilmember Licata's claim that the current legislation would adversely impact riders in Seattle's neighborhoods is inaccurate. Licata: I disagree. There are only so many service hours to disperse. This is a zero-sum game. If we take an inordinate number of hours and apply it to just one neighborhood, then the others will receive fewer new hours in the future.

Godden:The council's intent is clear: any SLU streetcar operations plan that diverts current hours from Metro services impacting other neighborhoods would not be considered. Licata: That is the Council's intent. Please note that CM Godden refers to current hours, the proposed legislation would negatively impact future service hours and that is what I have always been saying. That impact will make itself felt when either light rail or the monorail come on service, which could be by the end of 2009.

Godden: The executive proposal to use approximately 15 percent of the new Metro hours that would become available once the light rail and monorails come on line does not divert current hours from other communities, and is, therefore, consistent with the council's criteria. Licata: Again her focus is on current hours. And the impact is when either the light rail or the monorail come on line. Since light rail is planned to come on line about 2 years before the monorail, the 9,300 Metro Service hours earmarked for the SLU Streetcar represents represents 33% of the new hours accompanying light rail. That percentage goes down to 16% when the monorail comes on line, expected to be in 2011.

Conlin: Councilmember Licata has proposed an amendment that would require analyzing the streetcar in comparison to other possible routes before allocating service hours to it. This analysis has already been performed, Licata: There has been no analysis on the relative ridership of the SLU streetcar versus the ridership of the lines that will be eliminated or reduced in frequency. The only analysis that has been done is the projection of the number of riders on the SLU Streetcar during its initial period (not defined by number of years) and when it is fully developed (again not defined as to what date that will be). The fully mature SLU Streetcar rideship is based on hoped for residential and job development in SLU but not any calculated projections.

The Council had previously passed Ordinance 121565 which said in Condition 10 that new, incremental Metro bus hours could be used for the SLU Streetcar as long as it is demonstrated that the use of those hours represent a responsible, effective, and efficient allocation of the City's share of Metro service hours I think my amendment is exactly in line with the Council's intent.

Conlin: the South Lake Union streetcar is comparable to other bus lines. Licata: This is an assumption. We do not know if it will be or not. That is the purpose of my amendment: to evaluate it along with the city's other transit needs. We can reasonably predict that the initial years of the SLU Streetcar will not be performing even close to the bus lines that serve SLU, especially Route 70 (Fairview Ave. North and Eastlake Ave. E. ) and Route 8 (Denny Way). The future ridership of the line is largely conjecture at this time.

Conlin: The project cannot realistically proceed without determining how to fund its operations. Licata: The SLU community, which will benefit most directly from the streetcar, could pay for the O&M costs through a Business Improvement Area (BIA). This is the approach that other cities have taken, such as Tampa, which also has a streetcar and was identified by the Mayor's consultant as a good model to compare with Seattle's streetcar.

In addition, since we are only tapping ~30-35% of the special benefits that SLU property owners will experience via an increase in their property values (the property owners are proposing to pay only $25 million towards the capital costs while their special benefits could be as much as $80 million), there is definitely “room� to charge the property owners more, especially considering that the SLU Streetcar is more a development amenity as opposed to a effective and efficient method of transportation.

Conlin: No current neighborhood bus service would be affected by the use of these future service hours for the streetcar line.

Licata: Again by focusing on current neighborhood bus service, the point is missed that future neighborhood bus service will be affected.

Conlin: Councilmember Licata has stated that his amendment would "distribute new bus service hours fairly across the City". This is not accurate: Licata: This is truly a technical point. To be specific, my amendment would allow for service hours to be distributed fairly across the City. If the 9,000 plus service hours are locked into paying for the operations costs of the SLU Streetcar, then there will be no opportunity to distribute them to other neighborhood transit needs. My amendment provides for a fair evaluation of the streetcar vis-a -vis other bus services and therefore allows for the fair distribution of service hours in the city.

Conlin: * The City does not decide the distribution of service hours * King County Metro does; Licata: Another technical point. Metro does decide on the distribution. However, the legislation approves of an interlocal agreement between the City and Metro that would tie the 9,300 service hours to the SLU Streetcar. Without that agreement, Metro would use criteria that it has set forth in the past which does not provide additional weight to just this one streetcar line.

Conlin: * The commitment to use these service hours for the streetcar only exists because there will be an interlocal agreement with Metro for that purpose; Licata: Not sure of his point. Mine is that such an agreement as defined in the legislation should not commit the city to a firm amount of hours to the SLU Streetcar until there has been an evaluation of its need in comparison to the transit needs of other neighborhoods.

Conlin: * Metro has no obligation or plan that distributes new bus service hours "fairly across the city". Licata: Metro does have criteria that while not using the term fairly does reflect a series of conditions that take into account transit needs of communities across the city and does not concentrate them in just one neighborhood.