Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Seattle’s Preferred 520 Alignment Unlikely to Win Support in Olympia

Proponents of a smaller, six-lane, transit-centric 520 bridge across Lake Washington, organized as the Coalition for a Sustainable 520, described their proposal  in optimistic terms at a press conference in Montlake this morning.

But behind the scenes, supporters of the plan acknowledged that it was unlikely to get off the ground. And state House transportation chair Judy Clibborn said flatly that she would oppose any effort to jettison the state’s preferred option to replace the bridge.

This morning, Seattle neighborhood groups and legislators—including City Council members Nick Licata and Mike O’Brien, all three representatives of the 43rd legislative district (Reps. Frank Chopp and Jamie Pedersen and Sen. Ed Murray), Mayor Mike McGinn, and representatives of the neighborhoods surrounding the west side of the bridge—came out in favor of a six-lane bridge replacement with smaller on-ramps than the state option, less impact on the Arboretum, and two lanes dedicated exclusively to high-capacity transit (bus-rapid transit now, rails installed now for light rail later).

“The mayor and city council now stand united against the current option that’s on the table,” said Chopp, citing a letter from the city council to Gov. Chris Gregoire encouraging the state to consider changes to its bridge proposal.

McGinn echoed Chopp’s statement: “I’ve had conversations with … council members and the areas of unity are very clear: Opposition to [the six-lane/HOV option] and support for transit and protection of the Arboretum.”

However, Clibborn was adamant this afternoon that the proposal “can’t go forward.” First, she said, a new bridge design would require the state to do an entirely new environmental review, setting the project back two years or more. Second, she said the new option would be more expensive than the state’s current preferred alignment, particularly because “there’s no money for rail” across 520. Finally, she said, “you can’t stop this project at this point without losing huge amounts of time, which is money and jobs.”

Transit proponents argue that transit-only lanes are superior to HOV lanes, because HOV lanes allow buses to get stuck in traffic. Clibborn, however, claimed that HOV lanes accomplish the same goal as light rail or bus-only lanes for far less money. “If at some point the buses are slowed down, you have two options: You can go to four-plus HOV [restricted to carpools of four or more], or you can say it’s now time to switch over” to bus-only lanes, Clibborn said.

Even some city and state lawmakers at today’s event expressed doubt that legislators would pay attention to their proposal. “The likelihood is not very strong” that legislators will agree to revisit the bridge’s size and alignment, Murray said. “I haven’t seen a lot of opportunity among my colleagues.”

State legislators and Mayor McGinn cited the council’s letter to Gov. Gregoire as evidence that the council is on board with the coalition’s proposal.  However, both O’Brien and Licata acknowledged that the council is only interested in resolving design problems with the state’s preferred option, not revisiting the entire 520 planning process. Clibborn, in fact, spun the council’s letter as a “letter of support,” noting that it opposed any steps that would delay 520 construction.

Asked what message the city council hoped to send with its letter to Gregoire, O’Brien said, “The letter was broad enough that it’s not exactly clear what the council is saying. Everyone on the city council in Seattle believes we should be making more investments in transit… The question is, what is the path to get there in Olympia? I don’t know that we have an answer to that.”

Finally , I asked McGinn if his support for the transit-heavy 520, which is expected to be more expensive than the current preferred alternative, was related to his opposition to the $4.2 billion Alaskan Way tunnel. (One theory is that McGinn’s conspiring with Chopp, who also opposes the tunnel, to transfer funding from the tunnel to 520). He said no.  “I love that everyone thinks I have all these grand schemes. Sometimes a seawall is just a seawall.”


  • Who’s starting the Seattle PAC

    Judy Clibborn is acting like an enemy to the people of Seattle and our long-term interests. It’d be worth starting to raise money to fund a more forward-thinking opponent for her. Though, frankly, any opponent might well be better for the people of Seattle.

    Seattlites need to stop rolling over every time a legislator from outside Seattle decides they’re going to tell us what to do. There’s a word we should be using to describe such legislators: targets.

    We should be targeting these folks in the primaries, and, if needed, in the general. I’m a life-long Dem, but I’m no longer convinced that having a Democratic legislature means that we have a pro-urban one. It might be better to have an overt enemy than this kind of “friend.”

    Seattle political donors are more than powerful enough to take out state legislators. Someone needs to start an urban PAC to do that.

  • Who’s starting the Seattle PAC

    Judy Clibborn is acting like an enemy to the people of Seattle and our long-term interests. It’d be worth starting to raise money to fund a more forward-thinking opponent for her. Though, frankly, any opponent might well be better for the people of Seattle.

    Seattlites need to stop rolling over every time a legislator from outside Seattle decides they’re going to tell us what to do. There’s a word we should be using to describe such legislators: targets.

    We should be targeting these folks in the primaries, and, if needed, in the general. I’m a life-long Dem, but I’m no longer convinced that having a Democratic legislature means that we have a pro-urban one. It might be better to have an overt enemy than this kind of “friend.”

    Seattle political donors are more than powerful enough to take out state legislators. Someone needs to start an urban PAC to do that.

  • Who’s starting the Seattle PAC?

    Judy Clibborn is acting like an enemy to the people of Seattle and our long-term interests. It’d be worth starting to raise money to fund a more forward-thinking opponent for her. Though, frankly, any opponent might well be better for the people of Seattle.

    Seattlites need to stop rolling over every time a legislator from outside Seattle decides they’re going to tell us what to do. There’s a word we should be using to describe such legislators: targets.

    We should be targeting these folks in the primaries, and, if needed, in the general. I’m a life-long Dem, but I’m no longer convinced that having a Democratic legislature means that we have a pro-urban one. It might be better to have an overt enemy than this kind of “friend.”

    Seattle political donors are more than powerful enough to take out state legislators. Someone needs to start an urban PAC to do that.

  • Timothy

    Could this be the opening that will propel Seattle to figure out that we aren’t mere pawn’s the State’s game?

    Seattle has power. We have a responsibility to use that power wisely. But, we’ve lost the knowledge of how to use that power due to neglect.

    In the end, the State needs to realize that it can’t move forward without it’s largest constituent, Seattle.

  • Timothy

    Could this be the opening that will propel Seattle to figure out that we aren’t mere pawn’s the State’s game?

    Seattle has power. We have a responsibility to use that power wisely. But, we’ve lost the knowledge of how to use that power due to neglect.

    In the end, the State needs to realize that it can’t move forward without it’s largest constituent, Seattle.

  • Timothy

    Could this be the opening that will propel Seattle to figure out that we aren’t mere pawn’s the State’s game?

    Seattle has power. We have a responsibility to use that power wisely. But, we’ve lost the knowledge of how to use that power due to neglect.

    In the end, the State needs to realize that it can’t move forward without it’s largest constituent, Seattle.

  • People

    We are already mad with Judy Clibborn and Scott White for supporting 1775. So we are just waiting November to come.
    So put us the list of the growing groups that will go extra mile to defeats those folks.
    Don’t Support 1775 bill.

  • Doctor_D

    Clibborn can revisit and obstruct decades-old plans for light rail across I-90, can force the state to consider making permanent access to HOV lanes by SOV Mercer Islandites, and all other manner of revisionism, but Seattle can’t call for a more urban-appropriate and sustainable bridge configuration.

    Hypocrisy at the very least, but no less than I’d expect.

    Oh, and Senate Transpo may pass SB6366 today to commemorate to show Seattle who’s boss.

  • Doctor_D

    Clibborn can revisit and obstruct decades-old plans for light rail across I-90, can force the state to consider making permanent access to HOV lanes by SOV Mercer Islandites, and all other manner of revisionism, but Seattle can’t call for a more urban-appropriate and sustainable bridge configuration.

    Hypocrisy at the very least, but no less than I’d expect.

    Oh, and Senate Transpo may pass SB6366 today to commemorate to show Seattle who’s boss.

  • Zippo The Lighter

    If you want a kitten, ask for a pony.

  • Zippo The Lighter

    If you want a kitten, ask for a pony.

  • Zippo The Lighter

    If you want a kitten, ask for a pony.

  • ratcityreprobate

    Who knew Frank Chopp and Ed Murray were powerless? I though they were two of the big dogs down in Olympia.

  • ratcityreprobate

    Who knew Frank Chopp and Ed Murray were powerless? I though they were two of the big dogs down in Olympia.

  • ratcityreprobate

    Who knew Frank Chopp and Ed Murray were powerless? I though they were two of the big dogs down in Olympia.

  • Michael J. Maddux

    Where was Rasmussen?
    -
    But, to the point, good to see some unity of our electeds for a change. and PAC is right – while November is quite a ways off, there should be folks looking to get involved over in the 41st from Seattle. Sometimes that’s the only way to protect our own interests, and as a local elected official said to their District base once, when dismissing the need for their official support, “who else are you gonna vote for,” in Seattle?

  • Michael J. Maddux

    Where was Rasmussen?
    -
    But, to the point, good to see some unity of our electeds for a change. and PAC is right – while November is quite a ways off, there should be folks looking to get involved over in the 41st from Seattle. Sometimes that’s the only way to protect our own interests, and as a local elected official said to their District base once, when dismissing the need for their official support, “who else are you gonna vote for,” in Seattle?

  • Michael J. Maddux

    Where was Rasmussen?
    -
    But, to the point, good to see some unity of our electeds for a change. and PAC is right – while November is quite a ways off, there should be folks looking to get involved over in the 41st from Seattle. Sometimes that’s the only way to protect our own interests, and as a local elected official said to their District base once, when dismissing the need for their official support, “who else are you gonna vote for,” in Seattle?

  • Giffy

    Judy Clibborn has been that way on transit issues for some time. She is great on most other issues, but on transit her constituency is very car centric.

  • Giffy

    Judy Clibborn has been that way on transit issues for some time. She is great on most other issues, but on transit her constituency is very car centric.

  • Giffy

    Judy Clibborn has been that way on transit issues for some time. She is great on most other issues, but on transit her constituency is very car centric.

  • Doctor_D

    PSSB 6366, the Robert Moses Act of 2010, passed Senate Transportation committee unanimously a few minutes ago.

  • Doctor_D

    PSSB 6366, the Robert Moses Act of 2010, passed Senate Transportation committee unanimously a few minutes ago.

  • Doctor_D

    PSSB 6366, the Robert Moses Act of 2010, passed Senate Transportation committee unanimously a few minutes ago.

  • arf arf

    MOST SEATTLE LEGISLATORS are lining up with Clibborn. We’ve got them voting to stick seattle with costs and cram this 6 lane 520 in. Then we get this joke of chopp and murray pretending to be powerless and showing up at a demonstration on 520.

    Seattle, voters, time to wake up, your other legislators are all voting for roads roads roads alla time not for transit!

    they even pass laws preventing us from raising taxes for transit!
    they propose laws stripping seattle alone of the right to permit projects! they pass laws sticking cost overruns on us!

    And we reelect them! usually, totally unopposed!

    shit we even elect legislators who spend their time on issues like dogs in bars.

  • arf arf

    MOST SEATTLE LEGISLATORS are lining up with Clibborn. We’ve got them voting to stick seattle with costs and cram this 6 lane 520 in. Then we get this joke of chopp and murray pretending to be powerless and showing up at a demonstration on 520.

    Seattle, voters, time to wake up, your other legislators are all voting for roads roads roads alla time not for transit!

    they even pass laws preventing us from raising taxes for transit!
    they propose laws stripping seattle alone of the right to permit projects! they pass laws sticking cost overruns on us!

    And we reelect them! usually, totally unopposed!

    shit we even elect legislators who spend their time on issues like dogs in bars.

  • arf arf

    MOST SEATTLE LEGISLATORS are lining up with Clibborn. We’ve got them voting to stick seattle with costs and cram this 6 lane 520 in. Then we get this joke of chopp and murray pretending to be powerless and showing up at a demonstration on 520.

    Seattle, voters, time to wake up, your other legislators are all voting for roads roads roads alla time not for transit!

    they even pass laws preventing us from raising taxes for transit!
    they propose laws stripping seattle alone of the right to permit projects! they pass laws sticking cost overruns on us!

    And we reelect them! usually, totally unopposed!

    shit we even elect legislators who spend their time on issues like dogs in bars.

  • VotersRemorse

    @Arf Arf This is the election do something about that– defeat Ken Jacobsen, who not only spent time putting dogs in bars, but also co-sponsored SB 6366 (a.k.a. The Screw Seattle Bill).

  • VotersRemorse

    @Arf Arf This is the election do something about that– defeat Ken Jacobsen, who not only spent time putting dogs in bars, but also co-sponsored SB 6366 (a.k.a. The Screw Seattle Bill).

  • VotersRemorse

    @Arf Arf This is the election do something about that– defeat Ken Jacobsen, who not only spent time putting dogs in bars, but also co-sponsored SB 6366 (a.k.a. The Screw Seattle Bill).

  • Transit Voter

    The plan diagram that shows us just what’s being proposed by this new effort is…where exactly?

  • Transit Voter

    The plan diagram that shows us just what’s being proposed by this new effort is…where exactly?

  • Transit Voter

    The plan diagram that shows us just what’s being proposed by this new effort is…where exactly?

  • WOW !

    Seattle has as much power as it has money to pay for their preferred version of 520. It’s real simple – if Seattle wants to drag it’s feet and add another decade of talking to the 520 process then pay for it Seattle. This region is a complete joke when it comes to actually getting anything done besides a pretty power point. Meanwhile – the seawall needs to be replaced TODAY !

  • WOW !

    Seattle has as much power as it has money to pay for their preferred version of 520. It’s real simple – if Seattle wants to drag it’s feet and add another decade of talking to the 520 process then pay for it Seattle. This region is a complete joke when it comes to actually getting anything done besides a pretty power point. Meanwhile – the seawall needs to be replaced TODAY !

  • WOW !

    Seattle has as much power as it has money to pay for their preferred version of 520. It’s real simple – if Seattle wants to drag it’s feet and add another decade of talking to the 520 process then pay for it Seattle. This region is a complete joke when it comes to actually getting anything done besides a pretty power point. Meanwhile – the seawall needs to be replaced TODAY !

  • Marge

    Looks to me like the headline is wrong, along with most of the rest of the reporting. There was no Seattle preferred alignment announced this morning.

    The majority of Seattle’s elected leadership does not support the proposal promoted by a few people this morning. Supporters: McGinn, Murray, Chopp, Licata, Pederson. Non-supporters: Dozens of other people on the City Council and in the state legislature.

    The people of Seattle? Let’s ask them. They are unlikely to be for more delay, especially when they start paying tolls next year to fix the risky bridge they rely on every day – and sit stuck on far too often.

    Looks like the environmental groups are also split. O’Brien appears to be trying to have it both ways, or he is completely clueless.

    What was announced today is not the Green 520, it is the Montlake 520. It is the re-elect the 43rd district incumbents 520. It is clearly not the Seattle 520.

    Do some homework. A whole bunch of people are way ahead of you.

    Statewide transit and environmental leaders BEWARE: This is simply an effort to front for loud neighborhood voices and make their silly cause your cause. Don’t be fooled. The sooner this decision is made, the sooner we get the legislature to what needs doing next, better transit for the entire state in 2011.

    It is really important to get beyond 520 this year to get real legislation for transit for all and get the state to get real on global warming.

  • Marge

    Looks to me like the headline is wrong, along with most of the rest of the reporting. There was no Seattle preferred alignment announced this morning.

    The majority of Seattle’s elected leadership does not support the proposal promoted by a few people this morning. Supporters: McGinn, Murray, Chopp, Licata, Pederson. Non-supporters: Dozens of other people on the City Council and in the state legislature.

    The people of Seattle? Let’s ask them. They are unlikely to be for more delay, especially when they start paying tolls next year to fix the risky bridge they rely on every day – and sit stuck on far too often.

    Looks like the environmental groups are also split. O’Brien appears to be trying to have it both ways, or he is completely clueless.

    What was announced today is not the Green 520, it is the Montlake 520. It is the re-elect the 43rd district incumbents 520. It is clearly not the Seattle 520.

    Do some homework. A whole bunch of people are way ahead of you.

    Statewide transit and environmental leaders BEWARE: This is simply an effort to front for loud neighborhood voices and make their silly cause your cause. Don’t be fooled. The sooner this decision is made, the sooner we get the legislature to what needs doing next, better transit for the entire state in 2011.

    It is really important to get beyond 520 this year to get real legislation for transit for all and get the state to get real on global warming.

  • Marge

    Looks to me like the headline is wrong, along with most of the rest of the reporting. There was no Seattle preferred alignment announced this morning.

    The majority of Seattle’s elected leadership does not support the proposal promoted by a few people this morning. Supporters: McGinn, Murray, Chopp, Licata, Pederson. Non-supporters: Dozens of other people on the City Council and in the state legislature.

    The people of Seattle? Let’s ask them. They are unlikely to be for more delay, especially when they start paying tolls next year to fix the risky bridge they rely on every day – and sit stuck on far too often.

    Looks like the environmental groups are also split. O’Brien appears to be trying to have it both ways, or he is completely clueless.

    What was announced today is not the Green 520, it is the Montlake 520. It is the re-elect the 43rd district incumbents 520. It is clearly not the Seattle 520.

    Do some homework. A whole bunch of people are way ahead of you.

    Statewide transit and environmental leaders BEWARE: This is simply an effort to front for loud neighborhood voices and make their silly cause your cause. Don’t be fooled. The sooner this decision is made, the sooner we get the legislature to what needs doing next, better transit for the entire state in 2011.

    It is really important to get beyond 520 this year to get real legislation for transit for all and get the state to get real on global warming.

  • Jonathan Dubman

    Until recently proponents of the “A+” plan in the SR 520 Legislative Workgroup kept spuriously claiming “broad community support” for the plan. That was never the case. Those few community members who favored that plan were used – they got basically none of the things they originally wanted and they oppose significant components of the resulting plan. Seattle neighborhoods in the 520 corridor, Mayor McGinn and the Seattle City Council unanimously oppose the current plans, for substantive reasons. So do a number of environmental organizations including the Sierra Club and Cascade Bicycle Club.

    As for the people of Seattle, we polled them. We polled the people of the 41st, 45th and 48th legislative districts too. And counting both sides of the lake, all the way out to the far Eastside, 69% wanted to see dedicated light rail and buses on 520, vs. 16% who approved of the currently planned approach. That’s not what I would call broad support for the current plans. Most would call it broad opposition.

    It’s worth remembering some things about the infamous Alaskan Way Viaduct controversy at this time. The Viaduct, like 520, is allegedly at risk. The last time we had a battle royale like the one that is shaping up now on 520, the Governor wanted to build the elevated replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, a giant noisy eyesore on stilts much bigger than what’s there with no real transit component in Seattle (just like the “A+” plan for 520). The Governor ultimately caved due to pressure from the City of Seattle and Seattle voters, who were less unified on that issue then than they are now on 520, according to the evidence at hand. And at that time, on the Viaduct, Speaker Chopp and the Mayor (Nickels) were at odds. On 520, the Mayor, Speaker, Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Pedersen (43rd district) are now all in agreement, and they agree that the current plans need to be changed.

    The surface and transit option for the Alaskan Way Viaduct was once criticized (by WSDOT) for adding 22,000 vehicles a day to I-5 which is basically at capacity. (Seattle P-I, 2/20/07). How many vehicles does the “A+” plan add to I-5 and Montlake, both at capacity? 20,000 according to WSDOT. So if the surface/transit plan was disqualified based on this scale of impact, why should we not disqualify the “A+” plan for SR 520 for the same reason?

    Do we have a double standard here? It seems we have several.

    The Governor suggested putting the Viaduct to a public vote, saying “I’m not going to disregard what the voters of Seattle have to say.” (Seattle P-I, 1/22/07.) From what we’ve ascertained, the Governor is presently poised to alienate the entire government of the City of Seattle and the vast majority of people on both sides of the lake who live in the districts that put her over the top in previous years.

  • Jonathan Dubman

    Until recently proponents of the “A+” plan in the SR 520 Legislative Workgroup kept spuriously claiming “broad community support” for the plan. That was never the case. Those few community members who favored that plan were used – they got basically none of the things they originally wanted and they oppose significant components of the resulting plan. Seattle neighborhoods in the 520 corridor, Mayor McGinn and the Seattle City Council unanimously oppose the current plans, for substantive reasons. So do a number of environmental organizations including the Sierra Club and Cascade Bicycle Club.

    As for the people of Seattle, we polled them. We polled the people of the 41st, 45th and 48th legislative districts too. And counting both sides of the lake, all the way out to the far Eastside, 69% wanted to see dedicated light rail and buses on 520, vs. 16% who approved of the currently planned approach. That’s not what I would call broad support for the current plans. Most would call it broad opposition.

    It’s worth remembering some things about the infamous Alaskan Way Viaduct controversy at this time. The Viaduct, like 520, is allegedly at risk. The last time we had a battle royale like the one that is shaping up now on 520, the Governor wanted to build the elevated replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, a giant noisy eyesore on stilts much bigger than what’s there with no real transit component in Seattle (just like the “A+” plan for 520). The Governor ultimately caved due to pressure from the City of Seattle and Seattle voters, who were less unified on that issue then than they are now on 520, according to the evidence at hand. And at that time, on the Viaduct, Speaker Chopp and the Mayor (Nickels) were at odds. On 520, the Mayor, Speaker, Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Pedersen (43rd district) are now all in agreement, and they agree that the current plans need to be changed.

    The surface and transit option for the Alaskan Way Viaduct was once criticized (by WSDOT) for adding 22,000 vehicles a day to I-5 which is basically at capacity. (Seattle P-I, 2/20/07). How many vehicles does the “A+” plan add to I-5 and Montlake, both at capacity? 20,000 according to WSDOT. So if the surface/transit plan was disqualified based on this scale of impact, why should we not disqualify the “A+” plan for SR 520 for the same reason?

    Do we have a double standard here? It seems we have several.

    The Governor suggested putting the Viaduct to a public vote, saying “I’m not going to disregard what the voters of Seattle have to say.” (Seattle P-I, 1/22/07.) From what we’ve ascertained, the Governor is presently poised to alienate the entire government of the City of Seattle and the vast majority of people on both sides of the lake who live in the districts that put her over the top in previous years.

  • Jonathan Dubman

    Until recently proponents of the “A+” plan in the SR 520 Legislative Workgroup kept spuriously claiming “broad community support” for the plan. That was never the case. Those few community members who favored that plan were used – they got basically none of the things they originally wanted and they oppose significant components of the resulting plan. Seattle neighborhoods in the 520 corridor, Mayor McGinn and the Seattle City Council unanimously oppose the current plans, for substantive reasons. So do a number of environmental organizations including the Sierra Club and Cascade Bicycle Club.

    As for the people of Seattle, we polled them. We polled the people of the 41st, 45th and 48th legislative districts too. And counting both sides of the lake, all the way out to the far Eastside, 69% wanted to see dedicated light rail and buses on 520, vs. 16% who approved of the currently planned approach. That’s not what I would call broad support for the current plans. Most would call it broad opposition.

    It’s worth remembering some things about the infamous Alaskan Way Viaduct controversy at this time. The Viaduct, like 520, is allegedly at risk. The last time we had a battle royale like the one that is shaping up now on 520, the Governor wanted to build the elevated replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, a giant noisy eyesore on stilts much bigger than what’s there with no real transit component in Seattle (just like the “A+” plan for 520). The Governor ultimately caved due to pressure from the City of Seattle and Seattle voters, who were less unified on that issue then than they are now on 520, according to the evidence at hand. And at that time, on the Viaduct, Speaker Chopp and the Mayor (Nickels) were at odds. On 520, the Mayor, Speaker, Sen. Ed Murray and Rep. Pedersen (43rd district) are now all in agreement, and they agree that the current plans need to be changed.

    The surface and transit option for the Alaskan Way Viaduct was once criticized (by WSDOT) for adding 22,000 vehicles a day to I-5 which is basically at capacity. (Seattle P-I, 2/20/07). How many vehicles does the “A+” plan add to I-5 and Montlake, both at capacity? 20,000 according to WSDOT. So if the surface/transit plan was disqualified based on this scale of impact, why should we not disqualify the “A+” plan for SR 520 for the same reason?

    Do we have a double standard here? It seems we have several.

    The Governor suggested putting the Viaduct to a public vote, saying “I’m not going to disregard what the voters of Seattle have to say.” (Seattle P-I, 1/22/07.) From what we’ve ascertained, the Governor is presently poised to alienate the entire government of the City of Seattle and the vast majority of people on both sides of the lake who live in the districts that put her over the top in previous years.

  • Eric Koszyk

    Good points Jonathan.

    I don’t think most people realize that I-5 and Montlake are at capacity. You could build a 20 lane bridge and the same thing would happen as soon as you hit I-5 — gridlock.

  • Eric Koszyk

    Good points Jonathan.

    I don’t think most people realize that I-5 and Montlake are at capacity. You could build a 20 lane bridge and the same thing would happen as soon as you hit I-5 — gridlock.

  • Eric Koszyk

    Good points Jonathan.

    I don’t think most people realize that I-5 and Montlake are at capacity. You could build a 20 lane bridge and the same thing would happen as soon as you hit I-5 — gridlock.

  • People

    We are already mad with Judy Clibborn and Scott White for supporting 1775. So we are just waiting November to come.
    So put us the list of the growing groups that will go extra mile to defeats those folks.
    Don't Support 1775 bill.