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.

City Hires Consultant to Study Light Rail on 520

Mayor Mike McGinn announced this afternoon that the Seattle City Council and the city’s department of transportation have chosen the local office of San Francisco-based Nelson/Nygaard to review SR 520 design options, including the feasibility of light rail on the bridge.

Previously, council transportation chair Tom Rasmussen told me today, the city planned to direct the consultant to look only at “issues like mitigation, protection of the Arboretum, and how transit works” with the bridge. That contract, he said, would have cost the city around $100,000.

With the addition of light rail to the consultant’s scope of work, McGinn said, the contract will cost the city around $250,000, to be paid for jointly by SDOT and the city council.

“Yesterday, the city council said they wanted to look at how the city could become carbon neutral,” McGinn said, referring to the council’s announcement of its 2010 priorities. To do that, he said, “we need to transform our transportation system.”

The consultant will wrap up its work by April 15, the same day the public-comment period for the 520 replacement options ends.

McGinn said his proposal could be completed more quickly than the state’s preferred “A+” option (four general-purpose lanes, two HOV) because of public opposition to that option and because the bridge replacement isn’t fully funded. “If we can come up with an option that has strong public support and that is fully funded, we believe it could be completed sooner,” McGinn said.




  • take-responsibility

    what a load of bull

  • soapboxin

    Maybe he can lay off some SA's first, and then hire them back to do this consulting work. I was also gonna insert a snarky Chris Bushnell crack as well, but I'll leave that to other people.

  • JW

    I'm sure the mayor's proposal will be ignored by Olympia. Then we can enjoy the years of lawsuits that will hamstring this project. MSFT and the rest of the eastside be damned. Oh, and Gregoire too.

  • jconsor

    Awesome – more taxpayer dollars going down the drain. Thanks for again for being part of the problem, McGinn. I'm sure the taxpayers will be on the hook for all of the accompanying lawsuits filed to hold up construction.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    This region doesn't have $250,000 to be WASTED on some guy in San Francisco!

    That's four $80,000 per year jobs for a whole year right there!

  • jconsor

    Awesome – more taxpayer dollars going down the drain. Thanks for again for being part of the problem, McGinn. I'm sure the taxpayers will be on the hook for all of the accompanying lawsuits filed to hold up construction.

  • xtevex

    City of Seattle hires a useless consultant for $250,000.

    In other news, bear poop found in woods.

  • morning fizzy

    Light rail has the same problem as roadway. There is no capacity on the Seattle side for more volume.

    Right now we have about 65,000 people crossing 520 a day.and it will cost about $6.5 billion to replace it for about a life of 60 years if there is no large earthquake. The cost about $100,000 per person using the bridge.

    If McGinn really wants to make major change, we should be putting that money into rail around the lake. Rail that will survive an earthquake. Rail that would foster development around the lake not just across it.

    We are building temporary structures costing billions of dollars. It makes no sense – four of the five longest floating bridges in the world are in the State of Washington.

  • phil

    Smart move by the Mayor. Dumping more traffic on Seattle's already congested streets is not worth going into long term debt for. The state doesn't even have the money for their version of the bridge, let alone paying for the improvements that will be needed in Seattle to handle the extra traffic.

  • Transit Guy

    Rail around the lake? Have you considered the running time it would take, a 10-12 mile trip around the lake vs. a 2-mile trip across the lake? And the cost of all those extra miles or rail construction would be way greater than the cost of going cross-lake.

    Those corridors through Renton and Kenmore may some day warrant rail transit, but NOT as a near-term alternative to going across the lake.

  • joshuadf

    When I saw the headline I thought it was a bad idea, but since a study of the Seattle side of SR-520 was already needed it makes a lot of sense to add this. If McGinn and the City Council can pull in funding for the whole project contingent on the inclusion of light rail the state will go for it because they do not have SR-520 funding together. (Maybe the light rail could hit downtown Kirkland or north Bellevue–pure conjecture on my part.)

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    Yes, all Mike McGinn needs is support and money. Right now both are limited, but he is willing to burn another $100k on a new slideshow.

    He should have to put the name of the person he will have to layoff on the city budget as the study increase in scope “funding source”.

  • Mr. X

    McGinn and the City Council have very little to say about whether funding for this project is contingent on light rail or not – it's a state highway and a state project, and the funds for eastside LRT are already going toward the I-90 corridor.

    This is simple obstructionism with a green transit-friendly facade.

  • Thinking Girl

    4 x $80,000 is $320,000, Mr. Bushnell, er, “jabailo”. Or one more reason why Seattle effs up numbers and policy while trying to make a half-way decent point.

  • giffy

    It is not $100,000 per person using the bridge. Substantially more people are going to use the bridge over the next 60 years than the 65,000 that might use it on an average day.

  • fount

    Am I to believe that all of you think there shouldn't be light rail on the new bridge?

    How many new freeways should we build before we invest in transit?

    How many more miles of road can we fit in?

  • morning fizzy

    perhaps something a little faster than light rail maybe even a heavy rail line (NY subway/BART) with express capability. A 20 -30 mile trip with an average speed of 45 mph would only take about 30-45 minutes to Redmond.

    At $250 million per mile we could build 20-25 miles for the price of the new bridge and have a couple bil left over for upgrading the current structure.

    We will never build enough capacity across the lake – but of course we'll have another chance in 60 years when the new bridge is used up and Transit Guy's grandkid can say rail around the lake doesn't make sense now because the million people in Redmond need more lanes – 2 miles will always be less than 10.

  • morning fizzy

    Okay giffy how many per day will use it? Basically the same people use it every day.

  • joshuadf

    I should have been more clear; I'm talking about potential funding in the future Seattle-only light rail vote that McGinn promised during the campaign. The state desperately needs help funding the SR-520 project. Perhaps Microsoft could at least throw in $25,000-$40,000.

  • Nameless Guest

    There should be light rail on the 520 bridge – but not until both ends are ready to use it. What's the point of laying down rails now – which will delay the project and add cost – when there are no plans in place to bring light rail to the east end of the bridge?

    Build the 6 lanes now, and convert two lanes to rail in the future when the time comes.

  • gloomy gus

    I think you missed something in your math. Given your numbers the per user cost is $4.56. Not that figures like that are especially meaningful, once you ponder additional savings of not experiencing a catastrophic failure of the existing bridge, the value of having a rail-ready structure, etc.

  • gloomy gus

    I think the Council and Mayor are agreed that an extra $150,000 is a small price to pay for an expert to take them off the hook by independently confirming what WSDOT said already. “Ah, well, we didn't realize,” they'll say.

  • fount

    wait…get the suburbanites used to 6 lanes of traffic and then take two of them away?

    that doesn't seem feasible politically to me.

  • Pete520

    The new bridge is designed with future light rail as a possibility. Even if you had light rail in the mix now, the same difficult issues about how to get rail and traffic across the cut would be facing decision makers (not to mention Lake Washington BLVD and the Arboretum. Some in the Montlake neighborhood wanted a tube or tunnel under the cut. It was studied and rejected due to cost and environmental issues. Some irresponsible politicians, McGinn included, would have us believe that this is all about light rail (some politicians even went so far as to suggest that citizens sue the state – how's that for a “punch in the face?”).

    I like light rail. That's why I voted yes on ST-2. ST-2 funds light rail across the Lake (I-90). We can start planning for light rail across sr520 now, but we don't need to upend this plan (we have spent 1/4 billion dollars on it).

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    I am not sure why this is such a strange idea to so many people. We have a BUS tunnel that after it was complete then got rails.

    Rapid Ride bus service is only a funding vote away.

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    McSandbag's calendar

    January: pull seawall vote out of my ass, cheese-off the city council (check)
    February: flex muscle in front of council, pissoff Microsoft (check)
    March: wonder why kissing Frank Chopp's butt failed to get any usefull legislation for Seattle passed, hopefully avoid court action by hoteliers (open)…

  • 2cents

    When will Mayor McGinn start working with the council? He seems to have the same agenda as the council, but he jumps out with his own plan and 24 hours later he's backing away from it.

  • seattle_steve

    Message for the Mayor. There is an option for 520 with strong public support. That's the one that's flying through the state legislature. Factions within a few neighborhoods are opposed. Your assertions that your new plan will get built sooner indicate that you are seriously misinformed or that you're telling fibs again. Probably both given the track record.

    The legislation moving forward defers decisions at the Montlake end so that the current engineers dream can be modified: smaller, better for transit, lower roadway across the lake. Legislators from the 43rd district are actually building those things into the state law, along with performance standards that would require that lanes be converted to transit in the future.

    It is great to bring on a consultant to help. It is stupid to say the things the Mayor did yesterday about Bill Gates, the speed of the plan he and others pulled out of thin air. But we're getting used to stupid.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    Did you see the ridership numbers for January? Light Rail is an unmitigated DISASTER!!

    http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/02/23/januar…

  • http://michaelmaddux.blogspot.com/ Michael M.

    Exactly! Find a way to get rid of the HOV lanes on the bridge, and dedicate them to transit, and once the capacity and funding is there, add the light rail.

  • Interesting

    This is such a waste of tax payer dollars! The engineering from Capitol Hill onto 520 for light rail doesn't work. I guess if you don't like the answer from the first “expert” go find an “expert” who will say what you want to hear.

  • Another Transit Guy

    Yes, the further question is, where would light rail go on each side of the lake? On the East side, does it cross East Link and go to…where exactly? Or does it just terminate at the nearest East Link station?

    On the Seattle side, Sound Transit has already spelled out ad nauseum why it can't just duck into the Capitol Hill tunnel for a quick trip to downtown SEattle. Do they just build a new flyover ramp (over the Ship Canal) to an aerial station on top of Link's station at Husky Stadium, now under construction?

    Huge problems there also, but hey, I guess we can dream.

  • http://www.carpoolingnetwork.com/ pete926

    Imagine if most of the commuters would be carpooling… it would be so much easier to drive in the city at rush hour. I tried the carbon dioxide and driving cost calculator of the carpooling network ( http://www.carpoolingnetwork.com ) and they suggest huge savings : upt to 2000 $ and 1,5 tonnes per year .

  • George

    Sound Transit will build its light rail on I-90 to Bellevue and Redmond. That will serve commuters for the next thirty years. Rail needs a destination: I-5 is not configured for rail and there are no plans for rebuilding it to suit rail. SR 520 has no pull-outs for a rail station. The UW Stadium station won't generate enough passengers to be a destination station for east-west rail and it would be better better served by METRO's new rapid transit buses.

  • Jason_Mitchell

    Up 8.5% and right on target for estimated daily ridership—before the 194 stopped running. Perchance you should look up “disaster.”

  • Tony the Economist

    Cost of this study: $250,000
    Cost of the bridge: $5,000,000,000

    Cost of study relative to cost of project: 0.01%

    You think that with a highly controversial, iconic megaproject, that it is a waste of money to spend 0.01% of the project budget on a study to make sure we do it right? Really? Glad you're not managing my money.

  • MeisterEMH

    Passenger rail in the USA in the 1920s topped 1.2 Billion passengers annually – we have let passenger rail and local rail go by the wayside over the decades, and it's going to take a lot of work and money to play catch-up

  • tiredofwaiting

    All this discussion about carbon neutrality seems to imply that mass transit is the best way to achieve it. Apparently the lost productivity standing around waiting for buses to get us to light rail isn't a factor. There's a reason Microsoft operates its own private bus fleet at the same time Metro is threatening to cut service.

    I guess the electric car will never become a reality either. Whatever.