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.

Technology We Aren’t Aware of Yet

1. One big potential down side of Mayor Mike McGinn’s new push to build a new SR520 bridge over Lake Washington to accommodate light rail: If rail does end up being built, ordinary buses would have to run in the four general-purpose lanes along with regular traffic, meaning buses would be less reliable than they would in bus-only or HOV lanes.

McGinn’s office confirms that his plan would force buses into regular traffic. Nelson/Nygaard consultant Tim Payne says the consulting team looked into the possibility of running rail and buses jointly in the center lanes of a new bridge, but found that, barring “new technology that we aren’t aware of yet,” joint operations would limit travel speeds to 25 miles per hour.

2. The State House responded to the Senate’s new revenue proposal—the 0.1 percent sales tax increase compromise the Senate offered over the weekend. The answer? No deal.

Nor would the House budge on some of its other positions. The House still wants to end the $50 million exemption for big banks (the Senate does not), and they still want to end a $41 million exemption on out-of-state shoppers who don’t have to pay sales tax (the Senate does not).

One thing the House did go for, however, was the Senate’s new proposal for an increase in the beer tax (an additional .50 per gallon for $60 million.)

3. For the clearest coverage on the sting and arrest of Charles Wilson, the man who threatened to kill Sen. Patty Murray, check The New York Times.

4. U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell’s “Cap & Dividend” proposal—the alternative climate change legislation she’s been working on since last June that would auction off pollution permits and give the proceeds to ratepayers—may become the lead plan as President Obama tries to move forward on the issue.

In a recent article about the implosion of the current “Cap & Trade” bill—the plan Obama had cited in his initial budget that would auction off permits and let companies trade them—The New York Times concluded with a shout out to Cantwell.

Two senators, Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, have proposed an alternative that they call cap and dividend, under which licenses to pollute would be auctioned to producers and wholesalers of fossil fuels, with three-quarters of the revenue returned to consumers in monthly checks to cover their higher energy costs.

She said her bill would require every pollution permit to be auctioned rather than given away and was 39 pages long, compared with Waxman-Markey, which weighs in at some 1,400 pages.

The Cantwell-Collins plan is almost exactly what Mr. Obama proposed in the campaign and after first taking office — a 100 percent auction of permits and a large tax rebate to the public.

“He called our bill ‘very elegant,’ ” Ms. Cantwell said. “Simplicity and having something people can understand is important.”

The Economist has also given Cantwell’s “Cap & Dividend” plan props.

5. Fans of Mayor Mike McGinn’s proposal to build light rail on a new 520 bridge across Lake Washington made up a strong majority of those who showed up for a public hearing on a consultant’s report about the feasibility of rail on the bridge last night.

As such, most of the “questions” at the hearing consisted of thank-yous from members of the Coalition for a Sustainable 520—a group with which McGinn allied himself in February—and friendly “questions” like, “Do you plan to continue keeping the communities involved and listening to them?”




  • WOW !

    By forcing buses into the regular flow of traffic it seems Mike continues the time honored tradition of all politicians – speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Hey, don't live near a transit station and you rely on the bus ? Sucks to be you I guess.

  • gidge

    I haven't read the entire Nelson/Nygaard report, but my sense of the “plan” that was described for light rail was that it was the most likely way to convert the current A+ plan to include light rail (with some changes that are better made now than in the future). I think that was the starting point because it fits within the legislation and it would be easier to use the current plan as a starting point, rather than going back to the beginning. The current legislation wouldn't allow of other alternatives, like 2 general purpose lanes, 2 HOV/Bus lanes and 2 for light rail.

    My guess is that if you asked McGinn or the consultants whether there could be better ways to configure 520 for light rail, they'd say “yes,” provided they weren't constrained by the legislature's edicts.

    But I think the more important message from the presentation was that we need to be skeptical if we hear state officials say that we can revisit adding light rail in the future. Although not 100% impossible, the Nelson/Nygaard presentation made it pretty clear that it would be HIGHLY unlikely that light rail could/would be added to the current preferred alternative.

  • Light rail?

    Remember, McGinn and the anti-Roads and Transit crowd were against light rail before they supported it.

    During the campaign in 2006 they opposed light rail to the Eastside and argued for BRT – not only did they say buses would move people more effectively (cost and speed) but they didn't want to give an incentive to people who live too far away from their work.

    They (the campaign of Broadhead/O'Brien/McGinn/Freeman) also opposed running light rail south of the airport…same BRT/cost/punish everyone outside of North Seattle argument.

    And McGinn saying that Nickels should have been more supportive of light rail is rewriting history to exclude the fact that it was Nickels that bullied ST2 onto the ballot.

    A little institutional memory would go a long way in this discussion.

    I suspect that the Montlake neighbors don't care as much about light rail as they do about delaying the rebuilding of the bridge.

  • fount

    A little institutional memory WOULD go a long way. Unfortunately, you don't provide it.

    McGinn was against the Roads and Transit Initiative, mostly because of the ROADS part. It built thousands of miles of new roads, destroyed some of our most fragile ecosystems, and promoted sprawl throughout the region. He argued that a transit-alone ballot measure would pass. And it did.

    Some others (mostly conservatives, I remember John Carlson in particular) were against it for the cost and bus rapid transit arguments you claim McGinn made.

    Though both sets of folk were against Roads and Transit, they were opposed for very different reasons. Linking them as the “McGinn / Broadhead / Freeman” group doesn't make anymore sense than it does to say the “Republican / Green Party movement.”

    And more importantly, the McGinn / Broadhead part of that equation was RIGHT: by voting no on Roads and Transit, we could indeed get the transit without the roads.

  • marymaryquitecontrary

    Why isn't BRT considered a valid option? I know that light rail is sexy and all, but it's hella expensive and there's that whole you can EITHER have a modified footprint OR you can have light rail but you can't have both factor. Meanwhile, Microsoft has its cute little (flexible) mini-buses bopping around and people seem to like those just fine.

    Are we letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? Is there a compelling argument for why we can't adopt effective, rapid bus service that is integrated with rail?

  • Transit Voter

    Much as I support the mayor, to force HOVs and the remaining bus routes into 2 general purpose lanes, after light rail comes, would be a disaster.

    Long range planning needs to focus on 24/7 HOV lanes AND light rail tracks on a new 520 bridge. And plan for how those tracks will be extended on each end beyond the bridge itself.

    WSDOT and the Powers That Be are effectively deciding that light rail will NEVER come to the 520 corridor, and the mayor and the transit-supporting public need to push back hard on that.

  • ivan

    We're going to get every single one of those roads, and you can't stop it.

  • joshmahar

    The best solution is that when we do end up putting light rail on 520 we just convert two general purpose lanes to HOV lanes. That would be more in tune with our VMT Reduction Goals. :)

  • some dude

    The only problem is that the transit only ballot measure didn't include as many miles of track as the original roads + transit. ivan is right, those roads are going to be built regardless, and we have less transit to show for their efforts.

  • teeve

    Something about the validity of this report seems seriously off.

    It could be that the Mayor handpicked the firm to deliver the report. Did he have a pre-existing relationship with this firm? Did he essentially buy the result he wanted?

  • elaineinballard

    Who says we have to have both light rail and buses on 520? With well-designed transit centers and coordinated bus schedules on both sides of the bridge, we could establish rapid and efficient transfers between buses coming from the eastside/westside and light rail on the bridge. For example, instead of multiple buses from every city on the eastside (Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, etc) crossing the bridge, the buses could drop off their passengers at a transit center where frequent light rail is there to quickly transport them to the westside, where they can then make a quick transfer (if necessary) to the multiple destinations on the westside of the lake. Or consider this personal example: I live in Ballard and my parents live in Bellevue. I wouldn't expect to be able to board an eventual light rail in Ballard and arrive at my parents doorstep in Bellevue. At some point I will need to transfer to a bus, which would be located at the transfer station right after I cross 520.

    The notion that we will get on a train/bus near our home and ride it the whole way to our ultimate destination is not the appropriate vision. We are all going to have to get used to making multiple transfers, but in the future they will be easy and seamless and will provide us many more options.

  • Light rail?

    Fount, you my be interested in an article in the Times, “Planned Light Rail Route Panned”. I'd post the link, but the Times has oddly taken this article down from their site…but here is an excerpt I found cached:

    “A Sierra Club leader took the rare step Thursday of criticizing part of Sound Transit's light-rail vision — a proposed track extension from the city of SeaTac south to Tacoma. “I think it's not the most efficient use of tax dollars,” local club Chairman Mike O'Brien said during a campaign debate over this fall's multibillion-dollar Proposition 1. He called the Tacoma line a “political decision” made to satisfy elected officials in Pierce County. “If transportation planners were in charge, they would come up with a more efficient solution,” he said.”

    O'Brien was commenting on an “economic analysis” done by none other than the now infamous Chris Buschnell while he was at King County. In a nutshell, the “analysis” written by a felon, made the argument that the cost-per-rider for the line south of the airport was too high and should be replaced with more buses. The same arguement was made on the East Link by Ron Sims when advocating for BRT.

    Fount, I will hand it to McGinn and O'Brien…they were right about ST2 coming back (albiet smaller w/fewer miles of track as Ivan points out). But they are being disingenuous at best in not giving Nickels the credit he is due…and just because someone supported something (I voted for ST2 as well) doesn't mean it passed because of them. Nickels strong armed it on the ballot.

    In your mind people care enough about global warming to vote against a shorter commute, but even O'Brien/McGinn knew better and hit the cost of the measure at every opportunity…including this op-ed in the Times co-written by O'Brien: “Overly expensive package encourages sprawl” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorial…

    He makes a good argument about congestion pricing (which I agree with) but takes most of the time hitting cost messages and even takes a swipe at light rail taking too long to build and being too expensive.

    Like I said. They were against it before they were for it.

  • ivan

    Missing from the 2008 transit only ballot measure was the light rail link from Tacoma to the airport, which the 2007 RTID would have built. That had the potential to serve not only Tacoma but Federal Way, and could have been the first link in a light rail system that could have served Sea-Tac, Des Moines, Burien, and up into West Seattle, a Southwest King County Interurban, if you will.

    Tacoma and South King County won't forget. The 509 extension and the Cross-Base Highway WILL be built, and the Tacoma Sea-Tac light rail link will be built, too. The people who would benefit from them are not McGinn's constituents, nor are they particularly fans of the “new urbanist” cult who frequent these pages and these comment threads. They do not give a flying F in a rolling donut whether Dan Bertolet or Alex Steffen like sprawl or not.

    People might disagree with this, and that's just fine, but at least pay some heed to the political situation. McGinn and his fans don't have the votes to prevail regionwide, and some of you (“Dow Constantine won't be re-elected”) would do well to face that reality.

  • Michael Snyder

    Ummm, why would you need a bus on the bridge if you have rail?

    We have transfer stations.

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

    So, should ST stop the activity on I-90?
    It appears as though I-90 is not a new bridge, and lite rail is being added on later. I might have that wrong, by the quarter-million dollar hand wringing effort emminating from the mayor's office.

  • elaineinballard

    How long have you lived here Mr. Baker?

  • ericacbarnett

    The firm was the same one that did the City Council report I wrote about last week, and was chosen by the city council and mayor.

  • gidge

    Seriously, Mr. Baker. You spend enough time on blogs to know that nobody is suggesting any changes to I-90. The issue is that if we're going to rebuild 520 now, and the new structure will likely be around for 75 years, shouldn't we make sure that we can add light rail in the future? You may not agree with that being a priority, but that's what all of the “hand wringing” is about.

  • Tangent

    “The notion that we will get on a train/bus near our home and ride it the whole way to our ultimate destination is not the appropriate vision. We are all going to have to get used to making multiple transfers, but in the future they will be easy and seamless and will provide us many more options.”

    I agree with part of your statement, but to use your Ballard-to-Bellevue example, you are saying you would actually ride a bus from Ballard to UW for example, de-board, get on light rail, then back on a bus to finish the journey?

    I can't imagine many people finding that convienent or time saving enough to not drive, especially if you had kids or were bringing anything larger than a lunchbox along for the trip.

    Even with double the current number of buses running those east-west routes I have a very hard time believing that trip wouldn't take at least 2 hours each way even in off-peak traffic conditions.

  • kurisu

    So are you defending sales tax as the way to fund those highways? I'll quote exactly where your link directs.

    “Let us not forget, amid the clamor proclaiming Proposition 1 our “once-in-a-lifetime” chance to build light rail, that two years ago we had a much better light-rail proposal — one that did not commit sales tax to polluting highway lanes and that would have helped solve the global-warming problem…”

    “Sound Transit's light-rail proposal will not disappear if we say “no” to Proposition 1. When voters rejected a transit package in 1995, it came back one year later and with five years shaved off the construction time. And as rail service begins in South Seattle, voter support for the technology will only increase.

    A combination of rail and congestion pricing forms a sustainable path to reduced congestion and global-warming emissions. Tragically, Proposition 1 fails to accomplish either.”

  • kurisu

    He took a black helicopter to Area 5 to have secret meetings with them, I'm sure. They have a scale model of 520 that rises from the floor of the conference room via remote control.

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

    45 years, born here, add rail later, it is being done on I-90 right now, and existing structure.

    McGinn, the Human Sandbag, is arguing against something that is already being done on another bridge over the same lake.
    The study says it could be done in the future. Dragging our feet on an asparation is foolish.
    How about Mayor Sandbag tell us how he would pay for that rail, put that on the Fall ballot and “trust” the citizens to decide.
    He's an idiot.

  • notafiree

    He took a black *bike* to Northwest Sierra Club (down on 180 Nickerson)… otherwise that's spot-on. well done!

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

    Erica is right, the question would be what the mayor asked to be studied.

  • elaineinballard

    My recollection is that after part of I-90 sunk in 1990 that the rebuild included provision for future light rail. The bridge was specifically designed so that it could be eventually converted to rail.

    So, in fact, you are agreeing with McGinn: Make sure the bridge can be converted to light rail at a later date

  • wtf

    Josh – Did you read the Seattle Times article where McGinn calls out Nickels for not being “enough of an advocate” for light rail. Josh you worked Mass Transit Now. I mean really!

  • Light Rail?

    Kurisu- I'm not sure you're tracking the conversation.

    Seattle has a mayor who was part of a campaign against the largest proposed build out of light rail in the region.

    I know it included roads too…but his group also attacked light rail — basically any rail outside of the city — because it wasn't cost effective and promotes sprawl (according to them) in the suburbs. (They also said it took too long to build.)

    Now you have a mayor (and others) who are fighting a bridge being built because it needs light rail?…to a suburb?…outside of the city where it could promote sprawl?

    Quite the idealist, eh?

    And BTW, I could care less about the funding mechanism for roads vs. other public services. Public dollars should be public dollars and Washington state has a very high number of dedicated accounts. I hope you don't think that roads should be user pay (gas tax and congestion pricing) but transit should be subsidized. If everything went user pay, no one would take a bus or a train, and this discussion would be moot.

  • punji

    McGinn is now favoring what he terms “the Surface Option.” He says that if we tear down the bridge the cars will go elsewhere. People will be forced to walk or bike to work–healthier alternatives. Any remaining trip miles can be absorbed by adding an extra lane to I-90 and re-timing the traffic lights on Lake City Way. This is the only way to achieve our stated goal of being a carbon-negative region.

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

    I'm not sure if “shouldn't we” is the correct term. I'm not necessarily opposed, but I think it makes more sense for this particular corridor to be served by BRT, which is much more flexible, and much less expensive.

    When taking in the added fight that the Eastside has and will put up against light rail, BRT may be the only real option to ensure that there are two general purpose lanes, and two non-general purpose lanes (even if not BRT, then having two lanes dedicated to transit only).

  • Tangent

    “We are all going to have to get used to making multiple transfers, but in the future they will be easy and seamless and will provide us many more options.”

    Let's use your Ballard-to-Bellevue trip as an example. You are saying that you would actually 1) take a bus from Ballard to a transfer station at, let's say UW; 2) then transfer/board light rail to go over the bridge, after which; 3) you would get on another bus to finish the journey.

    I have a really hard time believing that even with double the number of buses currently running and a rail train running every 10-15 minutes that you could do that trip in under 2 hours each way. And if you were taking a child or anything larger than a lunchbox with you it becomes even less convienent.

    Until you can make that trip in equal or less time than it would take to drive it is never going to be the preferred option for most people. Commuting, sure, but taking 4 hours to go to the Eastside for a non-essential trip? Dubious.

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

    Yes, I agree that we should build the bridge, and in 20 years part of it sinks we should rebuild that part for rail to arrive 15 years after that.

    If he intends to hold this all up for 25 years, then no, I do not agree with him.

    He, again, has no plan, he has a wish.
    How about that West see lite rail? Same thing, a wish, the plan would consume all of our bonding capacity.
    Who does he think will be asked to pay for the 520 rail?
    Where is the bonding capacity in Seattle for that, too?

    What decade does he think lite rail on 520 could happen?
    What is the proposed plan to get there, and how will he pay for it?

  • kurisu

    Not sure whether you're facetious, ignorant or confused. Sales tax is already too high and too regressive. Roads promote sprawl. Their writing shows that they clearly support rail in principle and object to coupling it with sprawl-inducing roads.

  • sarah68

    Oh good lord. Re-timing the lights on Lake City Way. Yes indeed, and walking or biking from downtown Seattle to Monroe instead of 522.

  • http://www.everyonestravelclub.com/ Everyone's Travel Club

    I sure hope they protect the Arboretum!