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.

Council Memo: Rail May Be Possible on Smaller 520

An analysis by the city council’s central staff concludes that light rail could conceivably fit within the 115-foot-wide footprint of the state’s preferred option for replacing the 520 bridge, eliminating the need to build a wider bridge now. Potential changes to the plan include narrowing bike lanes and shoulders from the state’s current assumptions—something that’s already been done on the I-90 bridge across Lake Washington to accommodate light rail there.

The central staff memo also confirms that, as we reported yesterday, expanding the new 520 bridge across Lake Washington to 125 feet, as Mayor Mike McGinn has proposed doing to accommodate light rail, could have the ironic unintended consequence of “mak[ing] it easier to [convert] the roadway to eight-vehicular traffic lanes in the future … through restriping and other minimal retrofit activities. … [W]ithout a regional agreement for light rail configuration on the SR 520 corridor, a wider roadway would allow for relatively easy conversion to additional vehicle lanes.”

Shrinking the footprint of the bridge back down to six lanes (while still accommodating light rail) would eliminate the possibility that the state could restripe the bridge for eight lanes. But it would also take some of the wind out of McGinn’s argument that this is the city’s only opportunity to fight light rail on the bridge—that, as he put it in a press briefing Tuesday, “We only have one chance to get this right.”

Central staff also looked at the state department of transportation (WSDOT)’s claim that it’s meeting the letter of a 2007 law requiring that the bridge “be designed to accommodate light rail in the future”—concluding, essentially, that it’s impossible to say. “The notion of ‘accommodating’ light rail in the future as currently prescribed by state statute is ambiguous and inherently subjective.  The degree to which accommodations are made through the design and construction of the SR 520 project deeply depend on certain assumptions regarding light rail for the corridor that have not yet been made by the City or the region.”

Finally, the analysis found that although the state wouldn’t have to do additional environmental studies to widen the gap between eastbound and westbound 520 lanes over Foster Island to accommodate rail, adding pontoons would require a new environmental impact statement, and cost the state between $150 and $200 million.

The city council will take public comment on consultant Nelson/Nygaard’s report on the various 520 options tonight in council chambers at 5:30.




  • Srsly

    Why does this discussion never touch on the fact that there's NO current plan for financing or building light rail across 520?
    This is a phantom light rail line. Why on earth is everyone spewing so much air talking about ready-built accomodations for something that isn't even a glimmer in Sound Transit's eye?

  • tpn

    “But it would also take some of the wind out of McGinn’s argument”

    It never takes much.

  • davidhiller

    As for narrowing the non-motorized facility, this would fly in the face of USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood's new directive that facilities “meet or exceed” the state of the practice.

    It's hard for us to believe that the Council would accept taking a minimally compliant facility and making it deficient. An effort to do that might run afoul of 23USC109(m) – which refers to the taking, severing or diminishment of an existing non-motorized route or facility.

    In short, we do not believe that this is a acceptable alternative for finding additional right of way within the structure after it has been constructed.

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

    “we”, you got a mouse in your pocket?

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

    I keep asking the McGinn cheerleaders that question.

    How about Mayor McSandbag say whoand how this is paid for, put a measure on the Fall ballot (good enough for the sea wall, good enough for lite rail).
    Is the mayor speaking for ST, or is he overreaching?
    Maybe both.

  • misha

    If you paid attention before jumping to conclusions, McGinn is asking for separated bus lanes that could easily be converted to light rail once funding is in place (likely through a ballot measure).

    Would you like Seattle to pass a light rail funding package that would be impossible to build using WSDOT's 520 bridge plan? I'd rather get the bridge right first.

  • Jason_Mitchell

    Simple: Because the issue isn't putting a functioning rail route on the bridge now, it's whether the bridge can accommodate rail without an expensive retrofit whenever we do decide to fund rail (and whether we'll have to jump the high political hurdle of reclaiming auto lanes for transit).

  • davocate

    Light rail is plain wrong for 520. It would need to stop at the UW then head either north or south to for its ridership. It would require a massive station at the UW where there is no real estate. It would also basically duplicate the Overlake to Seattle light rail.

    The solution: buses. Yes unglamorous as they are they are far more flexible and cheaper than light rail. Light rail and buses are not interchangeable they both serve specific needs.

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

    If you were paying attention you'd notice that we do not have bonding capacity for half of the things he pulls out of the air.

    If he built west side rail then he would eat up all of our bonding capacity, then he wants this too.
    So, what decade do you think we would have bonding capacity for the state's bridge?
    If you insist on building a bridge wide enough for 8 lanes of cars without bonding capacity to build lite rail this decade then what do you think will happen?

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

    Yep, just like on the West Side lite rail routes. That desire for rail will get supplanted by Rapid Ride bus service.

    It is kind of strange to see this push fixed assets that prevent future change. Rerouting a bus vs a train to support changing urban density and intracity mobility would be a more important element to me.

    Community Transit is building a giant park and ride station just north of the King County line. All the commuters are not going to ride Swift busses from that point, transfer to rail at 520, then transfer back to a bus.
    Two transfers to make rail lovers happy is just not promising idea.

  • Chris Stefan

    The issue is WSDOT wants to build a bridge that won't be able in any practical sense to be converted to rail at any point in its lifetime.

    If the decision had been made back in 1975 to build I-90 so it couldn't be retrofitted with rail later then there would be NO East Link to Bellevue and Microsoft in ST2. It took 33 years between when the decision was made to design I-90 for rail and when a funding package was in place. It will be 45 years between when the I-90 bridge was finished and when East Link is expected to open.

    Who is to say in 20, 30, or 40 we won't want a rail line across 520, especially if the PSRC growth projections hold true? Who is to say there won't be funding for such a thing in the long-term?

  • Chris Stefan

    The bridge has a 70 to 100 year lifetime. Who is to say we won't want rail in that corridor somewhere in that time frame.

    Rail across I-90 was a far off possibility in 1975 when the decision was made to build the bridge and its approaches to accommodate it.

  • hahahahaha

    yes, look around all the cities of the world with great transit and you see busses only, not any rail. rail doesn't work, this is shown by endless examples where BRT moves 1 million people a day. that's why the fight between bus and rail is so important to wage, it's really more important than the pro bus folks uniting with the pro rail folks to create unity and win against the pro roads warriors. dividing the pro transit forces is how most cities in the world like nyc and dc and sf and mexico city and rome and moscow and london have created these massive regional systems of public transit, all using BRT only, and not trains!

  • hahahahaha

    oh yes, there's no way folks from north of king county would use rail, there's no way they would ride rail on the rail line we are actually building then make a rail to rail transfer at uw to go over 520 to go to destinations such as downtown bellevue or microsoft because busses are soooo superior that's why the really good transit systems all over the world are BRT only and never have trains.

  • dadvocate

    @hahahahahahahahahahaha

    Buses and trains serve two different things. They are not interchangeable.

    Also Seattle will never have a subway system like the many major cities our topography will not allow it.

  • notafiree

    Topography isn't the problem. The endless Seattle cycle of “wait for new input and never commit” is the problem; plus a curious tunnel-o-phobia that doesn't afflict most of the rest of the world. (How the bus tunnel ever happened, i've no clue – and the non-shouting majority seems ok with it) ok now queue “the tunnel will cost 666 times of any other solutions! and will kill puppies” folks -sigh-