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.

x close
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.

Rasmussen: “I Don’t Oppose the Nickerson Road Diet.”

News   June 4, 2010 at 12:35 pm Josh Cohen

City Council transportation chair Tom Rasmussen made a brief appearance at Wednesday’s Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board meeting to discuss the Nickerson road diet and request SBAB’s formal recommendation.

Council member Rasmussen said his views on the road diet have been misrepresented over the past weeks (prompting some creative protests from the biking community.) “I don’t oppose the road diet, I just have concerns.”

Much of that concern—it’ll reduce road capacity— stems from the outpouring of opposition he says he’s received from area businesses and residents. “I know that road diets are controversial, but I’ve never seen anything like the opposition to Nickerson.”

Rasmussen pointed out that ultimately the council doesn’t need to take action on this issue in order for the Seattle Department of Transportation to do the road diet. He was clear that they could freeze the project or formally request SDOT to stop, but he expects SDOT will move forward on the project without council intervention.

SBAB chair Blake Trask says the board plans to provide the council with a favorable recommendation for the Nickerson re-channelization, particularly in light of the recent Stone Way analysis showing that a road diet on that street improved safety and did not impact car traffic.

“While we see this as primarily a pedestrian safety project, national and local studies indicate that a re-channelization can retain vehicle capacity while reducing vehicle and non-vehicle collisions on the roadway,” said Trask. “The board sees this as an important move toward making Nickerson accessible and safe for all users.”

Several proponents of the Nickerson project were in attendance as well. Michael Snyder of Seattle Likes Bikes and Charles Redell of the newly formed group Support The Nickerson Road Diet voiced their support for the re-channelization. Redell said his group has 140-150 members and continues to grow.


  • fount

    When I called his office last week to ask why he was opposed, a staffer assured me, “He's not opposed.”

    I mentioned that he had been quoted in Publicola that day talking about the various ways council could scuttle the project, to which the staffer responded, “He was just laying out options the council could do.”

    So…he's not opposed to it, but has staff dreaming up ways to stop it and is publicly promoting those? It was about the most disingenuous response I've ever gotten from a council staffer.

  • fount

    When I called his office last week to ask why he was opposed, a staffer assured me, “He's not opposed.”

    I mentioned that he had been quoted in Publicola that day talking about the various ways council could scuttle the project, to which the staffer responded, “He was just laying out options the council could do.”

    So…he's not opposed to it, but has staff dreaming up ways to stop it and is publicly promoting those? It was about the most disingenuous response I've ever gotten from a council staffer.

  • kurisu

    Huh… maybe he's just got ways to throw a wrench in other projects at front of mind.

  • kurisu

    Huh… maybe he's just got ways to throw a wrench in other projects at front of mind.

  • Gomez

    Or maybe people with an axe to grind put words in his mouth and then run with those words they put in his mouth. I consider that far more disingenuous. Whether or not the prospect of a Nickerson diet makes him nauseous doesn't not firmly indicate a stance on the diet.

  • Gomez

    Or maybe people with an axe to grind put words in his mouth and then run with those words they put in his mouth. I consider that far more disingenuous. Whether or not the prospect of a Nickerson diet makes him nauseous doesn't not firmly indicate a stance on the diet.

  • MudBaby

    Council member Rasmussen has never seen opposition to a proposed road diet like that being mounted for Nickerson because Nickerson already backs up at both ends. During rush hour cars creep slowly up the ramp in Interbay leading to the Nickerson/Emerson 15th Avenue flyover. Traffic can also be heavy west of the leading to the Fremont Bridge intersection.

    This road diet is being proposed as a smokescreen to obscure SDOT's unwillingless to build a bike trail under the south approach of the Ballard Bridge and to complete the fragmeted “trail” (or whatever the hell it is) along the south side of the Ship Canal. I commute almost daily on my bike, but I oppose this project because it is purely cosmetic.

  • MudBaby

    Council member Rasmussen has never seen opposition to a proposed road diet like that being mounted for Nickerson because Nickerson already backs up at both ends. During rush hour cars creep slowly up the ramp in Interbay leading to the Nickerson/Emerson 15th Avenue flyover. Traffic can also be heavy west of the leading to the Fremont Bridge intersection.

    This road diet is being proposed as a smokescreen to obscure SDOT's unwillingless to build a bike trail under the south approach of the Ballard Bridge and to complete the fragmeted “trail” (or whatever the hell it is) along the south side of the Ship Canal. I commute almost daily on my bike, but I oppose this project because it is purely cosmetic.

  • http://www.charlesredell.com/blog Charles

    Actually SDOT, would be happy to complete the South Canal trail. The hold up with the connection under the Ballard Bridge is actually BNSF, which owns the right of way there and keeps not doing the work.

    But, as a bike commuter myself, I disagree that this trail would be a preferable solution. First, this road diet is not just about bikes. In fact, according to SDOT, it's about pedestrians first and will actually increase safety for all users. Second, commuting on a mixed-use trail isn't always a good idea as it could increase the chance of collisions between bikes and peds there, or at least slow bikes down. Many of us would just choose to be on the road anyway if we are just trying to get from Point A to Point B.

    As for your concern about the traffic backup at either end of the road: There will be no lane re-configuration where the backups occur. This re-channelization only runs from 13th Ave W to Warren Ave. N. Further, by reducing lanes on that stretch, it will slow drivers down so they're not speeding up to a wait at a stop light. In other words, it will not increase the waiting time at these two intersections because drivers won't get there as fast as they do now.

  • http://www.charlesredell.com/blog Charles

    Actually SDOT, would be happy to complete the South Canal trail. The hold up with the connection under the Ballard Bridge is actually BNSF, which owns the right of way there and keeps not doing the work.

    But, as a bike commuter myself, I disagree that this trail would be a preferable solution. First, this road diet is not just about bikes. In fact, according to SDOT, it's about pedestrians first and will actually increase safety for all users. Second, commuting on a mixed-use trail isn't always a good idea as it could increase the chance of collisions between bikes and peds there, or at least slow bikes down. Many of us would just choose to be on the road anyway if we are just trying to get from Point A to Point B.

    As for your concern about the traffic backup at either end of the road: There will be no lane re-configuration where the backups occur. This re-channelization only runs from 13th Ave W to Warren Ave. N. Further, by reducing lanes on that stretch, it will slow drivers down so they're not speeding up to a wait at a stop light. In other words, it will not increase the waiting time at these two intersections because drivers won't get there as fast as they do now.

  • MudBaby

    Knowing that the channelization won't further squeeze the areas where backups already occur somewhat alleviates my concern about this project.

    I'd rather have more dedicated bike/ped trails and slow down to avoid peds than take my chance on bike trails that SDOT lets people park on. Cases in point are the mystery lanes along Gilman in Interbay (maybe they aren't bike lanes, but you could've fooled me because they have bike route signage on them), and the notoriously flawed design in which SDOT carelessly built SLUT on top of existing bike lanes on Westlake, one of the most heavily used bike corridors in Seattle.

    Other things that lower SDOT's ped and bike safety street cred include the fact that they've managed to post only a single speed limit sign in the four miles of the BGT between the Ballard Bridge and UW, and they've never bothered to stripe bollards and trails with reflective paint that can be seen at night, let alone posting signs requesting all trail users to stay to the right to enhance everyone's safety.

    A few years ago I had to go to the ER after breaking a bone crashing into a chain link fence stretched over the Myrtle Edwards trail at night during construction of the Olympic Sculpture Park that didn't even have a single reflective cone in front of it that would have made it quite visible to anyone with a front light on their bike.

    That same winter, for some unknown reason, Seattle Parks pounded dozens of pieces of rebar halfway into the ground at various points along the edges of the Myrtle Edwards trail . These metal bars were invisible at night, but I always managed to avoid hitting them because I'd seen them many times during the day. They stayed there for months until one day they disappeared.

    Until recently, SDOT installed curb cuts willy-nilly, often not bothering to line them up with sidewalks, which is a pain for anyone on either a bike or in a wheelchair.

    My impression of SDOT is that they have a very slopshod approach to designing anything that isn't for cars. That's why I have trouble believing that SDOT gives a rip about ped or cyclist safety on Nickerson.

  • MudBaby

    Knowing that the channelization won't further squeeze the areas where backups already occur somewhat alleviates my concern about this project.

    I'd rather have more dedicated bike/ped trails and slow down to avoid peds than take my chance on bike trails that SDOT lets people park on. Cases in point are the mystery lanes along Gilman in Interbay (maybe they aren't bike lanes, but you could've fooled me because they have bike route signage on them), and the notoriously flawed design in which SDOT carelessly built SLUT on top of existing bike lanes on Westlake, one of the most heavily used bike corridors in Seattle.

    Other things that lower SDOT's ped and bike safety street cred include the fact that they've managed to post only a single speed limit sign in the four miles of the BGT between the Ballard Bridge and UW, and they've never bothered to stripe bollards and trails with reflective paint that can be seen at night, let alone posting signs requesting all trail users to stay to the right to enhance everyone's safety.

    A few years ago I had to go to the ER after breaking a bone crashing into a chain link fence stretched over the Myrtle Edwards trail at night during construction of the Olympic Sculpture Park that didn't even have a single reflective cone in front of it that would have made it quite visible to anyone with a front light on their bike.

    That same winter, for some unknown reason, Seattle Parks pounded dozens of pieces of rebar halfway into the ground at various points along the edges of the Myrtle Edwards trail . These metal bars were invisible at night, but I always managed to avoid hitting them because I'd seen them many times during the day. They stayed there for months until one day they disappeared.

    Until recently, SDOT installed curb cuts willy-nilly, often not bothering to line them up with sidewalks, which is a pain for anyone on either a bike or in a wheelchair.

    My impression of SDOT is that they have a very slopshod approach to designing anything that isn't for cars. That's why I have trouble believing that SDOT gives a rip about ped or cyclist safety on Nickerson.

  • Ben Demboski

    Are you serious? Technically you are correct, but any politician that has even a very limited understanding of how what they say comes across and what it can imply above and beyond the narrowly-interpreted literal truth would recognize how that statement would be interpreted.

    I think he's just backpedaling.

  • Ben Demboski

    Are you serious? Technically you are correct, but any politician that has even a very limited understanding of how what they say comes across and what it can imply above and beyond the narrowly-interpreted literal truth would recognize how that statement would be interpreted.

    I think he's just backpedaling.

  • Gomez

    Of course you're going to assume he's backpedaling, especially if you've got an axe to grind with the Council over transit/bicycle plans. That's the easy and biased conclusion to draw.

    Look on the bright side, however: If he ever gets indigestion, he's now got plenty of Tums.

  • Gomez

    Of course you're going to assume he's backpedaling, especially if you've got an axe to grind with the Council over transit/bicycle plans. That's the easy and biased conclusion to draw.

    Look on the bright side, however: If he ever gets indigestion, he's now got plenty of Tums.