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.

The Poll Found Widespread Support

1. The Clint Didier campaign was annoyed when they got word at the last minute yesterday morning that their joint endorsement board interview with Dino Rossi at the Seattle Times was postponed.

Rossi was in D.C. at a fundraiser sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

2. Senate Democrats in D.C. did not have the 60 votes to move ahead on the DISCLOSE Act yesterday—a bill that would force the financial backers of independent expenditure groups to identify themselves in their TV ads. (The measure was a response to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited dollars directly from their treasuries on independent expenditure ads.)

Sen. Murray was hit by an IE earlier this month in which the only thing that was disclosed was the innocuous-sounding name of the IE group, American Action Network, rather than the funders. She co-sponsored the bill and spoke on the floor to support it.

Murray said:

“The Citizens United ruling has given special interest groups a megaphone they can use to drown out the voices of citizens in my home state of Washington and across the country.  And the DISCLOSE Act would tear that megaphone away and place it back in the hands of the American people, where it belongs.

“When candidates put campaign commercials up on television, we put our faces on the ad and tell every voter that we approve the message.  We don’t try to hide what we are doing.  But right now, corporations and special interest groups don’t have to do that. They can put up deceptive and untruthful ads with no accountability—and no ability for the public to know who is trying to influence them.”

The nonpartisan OpenSecrets.org has the best report we’ve seen on the big vote.

Republicans had complained that unions weren’t subject to the rule, but Sen. Murray’s office disputed that:

“If a union runs a campaign ad, the president of the union has to appear on camera just like if a corporation runs the ad, the CEO does.”

3. The Party of the Future (!?!), a project of the local green urbanist group Friends of Seattle, released polling data today that found  strong support for “road diets,” (pro-ped and -bike fixes to the traffic grid that our very own BikeNerd has been writing about lately).

“There has been isolated opposition recently to efforts to create ‘road diets’ in Seattle,” FOS spokesman Roger Valdez said. “But the poll found that there is widespread support for these measures among voters.”

From the poll:

City projects that improve transit efficiency, or make it safer and easier to walk or bicycle, like bus-lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and bicycle lanes, sometimes require changes in travel lanes or parking on Seattle streets. In general, do you support changes in the configuration of Seattle’s streets that make mass transit, walking and bicycling safer and easier?

Support: 62.1%
Oppose: 24.5%
Not Sure: 13.4%

411 likely Seattle voters were polled and the results have 4.9 percent margin of error, FOS says.

4. Clarification/correction on a Fizz item from earlier this week. Reporting on the city’s Transit Master Plan, Fizz reported:

The mayor and the council had disagreed over the scope of the plan. The mayor’s office wanted the $600,000 to study light rail from Ballard to West Seattle and the council threatened to withhold the money unless SDOT did a broader citywide study looking at buses, bus rapid transit, street grid fixes, and light rail too.

In order to free up the money, the mayor has agreed to broaden the scope and the cautious council has reportedly agreed to an initial $300,000.

The implication of our report was that the mayor wasn’t interested in studying anything beyond light rail. That’s incorrect. He is.

The council’s victory was this—the mayor’s proposal specifically called out looking at Ballard to West Seattle light rail, and the council has dialed that down so that before they pre-determine that Ballard to West Seattle should be studied as a light rail option, they’ll be looking at all corridors with all modes in mind. (Phasing the money is the council’s check on the mayor to make sure he follows the same game plan.)

5. PubliCola will begin publishing its endorsements for the August 17 primary today. Stay tuned!




  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    @1 the Seattle Times is endorsing BOTH Didier and Rossi? Is that what your wording implies? If so, the Seattle Times is officially Done.

    @3 Why didn't you like the tabs? Are they available?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    @1 the Seattle Times is endorsing BOTH Didier and Rossi? Is that what your wording implies? If so, the Seattle Times is officially Done.

    @3 Why didn't you like the tabs? Are they available?

  • Jonah
  • just sayin

    I love road diets, but the poll question should have read “sometimes require losing lanes or parking”. Then you would have gotten a result that actually meant something.

  • morning

    Adding police officers and fireman will help save many lives in your neighborhood. In general do you support adding first responders that may save your life, immediate family member's lives or dearly loved neighbors?

    If the bicycle lanes proposed means potholes won't be fixed, police budgets will be reduced, safe houses for battered women will be closed, traffic will be severely more congested resulting in higher pollution levels and you will be exposed to significantly higher levels of aging bodies in spandex; would you support those bicycle lanes?

  • Punk Ass Bitch

    It is hard to read that poll as strong support for biking and pedestrian improvements. 25% of the people don't want to make walking and biking easier and safer. Judging from the driver's around here that seems about right.

  • ivan

    We know what FOS stands for. Did you expect them to spin a poll they paid for any other way?

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    That's far more true of the billionaires' tunnel than road diets, which consist of paint on roads.

    And you made up the “severely more congested” bit.

  • Stacy

    Wrong. Most transportation investments are funded through revenue mechanisms that can only be spent on transportation projects; and these investments are shown to increase tax revenues and improve the local economy – thus helping the City's budget situation and providing more money for all those things you suggest would get cut.

  • Ziggity

    Wrong. Road diets, such as the one done on Stone Way, have shown to decrease collisions and traffic-related injuries.

  • morning

    Interesting. We here over and over that bicyclists pay their full share of city streets because the revenue source isn't from dedicated gas tax.

    The truth is that car revenue pay directly for a portion of city streets (gas tax from the state), indirectly through the general fund (traffic and parking tickets, parking taxes, parking meter fees and auto related sales taxes) and since auto drivers are the vast majority they pay the vast majority of general taxes.

    That said, more than $40M of SDOT's budget comes from the general fund. the general fund can be spent on anything.

    Please give some link that shows that bike lanes that reduce the number of GP lanes increases tax revenues.

  • morning

    'hear'

  • Stacy
  • John Wyble

    Ivan: We worked with Friends of Seattle on the poll. I'm not sure what the “spin” is. You can see the question. We polled likely Seattle voters. You can see the answer.

    I don't think there's a justification for calling our work into question.

  • big duh

    no, the study that was linked to earlier showed only that road diets do that as long as vehicle is less than about 20 or 22K a day.

    Obviously AT SOME POINT a route might need two lanes, big duh.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Where are the tabs?

  • U. Feemizm

    The poll isn't reliable because the question is about “changes” to “travel lanes” and didn't mention “elimination or removal of lanes used by cars or automobiles.” A “change” to a “travel” lane could be a change to a bike lane; or a removal of tree branches, so that car drivers see better; or changing a travel lane to a center left turn lane. It doesn't ONLY mean “removing a car lane to make it a bike lane in a road diet plan” but that's how the poll is being spun. This is very similar to finding 80% support for “more cops with changes to state resources planning” then claiming that “people support raising their own taxes to have more cops.”

    Oldest trick in the book:

    do you want something for nothing?

  • morning

    Stacy linking to a promo site for new urbanism isn't exactly what I was hoping for. The article they link to is written by another new urbanist with little to no hard numbers to prove the case.

    The main argument the guy makes is that housing closer to city centers have not gone down as much as exurbs. He is mostly talking about rail and not bike lanes.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    No, and they should not expect the public, or self-respecting journalist, to take them seriously.

    What really sucks is that I am forced to agree with Joel Connely.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    This was McGinn's complaint about the poll last year on the tunnel.

    It is only a problem when it works against you.

  • herrnichte

    How did you construct your random sample? How did you contact your sample? Did it depend upon landline telephones?

    It is quite obvious to many of us in the statistical sciences that political polling has never been conducted in a worse, more biased, fashion since “Dewey Wins!” than it is commonly done these days. Media folks really should learn not to trust any pollster without significant justification for doing so.

  • Jakers

    I think that it is pretty clear that it is a joint interview, not joint endorsement.

  • David B.

    Joe – you can find a link to the cross-tabs near the top of this post on FOS website: http://www.friendsofseattle.org/2010-poll-resou…

  • Jakers

    I think that it is pretty clear that it is a joint interview, not a joint endorsement.

  • Jakers

    And added in costs to the question. People love everything until they have to make trade-offs.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Wonder when their interview with Patty will be.

  • Nemo

    An unbiased poll would have separated all the portions and asked people what they supported them individually. I am normally very friendly to many of the concepts, when they are presented and reported honestly and not dishonestly manipulated for maximum effect. This seems like a thinly veiled, really lame attempt to deliberately confuse “transit efficiency” with pedestrian safety and bike lanes. I notice they avoided the term “mass transit efficiency.” Did the CBC really commission this? the “Green Urbanist Group” sounds like it really is FOS on this.

    I never thought “pedistrian islands” were any better than the traffic circles in the way they are being promoted. Pedistrian islands make sense at bus stops, but not just because, like traffic circles, you can, in order to make yourselves feel more secure.

  • F. U. Feemizm

    no sir. I complained about it last year in the poll you refer to AND I am complaining about it now, and I complain hereby in general about ANY poll asking if you want something, without expressing the price, downside, or cost of what has to be given up for that something.

    Got it?

  • Jakers

    While I don't totally agree with that statement, if totally true, it does support the argument that spending on road diets would reduce the need to spend money on emergency responders, but it also might reduce revenue from traffic tickets (probably to a much lesser extend though).

  • Jakers

    Funny, that's exactly how I feel about almost everything in life: “It is only a problem when it works against you.”

  • Jakers

    By “traffic circles” do you mean those little round things that are put in the center of a normal intersection or do you mean a designed roundabout? Roundabouts are much safer (for cars), efficient (for cars) and environmentally friendly (fewer cars idling and less impervious surface).

  • Jakers

    hmmm…more landlines would have seemed to work against them in this case because older, likely voters appear to be less in favor than the younger voters.

  • Jakers

    People will only stand so much when it comes to taxes overall. This might be partly economic and it might be partly political ideology. So at some point trade-offs must be made. Are we at that point yet, I don't know, but we just can't keep raising taxes to pay for every good cause forever.

  • herrnichte

    “work[ed] against them”…? you're not implying that they have an agenda that would be allowed to affect their results, are you? ;) …in anycase, that would be my conjecture as well; but we really haven't been given any reason to suspect that these are unbiased results.

    I've got a poll right here that says Media bases far too many of its stories on dubious polling.

  • morning

    didn't you mean where are the Tabbies?

  • just sayin

    you don't show the tradeoffs in the question, so your question is in question

  • morning

    The 18-34 demo seems low at 8.7% and the females seem high at 55% – I think well crafted robo calls work just fine, but, John, this one is poorly crafted if real information was to come from it.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I thought Tablets.

  • ivan

    Well, John, sorry if you took it that way. I trust you and your integrity a damn sight more than I trust FOS. The comments downthread pretty much ask some valid questions about methodology; I doubt that FOS could afford, or would pay, to get that level of “granularity.”

  • Nemo

    They are called traffic circles to differentiate them from Roundabouts.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    My mistake, by “you” I meant McGinn.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I can empathize.

  • morning

    dear god don't use an expression used by “will in seattle” – you don't know what you have done.

    I made up the bit about battered women's shelters – federal reports show that road diets cause significant congestion when the roadway has 20,000 per day or more. Seattle leads the nation in road diets and has the the most congestion on city streets – not proof but…

  • Friends of Seattle

    To give the public a better understanding of the poll, Friends of Seattle has updated its site:

    http://www.friendsofseattle.org/polls
    http://www.friendsofseattle.org/2010-poll-resou…

    We are now indicating more clearly that Win Power Strategies, the highly regarded polling and political consulting firm, conducted the poll (this fact was noted already in the PDFs). We are also releasing the weighting and demographic data for the statistics buffs who wold like to review it. Enjoy!

  • Ziggity

    “as long as vehicle [volume] is less than about 20 or 22K a day.”

    You mean . . . like Stone Way? Like I said? I mean obviously AT SOME POINT, you'd need to read what I wrote, big duh.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    We've had this debate before. The “federal report” you're talking about didn't do the study that arrived at the 20k number, but did reference it – and that study discussed road diets having no problems well over 20k (IIRC only one road diet near 20k had congestion issues).

    “not proof but… ” bad logic. Seattle also has both the most rain of any major city and the highest education level* THEREFORE RAIN MAKES PEOPLE SMART!!!

    * ok, I made up both statistics, but you get my point. Plus we've already discussed the flaws of your TomTom study.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I'm more of a calico man myself.

  • auto duh fe

    My bad.
    I mis read your comment to say “road diets have no impact on congestion” and you merely said they reduce accidents. My bad.

    My general point remains true, and it's this:

    road diets can work well on some roads, but not all, and obviously at some point there is am impact on traffic, so it's kind of sloppy thinking or exagerrating when some people say “the study of stone way proves road diets work” because in some cases they wouldn't. For example, if you changed I 5 to one lane each way. Or 99. Or 15th. Or maybe….Admiral or Nickerson…..

    the context is road diets in general. the poll question didn't say “changes in travel lanes but we're only talking about lower volume arterials….”

  • mini mini gotcha

    mcginn has not spoek out about this poll, though. gotcha.

  • morning

    Actually it's not my TomTom study and no you've never made a case that there is anything wrong with it that held water. I'm sure TomTom has a conspiracy with GM and BP to make Seattle look bad.

    The federal report references the fact that at 20K the congestion becomes severe enough that people will find other routes –

    I'd say the relationship between road diets and congestion is a little more direct than rain and brains – though the former doesn't have the rhyme thing.

  • Ziggity

    Well said. I agree that road diets aren't appropriate just any old place, and they should certainly get community endorsement (a recent one in Portland was done with little to no public outreach, and the city's now paying the price).

    I am always careful to avoid saying that a handful of cases “proves” anything, but people tend to simplify their views anyway.

    My original point was, if we could find a way to use road space more efficiently – we can spend less money on traffic enforcement, accident removal, etc. The poll is poorly worded in a lot of ways.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Did I forget to shoot down the TomTom study? No problem: It's a proprietary, unpublished “study” that doesn't pass the sniff test. I'd love for you to produce that “study” and not just the unsubstantiated results. Spend time in any city larger than Seattle, and you'll see why it doesn't pass the sniff test. I come here from San Francisco, and was amazed at how freely the traffic moves on city streets even at rush hour.

    Go ahead. Post your reference to the 20k figure. Then I'll point out their reference (again) and show that the conclusion you are drawing is not the concusion of the authors.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6SAQ6R2ZBGQQNNBXVJZG66K6KY Mickymse

    Surprised no one has commented re #4… “Before they predetermine”???

    As if the Mayor came up with the idea of running light rail out to Ballard or West Seattle all on his own?

    As if Seattle voters have not already repeatedly supported rapid transit in those two corridors?

    As if both Conlin and Rasmussen have not promised in the past to study light rail expansion to Ballard and West Seattle?

    As if the city doesn't already have more than one study in its hands that highlights the high-demand transit corridors in the city showing data on preferred modes to increase transit in each corridor?

    What more do they want? Or is the City Council just looking to screw over Seattle citizens in their pissing match with the Mayor?

  • Herr Real Politik

    Herr nichte:

    Most of zee urganizations payink for zee pohlz have ein agenda….dis is vy dey are payinc for zee pohlz….

    please to handwritingmake a notizen of eet, okay?

  • Jakers

    And by “you” I mean “me”

  • Forevergreen

    You are either an idiot or deliberately obtuse.

    Study after study has conclusively demonstrated that driving is a heavily subsidized activity, yet you insist on regurgitating the same infantile nonsense.

    Whack-a-doodle liberals at the FHWA under the Bush administration showed that the unrecovered costs of driving were at least $0.15 a mile. That's the bottom of the spectrum. The numbers go up significantly from there.

  • Donolectic

    100 times this.