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.

McGinn: Council Should Wait to Hear From Voters On Tunnel

City Hall, Politics   December 13, 2010 at 3:43 pm Erica C. Barnett

At a tunnel-centric press availability this afternoon, Mayor Mike McGinn said that although he hadn’t signed either of two anti-tunnel initiatives, he would “encourage” people to sign a Sierra Club/Real Change-sponsored initiative that would bar the city from signing any agreements with the state to allow state projects in the city (i.e., the tunnel) to move forward without assurance from the state that the city is not responsible for any cost overruns.

“I don’t have a policy against signing initiatives [and] I think it’s completely appropriate for the city not to sign agreements with the state” without assurances on cost overruns, McGinn said.

He said he didn’t know if he could support an earlier initiative filed by Seattle Citizens against the tunnel not because it’s backed by activists who want to rebuild the viaduct but because he hasn’t read it yet.

“I think it’s great that there are initiatives out there and I’m not allowed to sign one 20,000 times, so I would encourage others to sign them,” McGinn said.

As we’ve noted previously, the Sierra Club initiative would have little weight against the tunnel if the council has already signed the three agreements it must sign for the project to move forward, which they plan to do in February or March, well before the initiative could make it on the ballot. Asked whether the council should wait to hear what voters think of the initiative, McGinn said, “Yes. The council should wait. … We’ve learned a lot of new information with the draft [environmental impact statement. … I remain hopeful that the city council will join me in asking those hard questions.”

McGinn’s latest sound bite is that the proposed tunnel would cost more than $2 billion and carry fewer cars (between 40,000 and 45,000) than the Ballard Bridge (which carries around 60,000 cars a day). I asked him whether, given that light rail cost more than $2 billion and carries fewer than 30,000 riders a day, he believes light rail was a waste of money. His response: No, because light rail will eventually carry more riders than it does today. “As the system expands, we expect that network to expand … and there will be much higher ridership numbers.”




  • gloomy gus

    I look forward to hearing him develop these ideas for tomorrow’s tunnel press conference, and then some refinements for Wednesday’s. Thursday he may abstain from pressers since the Publicola event is that evening, but he’s sure to have an even better sense of what he wants in time for his Friday public review of this week’s tunnel press conference.

  • Jakers

    Erica – nice question in the last paragraph. But it would have been nice to have had a follow-up in regards to the cost of higher capacity “as the system expands.” Sure, the tunnel could carry more too in the future if we build another DBT along side it.

  • Johns

    That’s a fair question. Estimates are for 100K trips per day by the time you add the Cap Hill & UW stations. I don’t have the exact number handy, but I’m pretty sure those are still better returns than for the DBT.

  • Sandman

    Geesch. Another 3 years of this? I like the question to the Mayor on KUOW this morning: “When will you let go of tired issues that have already been decided? We need visionary leadership for today.”

  • Jakers

    You are probably right. As the system expands, both the efficiencies and return increas. And I’m all for light rail for the most part (I’m even with McGinn but not so extreme on his 520/light rail position). Vehicles per day to riders per day is not a totally fair comparison. A vehicle can have more than just one passenger and more than just what one can carry in his own hands; but on the other hand, a vehicle takes up more space and is less efficient in it’s energy use to transport the person and goods that distance.

  • mickey

    He’ll never get tired of it. He is obsessed, and it’s all he’s got. It is totally inappropriate for the mayor–who lied his way to election–to be “encouraging” anyone to sign this petition. The ONLY petition I plan on signing is the one that demands a recall campaign for this lying fraud.

  • fount

    wait, building a $4 billion freeway during a time of massive budget deficits and climate change is visionary leadership?

    And you know what else had once “already been decided”? The RH Thompson Expressway. You know who stopped that? Crazy activists and voters, once given the chance. But go ahead, raise your hand if you wish we didn’t have the Central District or the Arboretum anymore.

  • seandr

    Kudos to Erica for asking a real question of the mayor, and to McGinn’s credit, he gave a good answer. There should be way more of this kind of dialogue between pols and press.

    Note that the numbers given above are ridership, not capacity. Both the tunnel and light rail could carry far more trips if/when demand increases.

  • Selma

    That argument would make more sense if this was a new freeway being proposed. The tunnel is a replacement.

    No one is proposing new highways.

  • tpn

    “wait, building a $4 billion freeway during a time of massive budget deficits and climate change is visionary leadership?”

    In short, the right wing austerity argument.

  • tpn

    “wait, building a $4 billion freeway during a time of massive budget deficits and climate change is visionary leadership?”

    In short, the right wing austerity argument.

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

    I guess having more buses go through the tunnel is never, ever, ever going to happen, no sir, just SOV.

    What will Eli Sanders tell him to say next?

  • Anonymous

    When the truth finally dawns upon your pointy little head, you’ll think differently about Mayor McGinn’s opposition to the poorly engineered and insanely risky deep bore tunnel fiasco.

  • Anonymous

    The Mercer West project is basicly a highway through residential Queen Anne. The traffic on Alaskan Way will triple from 12,000 to 35,000 – way beyond what’s considered amenable to pedestrians.

    YOU are supporting the conversion of neighborhood streets and commercial boulevards into new highways, Selma Jean Louise.

  • Jonathan

    The comparison between the tunnel and light rail seems silly. The tunnel requires you to bring your own vehicle and pay for its capital costs and operating costs, AND pay the toll. With light rail you just walk up and pay the fare so it seems like the money to build light rail went farther.

  • Mister Pink

    I thought it was an ethics violation for elected officials to try and persuade the public to sign or vote certain ways on initiatives. It is called electioneering. The office of ethics and elections should look into this.

  • Stealthcupcake

    he hates the tunnel
    got sand in his ‘gina
    can’t bike underground

  • Stealthcupcake

    oops, typed it out wrong:

    he hates the tunnel
    He’s got sand in his ‘gina
    can’t bike underground

  • Seerbadeer

    I can’t wait until all the idiot kids who put this guy into office get distracted on their iPhones long enough to vote this buffoon out of office so the adults can run this city again.

  • Barleywine

    “so the adults can run this city again.”

    Nice thought, but just where are we going to import them from?
    And BTW, all the cool kids have Win 7 phones.

  • Ipeefreely

    What Seerbadeer said. Plus, our last lardass mayor got thrown out because it snowed, when is this one going to resign. It’s already snowed once this year, do we have to wait for it to happen again? He must resign.

  • Cocktails42

    So McGinn hasn’t even read the SCAT-sponsored initiative to stop the tunnel project? As a supporter of his and strong opponent of the tunnel project, I’m quite disappointed that he’d fail to take any interest (apparently) in a citizens’ drive to challenge the DBT. For those out there who likewise oppose this boondoggle project, you’ve got to realize that there will be no stopping it so long as ALL OPPONENTS–both car-lovers and car-haters–don’t come together and fight the same fight, as we did when we elected McGinn as mayor. (I know, you might say, SCAT honcho Elizabeth Campbell ran her own lackluster campaign for mayor during the primary; but she supported McGinn in the general election, as did all of the SCAT folks and their supporters, like myself.) I-101–the SCAT-sponsored initiative–was filed early enough to make a difference. It’s got at least 16000 signatures right now and has till February to be completed. If you want to read and perhaps download a copy of the petition for you and your friends to sign, please use the following link: http://www.scatnow.com

  • MVH

    It’s not electioneering until the initiative qualifies for the ballot. And, even then, the mayor can have an opinion, he just can’t use public funds or facilities to promote it.

  • eric

    Mayor McGinn and his supporters sound an awful lot like the cranky just say no to everything GOP. What horrible dying metropolis would ever consider boring a highway tunnel under the city to relieve traffic congestion on the surface streets? How about Paris, where they are finishing construction on a 10Km highway tunnel under the city. But hey, no one goes to Paris, that city blows. Seattle on the other hand has the superior vision and foresight to just say no.

  • Johns

    Actually, plenty of people are proposing new highways (Cross-Base among others). But this one is not “new” in that sense.

  • Johns

    What transit trips could you envision running through the tunnel? It doesn’t serve West Seattle downtown trips, wouldn’t serve Ballard downtown trips…I guess you could have a West Seattle Ballard express, but beyond that…

  • Johns

    Right, b/c the capital of France (and a city with an incredibly functional, growing mass transit network) is an apt comparison for Seattle.

  • Iheartfelines

    What about his 2011 light rail vote? Or is that under the carpet now?

  • Bill B in the Central District

    “As the system expands, we expect that network to expand … and there will be much higher ridership numbers.”

    ECB follow-up question: and how much more will those extensions cost?

  • Richard Borkowski

    Comparing the costs of a transit line to a highway tunnel is so ridiculous. They’re 2 different modes of transportation. Plus to ride on transit, be it light rail or buses, you don’t have to buy a car and then build an entire infrastructure to repair, refuel and park. Also, no traffic cops are needed to direct people. No cops are needed to issue speeding tickets to pedestrians. No hospitals are needed to take care of people hit by other pedestrians on light rail. No doctor’s offices are needed to take care of people choking of fumes, etc, etc.

    These are all costs saved. So reporters asking questions like this just show their lack of understanding of transportation impacts on a community at large.

  • Stealthcupcake

    Wow, rail sounds like the savior of the human race the way you describe it. Does it cure cancer, also? I am sure rail has NO costs associated with it, right?

    C’mon, of course rail is better in some ways, but can the train take you to your driveway? Can it rush you to the hospital in an emergency? Obviously not, so it has some downsides as well. All the anti-tunnellers also seem to overlook the fact that the single biggest influence on our local economy is the port just south of downtown. All the Chinese goods that come in on trucks and head north use the viaduct. A passenger train isn’t going to help there. Common sense needs to take the driver’s seat in this debate. People get WAY too emotionally invested and become blind to logic. Stop dismissing really important points like:

    1. The tunnel plan will let traffic flow during construction
    2. The tunnel plan DOES include a surface component (not as robust as the surface+transit option, but it is NOT devoid of new surface streets)
    3. the $4b pricetag is not how much the tunnel will cost. The tunnel estimate itself is ~$2b (the existing light rail project cost ~$2.9b)
    4. The state is putting in $2.4b for the tunnel plan ONLY, if we choose something else, we get nothing. It is VERY likely any other plan will cost us more in the long run regardless of any possible cost overruns with the tunnel plan.

  • Nemo

    “4. The state is putting in $2.4b for the tunnel plan ONLY, if we choose something else, we get nothing.”

    That is not true. The state offered the money for whatever option the city decided was appropriate. The only thing that was required by the State is that the AWV come down.

  • Stealthcupcake

    The current law funding the tunnel specifically says the funds can only be used to make the tunnel and tear down the viaduct. Gas tax money can only be used for highways, not for any other part of the project, OR buses/mass transit.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.01.402

    RCW 47.01.402

    (2) The state route number 99 Alaskan Way viaduct replacement project finance plan must include state funding not to exceed two billion four hundred million dollars and must also include no more than four hundred million dollars in toll revenue. These funds must be used solely to build a replacement tunnel, as described in subsection (1) of this section, and to remove the existing state route number 99 Alaskan Way viaduct. All costs associated with city utility relocations for state work as described in this section must be borne by the city of Seattle and provided in a manner that meets project construction schedule requirements as determined by the department. State funding is not authorized for any utility relocation costs, or for central seawall or waterfront promenade improvements.

  • Stealthcupcake

    The current law funding the tunnel specifically says the funds can only be used to make the tunnel and tear down the viaduct. Gas tax money can only be used for highways, not for any other part of the project, OR buses/mass transit.

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.01.402

    RCW 47.01.402

    (2) The state route number 99 Alaskan Way viaduct replacement project finance plan must include state funding not to exceed two billion four hundred million dollars and must also include no more than four hundred million dollars in toll revenue. These funds must be used solely to build a replacement tunnel, as described in subsection (1) of this section, and to remove the existing state route number 99 Alaskan Way viaduct. All costs associated with city utility relocations for state work as described in this section must be borne by the city of Seattle and provided in a manner that meets project construction schedule requirements as determined by the department. State funding is not authorized for any utility relocation costs, or for central seawall or waterfront promenade improvements.

  • Stealthcupcake

    So, you are correct. Me saying we get nothing was an exaggeration.