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.

Liveblogging the Tunnel Debate

7:05: PubliCola investor Rajeev Singh is introducing the tunnel debate (and future debates on other topics—with booze!).

7:10: Sen. Ed Murray says the state Senate “stands ready to remove” cost overrun language, prompting a smattering of applause. He also promises to put a financial review oversight body in place this year to ensure that the tunnel project stays on budget. “Unless that language goes, that assurance isn’t there.”

7:14: Mayor Mike McGinn notes that “the winning bidder has a history of cost overruns on other projects. … Of course we’re at risk.”

7:16 pm: Council member Rasmussen says, “Now he’s doing everything he can to try to slow down, hold up the project.”

McGinn responds: “We don’t know how much it’s actually going to cost. … Seattle cannot live with paying the cost overruns on this tunnel. I’ve kept my word to ask the tough questions about this tunnel, and I ask of council member Rasmussen, when will you start defending Seattle the way you defend Olympia?”

“If we say we don’t want to pay, and the state says they don’t want to pay, it leaves out the question, who will pay?”

Council member Tom Rasmussen points to the memoranda of agreement that the council still has not signed and the fact that the state has adopted a “very strict contingency fund” as evidence that there won’t be overruns.

7:25: State Sen. Ed Murray says that the $2.4 billion is more than the state has ever invested in any transportation project.

He continues: “It doesn’t help when the Democratic mayor of a democratic city in the press bashes a Democratic governor and a Democratic legislature. Mr. mayor, you keep making derogatory comments about the legislature.”

7:28: King County Labor Council executive secretary David Freiboth: Both the surface/transit and rebuilt viaduct options “weren’t viable,” according to the stakeholder process.

7:31: Freiboth again: “If the city needs more amenities, if the city needs more things done to make this happen,” that should’ve been the city’s responsibility, but overruns on the tunnel the state proposed shouldn’t be the city’s responsibility.

7:35: People’s Waterfront Coalition founder Cary Moon says the stakeholders supported the surface/transit option. Freiboth disagrees, saying the document said the document everyone signed said they would support the tunnel if there was enough money.

7:37: On the question of how people will park while the tunnel project is underway, council member Rasmussen points to EPark program, fact that the state has agreed to work with the city to resolve parking concerns.

7:39: Council member Mike O’Brien: “This plan to build this tunnel is broken. It doesn’t work. We’re going to spend $2 billion on a tunnel that carries about a third of the cars the viaduct carries today.”

7:42: Murray: “I don’t see a proposal that’s brought [everyone] together. Where’s the alternative after ten years and $90 million worth of process? … The only alternatives I’ve seen are pretty much nonstarters. The idea of pushing more traffic on I-5 through Seattle is the same Jim Horn traffic plan that we killed in 2003. … When I-5 fills up, our streets fill up. … A surface option without a tunnel doesn’t give you the leverage to work with transit. … Light rail’s a good idea, but where’s the plan? How do we pay for it?

7:46: McGinn says “It’s time to wake up and smell the recession” re: tunnel costs.

7:48: KCLC’s Dave Freiboth says the surface/transit option wasn’t seriously considered because it was “not well though out.”

7:49: In response to the question, “Where do all the cars go?”, Cary Moon says the answer is: transit, improvements to I-5 (including reducing exits from 8 to 7), improvements to north-south streets downtown, four-lane street on waterfront, and incentives like commute trip reduction and biking programs to help people “make other choices than driving.”

7:52: What question does the side never answer adequately? Tom Rasmussen says: It’s 10 years since the Nisqually Earthquake. What if we had to close the viaduct “because of your dithering in your efforts to stop the project” or if the viaduct collapses? What’s your plan?

7:55: McGinn’s response: What’s really irresponsible is keeping the viaduct open as long as we are and not building the I-5/transit option.

7:56: In response to question of how will you pay for surface/transit option, McGinn says, it will require consensus of the state legislature.

7:57: Audience question: What are you going to do with cars that use the viaduct and waterfront businesses if you close down the viaduct tomorrow morning?

7:58: McGinn’s response: Actually, you can shut the viaduct down faster and fix problem faster with surface option than deep bore tunnel.

7:59 Question for CMs: Will you listen to voters on the anti-tunnel initiatives?

O’Brien: I support the one [Sierra Club initiative] that was just filed. I have not read” the Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel initiative.

Rasmussen says he doesn’t support delaying signing of agreements with the state until the voters can decide on tunnel initiatives, and calls it “one of [McGinn's] ploys.”

8:08: Labor Council’s Dave Freiboth says his constituents want jobs, not talk about social services.

8:09: Question: Why hasn’t Sen. Murray worked harder to get transit funding in Olympia?

Murray’s response: I’ve fought for transit funding and defended against attacks on Sound Transit.

8:11: Mayor McGinn: “We’re not unified [on tunnel project] because it’s hard to unify behind a bad project.”

8:13: Final question: How do we make sure the things listed as concerns in environmental impact statement are addressed?

8:15: Cary Moon says there are huge problems raised in EIS: Unacceptable congestion for transit users; huge risks to Pioneer Square; potential for flooding in Underground; no money to fix problem. “Citizens of Seattle should demand that elected officials create a full funding plan” that deals with all potential problems.

8:17: Dave Freiboth: “If you’re just looking at replacing the structure, you build an elevated.”

8:20: Poll of audience reveals that no one had their mind changed by debate.




  • gloomy gus

    Terrific job putting this on. Your comments did a good job capturing the key moments. Thanks.

  • seandr

    Interesting. Of course, this isn’t going to change the mind of anyone who has been closely following this issue as nothing new was really said.

    As for the styles of the various players involved, McGinn makes me cringe. Single-mindedness, fear-mongering, oversimplification, exaggeration, repetition, harping about government spending – these are all straight from Fox News playbook. I don’t think he realizes this approach has limited appeal among liberals, who tend to be more thoughtful in temperament than your average Fox News conservative.

  • Brent

    Much of the surface transit plan should occur regardless of what happens with the tunnel. If we can have dedicated transit ROW on the RapidRide lines, how long are we going to have to wait for the same to happen in our busiest transit corridor: 3rd Ave downtown?

    Also, I’m a little distressed at the plan to fill in the Battery Street Tunnel, instead of having the city take it over to use it as a busway or veloway.

  • alexjon

    Laser-like focus on McGinn! LOVES IT.

    Of course, your description of McGinn could easily fit Murray who threatened Seattle over the initiatives filed claiming non-compliance would mean Olympia — which we fund to a great extent — wouldn’t work on our agenda.

    He also more or less said “we all agree on transit, but we can’t pay for it so it’s a non-starter but at least I tried”. McGinn tried to rescue Murray on the point and they got their one agreement of the night in.

  • Eddiew

    Brent: please push reuse of the BST; all the WSDOT funds are committed; it will take additional Seattle funds.

    E

  • Eddiew

    The panel got mixed up on the transit funding. the January 2009 agreement between the three executives called for one percent MVET for Metro; it would have funded some transit capital, a modest service stream including Delridge rapidride, and most importantly, filled a large part of the looming deficit. Sims knew the recession was going to hammer transit revenues. the panel only discussed the Governor’s veto of the motor vehicle fee in the 2010 session that would raise a smaller revenue stream and is already granted to transportation benefit districts. Has the Governor yet asked the Legislature to enact the MVET? In Seattle we paid a 1.4 percent MVET for the stillborn SMP.

    Did Porter overstate the parking impact? will the deep bore take out about 600 parking spots, not 6,000?

    The Porter question of Freiboth and Moon mistated the willingness of the locals to make a local contribution with cost over runs. the 2009 agreement impied Seattle would contribute more than $900m and that King County taxpayers would pay the MVET. the overrun issue is several years away if the state funds are exhausted and the deep bore and its portal interchanges are incomplete and the AWV has not been taken down. it’s the risk….

  • seandr

    “Of course, your description of McGinn could easily fit Murray”

    Not at all. Perhaps if you contrasted McGinn’s style with the other tunnel opponents – Cary Moon and Mike O’Brien – you might understand what I’m talking about.

    On the other hand, if you yourself have a Fox-News style intellectual temperament on this issue, forget it, my point would be entirely lost on you.

  • Eddiew

    McGinn and O’Brien has a very difficult task in Olympia. the Governor and Legislature do not want to change the project. of course, they do not want to spend more than $2.8 billion, $400 m from tolls that are not authorized yet.

    perhaps we need statewide iniatives: imposing a large gas tax increase for current projects and maintenance and sidewalks with mandated spending in each county proportional to revenue raised in each; and, tolling the limited access highways in King County.

  • Eddiew

    Murray has been a champion of transit.

    he over stated the I-5 part of the transit, surface, and I-5 options. the Jim Horn notion was to add several lanes. the AWV option only added one by using existing ROW more intensively.

  • PriorityMail

    You are a propagandist. Especially the oversimplification remark. That itself makes you look like a fool to me–one with an agenda. The oversimplification is thinking that a DBT megaproject is somehow going to magically solve so many issues when it will actually create more problems. The mayor is wise to point out what you wish to cover up. Call it what you want but the mayor’s position is still the majority.

  • PriorityMail

    Hey man. You make it sound like an airing of differing views is a bad thing. Really. You do. People in person were there out of strong motivation and to assert their rights and petitions. Nobody should even suggest a denigration of such activity. Its pernicious in its irresponsibility and lameness.

  • Anonymous

    The problem with Fox news isn’t their style, it’s their content.

  • Anonymous

    It seemed to me that the Ed Murray’s “Democrats should be united” theme was a bit odd to bring to this table. I understand his purpose was to cast tunnel opponents and particularly McGinn as hurting the democrats, but it remains a strange line of argument given the context. In Seattle, for better or for worse, we elect only democrats to citywide office. For Democrats to not debate and disagree with each other would be for no one in citywide public office to debate or disagree with each other.

  • Yawn

    A poll showed that no one had changed there mind. Yawn

  • Anonymous

    Patty Murray took it in the shorts during the election campaign for her efforts to secure transportation & transit funding, she was called an earmarker for her troubles.

    Now they want to know what she had done for them lately? It has only been 6 weeks since we voted.

    We are all doomed not just by politicians, but by the great unwashed electorate.

  • Miss Ruby

    Don’t forget condescending.

  • Miss Ruby

    But in Olympia, where the money comes from, being united as Democrats DOES matter.

  • seandr

    Style and content aren’t so easily separated.

    The ideologue, whether on the left or right, tries to impose his simplistic, black-and-white thinking style on a world that is complicated and contains many shades of gray. That style inevitably produces content that is at best fantasy and at worst demagoguery.

    Conversely, the kind of idiotic content that comes from Fox News (or from some Women’s Studies departments, for that matter) depends on the ideologue’s thinking style to gain any traction.

  • tiodan

    it was a shame to see Dave Freiboth so emphatically lie about the plain language of the stakeholder committee’s recommendation letter, saying that I-5/surface/transit “wasn’t thought out” and wasn’t supported. here’s a quote from the letter, which i wish someone would’ve had on hand last night:

    “After considerable analysis, input and consultation with our constituencies we recommend & conclude the following:
    • Move forward with an Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Plan that includes improvements to I-5, transit, surface streets and potential for construction of a deep bore tunnel.”

    potential for a tunnel, but implementation of I-5/surface/transit.

    also, great job Essex Porter.

  • seandr

    I don’t think “propagandist” means what you think it does. Furthermore, you are attributing ideas to me about the tunnel that I’ve never expressed or held.

    The viaduct is a horribly complicated issue, and all of the proposed solutions are problematic. I’m holding my nose and getting behind the tunnel because a) I think opening up the downtown waterfront is worth the investment, and b) I’m generally inclined to support large government engineering projects, especially during an economic downturn. There’s a school of thought that says reigning in government spending during a recession only makes things worse – see, for example, Herbert Hoover and The Great Depression.

    There’s no magical thinking here, and I respect that not everyone cares about the waterfront. I’m pretty convinced that the “stop government spending” crowd is dangerously wrong, however.

  • gloomy gus

    I appreciate your barking, but wrong tree here, I think. I’ve had and expressed nothing but appreciation for this forum ever since Publicola announced it. Last night went really well.

  • Codswallower

    I went as a tunnel opponent and left with more of an open mind about the tunnel. So while I didn’t change my mind exactly, I moved a bit. I found Ed Murray particularly persuasive.

  • seandr

    “the mayor’s position is still the majority”

    FALSE. There are no polls showing a majority or even a plurality of voter support for the surface option. The tunnel, on the other hand, has consistently won a plurality of support.

  • Anonymous

    Seems clear enough that tunnel opponents won the debate. Opponents raised virtually all the pertinent questions regarding how the DBT would fail. Proponents failed to address the questions and only offered weak defense of their planning efforts, another issue in question. There is not an argument in favor that doesn’t have a more compelling argument against.

    McGinn comment:

    “We’re not united because it’s hard to unify behind a bad project.”

    “You can shut the viaduct down faster and fix problems faster with surface option than deep bore tunnel.”

    “What’s really irresponsible is keeping the viaduct open (as long as we are) and not building the I-5/transit option.”

    “We don’t know how much it’s actually going to cost. … Seattle cannot live with paying the cost overruns on this tunnel. I’ve kept my word to ask the tough questions about this tunnel. If we say we don’t want to pay, and the state says they don’t want to pay, it leaves out the question, who will pay?”

    Dave Freiboth said, “Constituents want jobs, not talk about social services,” which flies in the face of the fact that there are “more jobs” sooner and overall with the surface/transit option than with the DBT.

  • Johns

    Yeah, that was pretty disingenuous IMO – especially the ‘my constituents won’t stand for it’ and ‘traffic backs up on our streets’ language. I don’t think any of Ed’s constituents outside Montlake are concerned about freeway traffic backing up onto local thoroughfares.

  • Johns

    Lindblom quotes Ed Murray:

    “Asked later how tunnel dissension harms progressive social issues, Murray couldn’t cite a specific area except transit, where he said discord among Seattleites would ruin any chance that lawmakers statewide heed city requests for more funding sources.”

    That whole ‘fractured coalition’ meme was garbage, and I didn’t think he had anything with which to back it. More importantly, there’s pretty much zero chance of the State giving us squat for transit until Mary-Margaret gets her next crack at “roads & transit”.

  • Anonymous

    no doubt, but placing the onus on the tunnel opponents within the city to fall in line was a bold yet transparently silly idea. People who oppose the tunnel feel just as strongly about their position as people who support it; rhetorical bullying such as this only pushed the two sides farther apart. I got he sense that like many at the table Ed was venting. Even the normally level-headed Mike O’Brien lost his cool at a few points. Only Carrie Moon seemed to keep a level head. I really wish she would run for city council in 2011.

  • Anonymous

    What has McGinn said that is “fantasy” or “demagoguery”?