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: 520 Planning Still Doesn’t Do Enough for Light Rail

City Hall, Politics, This Washington   December 23, 2010 at 2:00 pm Erica C. Barnett

Last week, Mayor Mike McGinn responded to recommendations by a working group on 520 about high-capacity transit planning and funding across the bridge. The state Department of Transportation just sent a report outlining the recommendations to the governor’s office yesterday.

As we reported in Fizz earlier this month, the group’s report noted that that, with transit agencies’ revenues declining, “new sustainable revenue sources are needed to support the high capacity transit capital and service improvements in the corridor.” The report also recommended studying the “demand for and feasibility of light rail and other high capacity transit technologies along the SR 520 corridor.” However, it also cautioned that rail on I-90 could remove some of the demand for transit across 520.

In his letter, McGinn said he was concerned that the 520 recommendations won’t ensure that the bridge is ready for light rail from the beginning (something state officials dispute), and that they don’t identify sufficient funding for transit. He suggested using some of the revenues from 520 tolls for transit, and not just for the road itself. State law currently prohibits tolls on 520 from being used for anything but roadway construction and maintenance.

“While progress has been made in the design to accommodate light rail, it has been established that the design must be studied further if we are to avoid a more costly and difficult conversion to light rail later on,” McGinn wrote. Additionally, “this report is not as helpful in identifying and addressing priorities, next steps, or a clearer picture of the best way to move forward and at least begin to bridge the gap in funding.”




  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    The region doesn’t need 520 at all.

    I-90 and the new I-405 can handle all the capacity.

    Getting rid of 520 would enhance traffic around Lake Washington.

  • Mocha

    What’s the new I-405?

  • cubbyobasterd

    This is a silly debate: SR 520 was never designed for rail, and the current footprint on the Seattle side of SR 520 is so narrow, I for one wonder how you plan how to fit that pice of the puzzle into the “new” SR 520…

  • gloomy gus

    How unexpected.

  • Anonymous

    Sound Transit & Wash DOT have already agreed to put light rail on I-90 in the center lanes nearly a year ago:

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/191885.asp

    The federal government is on board with this plan. The federal government is largely paying for the build out of light rail, the right-of-way has been purchased already around I-90 for light rail, and they are finalizing the route.

    McGinn is trying to dictate to the Eastside communities and businesses, which is going to fare worse than it does in Seattle.

  • MVH

    Weren’t McGinn’s supporters counting his intervention in the SR 520 planning as one of his few first-year “wins?”

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

    Yes, he should go to Olympia and fight this state road, at least he can shed the label of being a one issue “anti-tunnel mayor”.

  • Anonymous

    He’s not opposed to Link on I-90; he’s saying it should be both.

  • Jakers

    My understanding is that ST money has to be spent in the area it is collected unless there is an emergency. How will McGinn guarantee that there is no cost overruns on light rail on 520 that might create such emergency, thus shifting money to other areas and making those to the north and south pay in the way less ST projects?

  • Selma

    Light rail’s already going across Lake Washington on I-90.

    Why doesn’t he focus his energy — or say anything at all — about light rail from West Seattle to Ballard?

  • ivan

    Because he can’t deliver it — or much of anything else.

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

    And the answer he got was, study and show that it is feasible.

  • Mr. X

    Like hell it doesn’t.

    This is possibly the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted – which is saying a lot (that is, unless you meant “create intolerable gridlock” when you wrote “enhance.”)

  • Dick Burkhart

    McGinn is thinking far ahead of most people. In the future we’ll need light rail on I-90, on 520, and from West Seattle to Ballard. In fact, my vision includes a complete circuit around Lake Washington, in addition to the north, south, and east extensions.

    $10 a gallon by 2020 and the disappearance of many middle class jobs, all due peak oil (followed by lots of other peaks and declines), will radically change transportation around here. It ain’t goin to be pretty.

  • Anonymous

    520 is one of the lowest priority corridors for light rail. Heading over the top of lake should be done first. 520 can easily be handled by BRT. BRT usually is not nearly as good, but since you have a station at UW, and there will be one at Overlake with not much in between, it would work just as well.

  • Mr. X

    That multi-billion rail system would indeed be lovely, but by 2020 University Link will have been running for just 4 years (after being completed 10 years behind schedule) and many if not most cars will be running on renewable fuels.

    Like it or not, a majority of people will still be driving.

  • Eddiew

    the compaitibility of SR-520 with LRT is less of an issue than several others in the same area:
    1. the project is short $2 billion for its capital cost;
    2. the Legislature is slow to toll I-90 despite that two state treasurers have said that selling the bonds on SR-520 tolling will be very difficult without it;
    3. the loss of the Montlake freeway stops is serious and cannot be mitigated well, even if there was a significant boost in service subsidy; ST2 are allocated to east Link except for the part-time Route 542; Metro funds are going due to the recession; the state cannot afford to give toll revenue to transit due to point one above; the biggest losers are users of routes 255 and 545 oriented to and from the east living south of the cut;
    4. the UW stadium station requires a long transfer walk for bus riders on Stevens Way; north Seattle service may not be restructured until Link reaches NE 45th Street and Northgate in about 2021; the UW would not allow and ST would not pay for a third U District station under the HUB that would have been an ideal transfer location;
    5. the west side design suggests that the reversible connection would reduce the I-5 lanes by one to three; seems that should wait for north Link; see point four above.

    Point three can only be addressed in Olympia; the Legislature and the Governor insist on a six lane profile with four general-purpose lanes and two HOV lanes; but, all six lanes will be tolled lanes that should be free flow; the function of the Montlake freeway stops could be retained if the inside lanes were transit only and they rose to signalized intersection with Montlake Bouleverd; the stops could be just east of the arterial cantilevered over the other lanes.

  • mossmudgeon

    by all means don’t plan rail on 520 now; build it first, then plan rail. And by all means don’t plan to have TWO whole rail lines across the lake; clearly one will do. same with north south rail, we already got one rail line, why have another?

    This passion for planning a buncha rail lines all at once, then ubilding them out over time, to end up with a buncha rail lines all over, that’s what other cities do …. we’re seattle and we’re unique and by god we don’t want to end up like everywhere else.

  • one term please

    McGinn is shamelessly promoting light rail on 520 because it polls well. The state made several changes in their design that make light rail feasible on the bridge and he deserves some credit for pushing the issue initially. But now he is undoing that good work by continuing to push for light rail on 520. Light rail is not a priority on 520 compared to other needs in the region. BRT works well in this corridor and buses on 520 already move as many people as Central Link each day.

    West Seattle and Ballard are a far higher priority in the future for light rail in our ST subarea. Extending East Link to Redmond and improving connections to Totem Lake are more important to the East subarea.

    McGinn promised me I would be voting on light rail to West Seattle and Ballard next fall. That ain’t gonna happen. No plan, no route, no campaign. Perhaps he should try focusing on that first.