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.

Candidates Avoid Talking Transportation in Advance of Iowa Caucuses

Politico reports today that the Republican presidential hopefuls have stayed mostly silent on where they stand on transportation funding in the runup to the Iowa caucuses—a marked distinction from Democratic President Obama, who has made infrastructure (specifically, repairing roads and bridges and building high-speed rail) a centerpiece of his economic recovery plan.

Only Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) even mentions transportation in his platform, Politico reports, “proposing to privatize the FAA, abolish TSA and halve the Department of Transportation’s budget. DOT should consider itself lucky it’s not one of the five departments Paul would eliminate as president.”

One possible reason for the GOP candidates’ silence on transportation funding? “Funding” means spending, and the Republican candidates are all about cuts.

Another, more likely reason: Most of the Republican candidates were for Obama-style infrastructure programs, including high-speed rail, before they were against them. Indeed, until Obama came out for new federal rail investments, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, and Santorum have either voted for or expressed support for federal rail subsidies.

As the NYT reports:

Before the politics of rail was scrambled in recent years, Republican support for high-speed rail was not unusual. As recently as 2004, the Republican Party platform stated that “Republicans support, where economically viable, the development of a high-speed passenger railroad system as an instrument of economic development and enhanced mobility.”

But the politics of rail changed considerably after Mr. Obama persuaded Democrats in Congress to include $8 billion for passenger rail and high-speed rail in his $787 billion stimulus plan.

… At which point rail became anathema.


  • Mark Hanna, Abe Lincoln

    republicans are for rail, as long as the money flows to private rail corporations.

    oh, and that money should come with huge grants of land for the private rail companies.

    which as we know, the politicians secretly own.

  • Anonymous

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable

    Notably including Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio.  Three states Obama 2012 is willing to attempt to buy with your federal dollars.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/03/BAKF1MKFOG.DTL&tsp=1

    “We cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the
    (high-speed rail) without credible sources of adequate funding, without a
    definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the
    independent utility and value to the state, and without the appropriate
    management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part
    of the state of California,” wrote Will Kempton, chairman of the
    California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html

    (Florida Governor) Scott said at a news conference in Tallahassee on Wednesday that
    cost overruns related to the Tampa-to-Orlando line could leave Florida
    taxpayers stuck with a $3 billion tab. Further, he said that if the
    state deemed the project too costly after having started construction,
    it would be required to return the $2.4 billion to the federal
    government. He also said he believed that estimates of riders and
    revenue for the rail line were too optimistic, and that state taxpayers
    would have been left to pay for subsidies to keep the line running
    because it would be unable to pay for itself.
    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/dec/08/john-kasich/ohio-gov-elect-john-kasich-rejects-passenger-train/

    The initial proposed schedule called for the train to complete the route
    from Cleveland to Cincinnati in 6.5 hours. While the top speed would be
    about 79 mph, the average would be just 39 mph. A person driving a car
    between the two cities could make the trip at the posted vehicle speed
    limits in a little over 4 hours.

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/12/20/ohio-wisconsin-reject-high-speed-rail-funds

    In Wisconsin, for example, a round-trip fare between Madison and
    Milwaukee would cost roughly $50 per person, even though the cities are
    less than 80 miles apart along Interstate 94. With a round trip between
    the two cities by automobile requiring only about six gallons of
    gasoline, depending on vehicle type, a high-speed rail ticket would cost
    a solo traveler at least twice as much as what the traveler would pay
    in gasoline driving between the two cities.

    For a family of four, rail would be at least eight times as expensive as the cost of gasoline.

    “The claims that either of these low-density corridors would ever
    break even, let alone turn a profit, are completely absurd,” Scribner
    added.