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.

Sightline: Traffic Eases on 520, I-5, Even 405

One week after the state started tolling the SR-520 bridge across Lake Washington, Sightline’s Clark Williams-Derry writes, not only is traffic on 520 itself “a breeze,” but traffic seems to have eased on I-5, and perhaps I-405, the two north-south routes that connect 520 to parallel (and untolled) I-90, as well. That conclusion is based on traffic volumes during the Wednesday morning rush hour—typically the heaviest-traffic period of the week.

(Images are from four weeks before tolling started and this morning. Sightline’s scrolling version of this map is available here.)

Meanwhile, traffic on I-90 was slightly heavier than usual, but only a little; according to the state Department of Transportation, traffic volumes on I-90 increased just 8 percent on Wednesday morning, and while speeds were down, that was partly due to heavy rain and multiple accidents.

While it’s still too early to reach any conclusions about travel patterns across the bridges, Williams-Derry notes that based on the evidence so far, as well as his own experience on the bridge, it appears that “the 520 tolls have shifted traffic patterns dramatically.  And that provides at least some evidence that tolls really can be an effective tool in managing congestion and traffic flows.”

Additionally, he notes that if people are choosing to change their behavior in a way that reduces overall traffic volumes—by taking the bus, traveling at different times, carpooling or vanpooling, avoiding trips, or using other travel modes—then it’s debatable whether we actually need all the expensive new road projects that tolls are supposed to pay for.

“http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2012/01/05_SR520_Driverstweakcommute.htm


  • FrequentPoster

    It’s also debatable whether we really need Erica “No Facts Need Apply” Barnett to try to spin it for us.

  • Anonymous

    Any word on Erica’s three part series: Rain is Wet.

  • http://twitter.com/tolli90 Toll I-90

    As a wise Vince Vaughn once said, “Erroneous!” Those are some grandiose conclusions from one morning of traffic, less than 1 week after the holidays.

    Tolls are not created to change traffic flow. They are created to raise revenue. The plan in place has done the opposite–direct traffic elsewhere and drastically reduce revenue.

    “then it’s debatable whether we actually need all the expensive new road projects that tolls are supposed to pay for”. Great. Then, you take the bus or bike across the 520 bridge when it sinks in a few years. I suppose the buses don’t drive on the viaduct/tunnel either.

    Stick to reporting for now. Save the conclusions for when we actually have some viable data.

  • shane phillips

    Tolls certainly raise revenue, but they can also be used to specifically to shift or reduce traffic flow. Saying they’re there purely for revenue is either myopic or cynical – either way the fairly recent advent (or at least growing popularity) of congestion pricing worldwide very clearly illustrates the varied uses for tolls.

    The point about road projects probably isn’t referring to roads that need to be replaced for maintenance purposes as much as the fact that all of those road projects – 520 included, I believe – also include extra lanes from what we’ve currently got. As she stated, if tolls are sufficient to change people’s behavior enough to significantly reduce congestion for all road users, perhaps we shouldn’t be spending billions on extra lanes we don’t need.

  • Taut O. Logical

    if we shut down all roads, the traffic would be zero, and people would adapt, and then that would prove we never needed any roads in the first place.

  • JW

    Wednesday morning (or any morning) is not at all the peak of traffic.  It’s Thursday afternoon.
    http://www.inrix.com/scorecard/MetropolitanDetails.asp?ID=10

  • Anonymous

    If my office in Seattle is any indication of other offices, there are people still on vacation. We have a good number of people that got a nice two week vacation for only 8 days of PTO. I’d give it a few more weeks.

  • Blue Light

    or Sightline

  • Blue Light

    1.  Rain is Wet
    2.  More Rain Falls on Women
    3.  Rain is Dry

  • Grover

    “Additionally, he notes that if people are choosing to change their behavior in a way that reduces overall traffic volumes—by taking the bus, traveling at different times, carpooling or vanpooling, avoiding trips, or using other travel modes”…

    then it is an absolute certainty that we don’t need any more stupidly expensive light rail in our area!

    If you eliminate traffic congestion, buses are just as fast as trains.

    And, by the way, how much is that bicycle/pedestrian lane on the new 520 birdge costing?  Obviously, since there are no bicyclists or pedestrians crossing the 520 bridge now, a bicycle/pedestrian lane is absolutely NOT “needed.”  What is it for?  And how much is it going to cost?

    How many pedestrians are forecast to walk the 1.5 miles across the new 520 bridge each day?  How many bicyclists are forecast to ride bikes across it each day?

    How many hundred million dollars are we wasting on that bicycle/pedestrian lane on the new 520 bridge?

  • itchy

    I live in Woodinville. 520 is clearly a breeze now if you don’t mind paying. For those who can’t/won’t, you are stuck driving to 90 which does not make sense depending on where you are going or…..rt 522. 522 has been a mess. Those people who didn’t get on a bus or a bike are on 522. Come on up and check it out seattlites. Its not pretty. I am pro tolling but I sure wish somebody planned for increased congestion on 522. Not to mention, 522 was already unsafe for all the kids crossing. Now its even more dangerous as angry commuters are speeding and road raging out to try and get to work on time. Just something to think about.

  • Alpha

    EARTHQUAKES! The tolling on 520 is to pay for a new bridge so we won’t DIE in an earthquake while on it!

    It is NOT about traffic! The fact that they are trying to deal with some traffic issues at the same time does not change the fact that the primary purpose of the tolling is to replace one of the least safe bridges in the nation!

    Damn it, why doesn’t the media remember this KEY fact?

  • repete

    Please, two data points?  Do well in school children or you’ll embarass yourselves like these ding dongs. 

  • David Miller

    The 520 access on I5 is terrible. Any reduction in traffic there will result in improvements on I5 because the NE45th to 520 nonsense is largely eliminated. This bottleneck will move further south, though I90 is a better design so it should be able to handle the overflow.

    522 is getting slammed.

  • Anonymous

    “Since there are no bicyclists or pedestrians crossing the 520 bridge now, a bicycle/pedestrian lane is absolutely NOT “needed.”  What is it for?  And how much is it going to cost?”

    I assume your joking?  The UW is on the west end of that ped/bike lane, where thousands of students attend. Those who live on the east side could now bike there.

    Additonally, have you ever noticed the amount of bike racks/lockers that are in use at the Montlake interchange?  Many people bike to this area, and then catch a bus to the east side in the AM.

    Also, in the morning, most busses have their front rack (which holds 3-bikes) full. You can see many spandex-clad cyclists waiting for busses to put their bikes on to carry them accross the lake.

    The demand is there.  

    As for cost?  The new SR 520 floating bridge will be 116′ wide. The proposed ped/bike lane will be 14′ wide. The cost difference is much less than the ~10% additional width.  The bridge systems (lighting, drainage, signage etc..) would be similar between a 116′ and 102′ floating bridge, and the number and size of anchors would be similar.

    For reference, the fee the design-build contractor is getting to construct the new 116′ floating bridge is ~$600 million. 

    So even if the ped/bike lane accounts for 10% of that total fee (which I doubt), the answer to your question of “How many hundred million dollars are we wasting on that bicycle/pedestrian lane on the new 520 bridge?” would be 0.6.

  • Dick Burkhart

    Drove west across I-90 at rush hour today after a ski tour up Kendall Peaks road at Snoqualmie Pass. Was amazed that the freeway was wide open all the way to I-5. 

  • Grover

    Really?  You mean the bike lanes won’t go beyond the ends of the bridge?  They won’t connect to anything?  They just end right at the edge of the water?  It won’t cost anything to construct new bike lanes from the floating bridge bike lanes to wherever bike lanes exist now on both ends of the bridge?

    Since there are not bike lanes on the current bridge, and everyone is able to get to U.W. withOUT bike lanes on the 520 bridge, bike lanes are obviously not needed on the new 520 bridge.  They are an utter waste of money.  As you wrote yourself, bicyclists can just put their bikes on the many buses crossing that bridge — they sure as hell don’t NEED any bike lane.  A lot of new buses have been added to the 520 bridge, with room for many more bicycles.

    The bike lane on the new 520 bridge is actually 16 feet wide, since it requires an additional 2-foot wide barrier, in addition to the 14-foot wide bike lane.  So the bike lane is about 14% of the width of the new bridge.  Assuming your $600 million figure is correct, 14% of that is about $83 million.  Around $80 million for a 1.5-mile long bike lane!  Plus however many more millions it will cost to extend that bike lane at each end of the bridge to connect to whatever it will connect to.

    A 1.5-mile bike lane for around $80 million!  lol  If that is not a stupid waste of money, what is?

    And how many bicyclists are expected to use that new 520 bike lane each day?  You forgot to give us that information.

  • Micah

    Some people can’t bear to see positive outcomes for our regional transportation network, and will continue to gripe and insist that things are going wrong well after long-range planning efforts pay off. Fortunately, these people are few and their influence is small.

  • Jakers

    That is a VERY, VERY IMPORTANT observation! On I-5 southbound the left lane and second to left lane gets slammed by everyone moving over and slowing down to make the left-hand exit…reduce traffic on 520 and of course traffic will improve there. And then on 405 northbound where 520 merges onto to it also used to slow greatly there. This comparison of maps seems overly simplistic.

  • Micah

    Dude all your questions could be answered better here:

    http://psrc.org/ 

    Then by ranting/frothing on these comment boards.

  • Sleepless New Dad

    This isn’t about Erica. This is about empirical data. Many of us predicted that tolling would have a positive effect on traffic volumes. Early signs are that we were right. Why can’t the 1950s Kemper Freeman Brain-trust shut the fuck up and recognize that data is data. 

  • Rosie Roosevelt.

    Here Here!  This is my route and it’s been heaven in to downtown and back!  I have a feeling next week will be different as many people are still on vacation.  Also, people will start paying the toll soon…the I90 mess (or ’2 % increase’) as ECB puts it, is causing a lot of angst.

  • Grover

    What are these comment boards for, dude?

  • Blue Light

    Maybe the upcoming audit of SoundTransit will shut them up.

  • Sleepless New Dad

    I’m with you but we should probably save the end zone dance for another couple weeks. Some people are still on vacation, as one of the Nabobs of Negativism suggested above. 

  • Blue Light

    Empirical data says the planet would be better off, and infrastructure would be cheaper, if people stopped having babies.

  • FrequentPoster

    No matter what the empirical data are, the Seattle Smugsters will twist it to their purposes. And Erica will get it wrong; if she does get it right, that will be a completely random event. Face it, the woman wouldn’t know a fact if it slithered up behind her and bit her on the ass. Besides shilling for real estate pukes, Publicola is as cavalier about facts as it gets.

  • Mark B

    isn’t the estimated price of the bridge something like 4.6 billion?

  • Elmo

    “Obviously, since there are no bicyclists or pedestrians crossing the
    520 bridge now, a bicycle/pedestrian lane is absolutely NOT “needed.”"

    There were no cars driving across the 520 bridge before the bridge was built, so it’s obvious that we don’t need the bridge.

  • tada

    One of the least saf bridges in the nation.

    Really I thought that was the 1st S. Bridge or the Magnolia Bridge or the Columbia River Bridge – guess it depends on the toll we’re talking about

  • FrequentPoster

    Yeah, it’s good to see the Seattle Smugsters like Micah going whole-hog for regressive taxes. Good thing to see such unity between them and the Republicans!

  • Anonymous

    No. The entire SR 520 corridor from I-5 to I-405 is estimated to cost $4.65 billion.  http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/financing.htm.

    That includes many improvements that aren’t part of the floating bridge, inlcuding:
    -New reversible I-5 express lane connection (unfunded)
    -Portage Bay Viaduct replacement (unfunded)
    -New Montlake Interchange (unfunded)
    -Second Montlake Bascule bridge (unfunded)
    -West approach (connection from floating bridge to Montlake interchange) – funded.
    -Eastside SR 520 improvements – funded – under construction.

    Those improvements plus the replacement of the floating bridge itself total $4.6 billion. 

    The bridge itself is considerably less.  Last year WSDOT contracted Kiewitt/Manson to design and construct the floating bridge and landings for $586.5 million.  http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/I5ToMedina/Default.htm

  • Blue Light

    I thought you told those Nabobs of Negativism to “shut the fuck up” because Empirical Data was in.

  • FrequentPoster

    Yep, and there you have it: Bridge tolls are no longer tolls, but regressive taxes to fund other projects. Welcome to the Republican Party, liberals!

  • FrequentPoster

    The new Seattle Smugster platform: Driving is for the rich! Everyone else: Take the bus, ya stinkin’ prole!

  • JN

    If bicyclists can use the bus, then so can motorists! Grover, you are totally right! Why even build such a massive bridge for lots of cars if people can just hop on the bus?

  • FrequentPoster

    Dude all your questions could be answered better here

    Lazy smugster gives a link to his favorite liberal organization, without any specifics. How typical.

  • Anonymous

    No conclusions can be drawn based on such a small data sample.  No one should be claiming anything at this juncture as to shits in traffic patterns or that “… tolls really can be an effective tool in managing congestion and traffic flows.”  Really, people, one day of data and general conclusions are drawn? How about give us a year of data, at the very least. Traffic patterns are seasonal, with general trends weekly.

    Here’s what’s coming next folks: Congestion tolling on I-5 and I-405 and I-90.  The State has been studying this idea for years, and the infrastructure is already being built out with “smart” or “active traffic management” signs (which, you’ll notice, are an integral part of the 520 bridge project and tolling.)