Good viaduct journalism

I need to say something about David Postman and Andrew Garber's article about the Viaduct tussle. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like a very well done article. I came away from it feeling like the reporters had tried hard to avoid ascribing bad motives to people in favor of trying to explain what the very real forces are that have led to the stalemate. (Or whatever you want to call it).

We bloggers do tend to pound away at the press, so when a thorough and well-researched article appears, we should acknowledge that fact.

I haven't written many pieces like that, and while comparing my past efforts to Postman and Garber is about like comparing my golf game to Tiger Woods', these longer pieces take a lot of time and effort.

So the article gets my ultimate compliment: no excerpts and the exhortation to go read it if you haven't already.

I suppose some of the political figures involved may not like the focus on them, but observers always try to figure out what the key players are thinking.

There's more at Postman on Politics, this time with news that the city of Seattle may be excluded from the analysis of "tunnel lite."

Since I don't live in the Puget Sound region, I have steadfastly refrained from offering an opinion on the various options. So I'll stick to a "sigh" and the observation that there are other transportation projects needed around the state, so hopefully the upcoming vote on the viaduct will settle something. We love you Seattle, but please figure this out.