Mayor Mike McGinn declined today to reveal any details from a report on what it would take to put light rail on the SR520 bridge, which his office received a briefing on yesterday. Instead of a previously announced press briefing this afternoon, McGinn has said he'll roll out the results next Tuesday evening, from 6:00 to 7:30 pm in the Bertha Knight Landes Room on the ground floor of city hall.

McGinn spokesman Aaron Pickus says the mayor just needed "more time to look at" the results of the study, conducted by consultant Nelson/Nygaard.

However, McGinn's decision to withhold the study an additional five days raises an obvious question: Why? the study said that light rail could be put on a new bridge with only small design modifications, theorizing among city hall staffers goes, why wouldn't McGinn want to get that news out now?

On the other hand, if the study says that light rail will require significant (read: time-consuming and expensive) modifications to the bridge design—something state and city leaders have said they won't accept—McGinn could be taking a few days to figure out a positive spin on a less-than-encouraging study. If nothing else, the delay is more evidence that McGinn plans to come out swinging for a more rapid-transit-friendly 520 replacement plan.

He may also be lining up constituents who favor building rail (and a smaller bridge overall)—including neighborhood groups, state leaders from the 43rd District (which includes the Seattle side of the bridge), and environmental groups, many of which support building the bridge to accommodate rail. A poll commissioned by McGinn earlier this year found strong support for rail on both sides of the bridge (the state's option would merely include two HOV lanes, along with four general-purpose lanes for cars).

Politically, McGinn, the city council, and state legislative leaders are right where they were when McGinn announced his push for rail on the bridge exactly two months ago. McGinn is, if anything, more insistent than ever on putting rail on 520 (at a CityClub forum yesterday, he vowed to "bring forward some ideas or how to accommodate light rail from the start"); meanwhile, city council and state leaders are equally insistent on moving forward quickly with the "preferred" option, which does not include rail (Tom Rasmussen, chair of the transportation committee, says he'd like to "go ahead transit and carpools now" instead of waiting for a new, rail-friendly design). The dueling studies appear to done virtually nothing to break that deadlock.