I regret a lot of my earliest posts and I apologize for not being more civil. I wish you would do the same. I really resent your accusation that I had anything to do with the dart. Joke or not, at least the moderators had the good sense to remove it. It was over the line.

One question on the insurance. Do you feel companies are in a sense getting a “free pass” on the situation as it currently exists? I mean, wouldn't a fatal mishap even without the trail have the potential to put a company under? Shilshole is public and bikers the right to “take the lane” if they want it. So wouldn't a accident with or without the trail be essentially the same? Do you think the insurance companies are simply overlooking that currently?

If that isn't referring to BBO's employees then what is it? I think we know that “family wage” jobs pay enough to support a family. that is not complex.

DOUG11
“I am far far away from owning my own business and paying my workers “family wages.”

My unbiased, rational eye can now ascertain the reason for the contempt you display for the businesses.

I will give an example of an “on the job” lawsuit that affected my insurance greatly. We were working at an FAA office bldg. We had yet to be on site………………when a woman in her wheelchair that worked there for the FAA had a construction cart with “gadgets” fall on her leg when she tried to move it in the hallway. The closest bathroom was out of order due to construction, she had to wheel around the hallway to an alternate one when she encountered the cart. EVERYONE on the job site and VENDORS who just sell materials was named in her lawsuit which claimed permanent disability. We had PROOF of not even being on site. No matter, all of us named had to have attorneys which the insurance company hired until we got dismissed.

Bottom line from that……my insurance premiums went up approx. 25% for the next three years over a baseless case of which we had rock solid proof that we were in no way involved in. That is the “real world” of insurance and liability that we live in. I am a small biz. Anyone that thinks insurance companies are understanding and can be dealt with in a logical manner is fooling themselves. There are reasons they have large office buildings.

This bike trail, in this proposed location WILL put someone under. It may be ten years down the line, but it will. It just takes one accident….and they are accidents. Salmon Bay is the most likely one due to the larger amount of exposure they will have.

Also, those of us in the industrial type businesses do cringe when we see property values increase. Don't you as a homeowner? With everything else seeming being stacked against us, it is another hurdle to negotiate. For me, being small, I do have the ability to relocate, but for the Salmon Bay's and Ballard Oil's of the world……they are not afforded that luxury.

I know this will illicit the usual “move out” you aren't needed and a new biz will just move in. Have you noticed the failing businesses in our area? Do you know most start ups do fail? It makes no sense to pee on the foundation of the local economy. It reeks of self entitlement and envy to me.

About five years ago SDOT painted 45th and made it an absolute mess. I used my camera phone and each day took photos of the cars, trucks, and cyclists….of course I got photos of the most dangerous situations….and vowed that within a week I would have a photo of a serious accident….I began this on a Monday and on Thursday I had a photo of a serious injury with medics on the scene. I e mailed these to all of the council members, the head of SDOT and others at SDOT, local press (Dorie Monson, Jim Foreman, Ken Schramm, et al), an attorney who's card was “bicycle attorney” and ther local biz people. The following Saturday I had a very ticked off SDOT manager wanting to take swings at me for trying to embarrass SDOT. That Satuday they re-painted 45th to the way it is today…..and it still stinks, but is MUCH BETTER. I witness all day long, inexperienced cyclists riding between the tracks as if it is the bike lane. Byron has tried to paint sign, warnings, to keep people off of them. I holler at children with their parents to keep them from wrecking. They are ignorant to the lanes there, by no fault of their own. This street has become a highway for cars trying to shortcut off of Shilshole ever since they paved it years ago. I tried to get speed bumps installed, but SDOT said that would be bad for bikes….me being much like Forrest Gump…..suggested putting 4″ gaps in a few locations that would allow bike tires to navigate through easily…….no good…………………..

A trail is needed. The location that it is to be run through is poor. I still contend that the “serious cyclist” is going to ride on whatever street he wants in order to get to hisher location in the quickest manner. The “leisure rider” will follow the trail wherever it goes. Those are the riders, I don't know a way to better describe them, that are the most likely to wreck. When I see cyclists approach 45th from Fred Meyer, I can almost tell you who is going to wreck.

I know there are many who think the insurance worries are nothing but smoke, but they are real. Doug11 makes pie in the sky claims like we should go to the City and demand reimbursement if these clams are true. The real world doesn't work like that. If Ballard Oil becomes un-insurable; it dies. I am able to relocate, and right now within Ballard, I can get favorable leases for my needs, but I have a great landlord, good neighbors, and a long time location……I want to stay.

Also, since it is a contention on this forum at times, I don't reside in Ballard currently. I grew up here, played ball around here, my parents live here, my business is here, I know so many people in the community, but moved to get my kids in a better school system and where housing was more affordable, at the time.

Long enough post….more work to do!!!!!

for those interested, we've got Chamber of Commerce members participating over in the forums now! Irritating to some, but the conversation is moving forward in a meaningful way.

And my comments have also prompted the Chamber of Commerce to take down and correct the list of members posted on their website. How irritating!!!

But… you witnessed four injuries before lunch time on Tuesday!? I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize how bad. How many injuries do you think occur in front of your business per week?

The Seattle Times finally has an article on this issue, and they say that 40 people report injuries on that section of non-trail per year. Obviously that's just a tiny slice of the injuries that happen there.

Recognizing the lousy situation that exists there now, do you think it would be safer with a trail in place there? I know there are other factors to consider, and other potential locations for the trail. But simply in terms of safety if the trail were completed in that location, would you agree that it would be safer for cyclists?

The lawsuit appeal is not about economic impact or higher insurance rates. It claims there haven't been enough environmental studies. It's the same type of delay tactic these guys have used for years.

Business owners or the Chamber of Commerce haven't produced any evidence their insurance goes up, that I've seen. Anyone seen this? Anyone? Anyone?

The good news is that this money will keep being generated. There is not a shred of evidence that the scope of this planned project (fixing drainage issues on NW 45th, reconfiguring the the right of way from 11th NW to 17th NW, improving driveway access in that stretch, then eliminating some parking along Shilshole between Vernon place and 24th, then adding bike/sidewalk lane along Market street between 24th NW and 28th) will lead to loss of any of these businesses.

jm was making the point that if the industrial business owners would sue the city to stop something deemed to be in the public good like a bike trail, what's to stop them from finding a reason to oppose the new museum?
Who knows, maybe all those museum patrons would take up all the parking or construction would get in the way of the annual moving of the locomotive? It sounds ridiculous, but so does suing to get more environmental review for an already agreed upon trail.

So there are two likely effects:

1. More riders
2. More organization – dedicated trail, fewer entry points for trucks, better signage etc.

Insurance rates would go up only if these two things don't cancel each other out.

I'm doubtful they won't. I think it's more likely the area will be safer for all parties, and liability for accidents will be much easier to determine. Less risk = less costly.

Otherwise let's see some evidence from businesses or their insurance companies as part of the lawsuit….

I can't stand Kenmore and I like industry. Help me Mr Wizard, I don't want to be like Kenmore anymore.

Would love to spend the rest of my days reading your spit but I gotta go watch the Tour De France.

Good luck everyone, See ya in court

I don't think anyone's explained why it would be worse to put the trail on a one-way Ballard Ave or modified Leary.

You may not believe me, but if the trail was completed, I would be walking it frequently. I walk all over Ballard, but the completed part of the Burke-Gilman trail is one of the very best places to walk.

From my perspective, the missing link is in a really bad place – that's the closest part of the trail to where I live. This means that I have to walk through that area just to get to the finished part of the trail.

1) Everyone (I think!) agrees that paving/improving the trail will attract more riders along that section, probably including a disproportionate increase in less-skilled newbie/rec/family riders.

2) These riders will be crossing paths with heavy industrial traffic (e.g. cement trucks).

3) Even if the industrial traffic follows all traffic rules, the increased path crossing will lead to an increase in the number of accidents/collisions.
This is perhaps the weakest link in the argument, but the collisions that have happened with the light rail in the Rainier Valley and to the SLUT strongly support this argument link.

4) Having been in an accident, some people will sue. Not only will they sue the city, the will sue adjacent businesses and whoever owns the truck they rode into/in front of/whatever.

5) Effect 1: The smaller marine businesses do not have attorneys on retainer and thus will have to spend big bucks on attorney fees to defend themselves.

6) Effect 2: Insurance companies will jack up their liability insurance premiums to compensate for the bigger outlays from Effect 1. All businesses in that area will suffer.

Sounds plausible to me, but then again, I'm not an attorney or business owner or rabid bikes-firstist.

I think it's going to move down to NW Market Street, so depending on which side of Market it's on, it may border the trail on one side.