News for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood and beyond

My Ballard header image 2
 

Environmental study required for ‘Missing Link’

Posted by Geeky Swedes on April 16th, 2010

Updated: King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers has ruled that the city must perform an environmental study before a decision can be made to complete the missing link of the Burke Gilman Trail.

Although Judge Rogers ruled in favor of the city on a majority of the issues raised in the suit, he sent the project back to the Seattle Department of Transportation for review because a 5-block section between 17th Ave NW & NW Vernon was not studied under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).  It’s unclear how long this study will take.

“We’re really disappointed… It could be years, not to mention the 800 or 900 people who will be injured on the tracks during that time,” said David Hiller with the Cascade Bicycle Club.  He spoke with MyBallard in the courtroom moments after the judge’s decision.

Hiller believes Cascade will now push for the permanent route to be built as soon as possible, that the evaluation of alternative routes be dropped, and that the trail go straight up Shilshole.

In July 2009, a coalition of Ballard industrial businesses, associations and the Ballard Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court challenging the city’s plans to complete the Burke Gilman trail. Specifically, the lawsuit questions the city’s environmental review of the project. Among the concerns were safety and parking.

Josh Brower, one of the attorneys for plaintiffs, also spoke with MyBallard at the courthouse.

“Our clients aren’t anti-trail, they’re not anti-bike.  We want a safe trail that allows people to get through this area without undermining maritime viability.”

No final decision can be made on the completion of the missing link until the environmental review on the stretch of the trail from 17th Ave NW to NW Vernon has been conducted.

(We updated this story to clarify that the judge ordered an environmental study, not a full Environmental Impact Statement.)

Earlier: Background on the debate surrounding the missing link

Tags: Ballard   Share

99 reader comments so far ↓

  • 1 gurple // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    <sigh>. Thanks for the news, Swedes! You're on this before any of the papers.

    How many more years of real, actual dangerous conditions will waiting for this EIS give us? Beyond the time we've already spent waiting for this decision, of course. Anybody know how long these things take?

  • 2 Dan // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    Another “study”. WTF is wrong with this city??

    If Chicago is “the city that works”, Seattle is “the city that sh*ts money despite having both thumbs up its ass”

  • 3 Edog // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Interesting, so it looks like this was due process, and not some cynical delaying tactic?

    It looks like McGinn is going to be aksed to make good on his campaigning at this spot after all. No doubt the Mayor will be called on to do more than pose for photos with his bike with respect to the link.

    Promises Promises….

  • 4 willard // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    Thanks to the Ballard Chamber of Commerce, looks like safety will be placed on hold while tax dollars are spent. The boycott of Ballard Chamber of Commerce businesses continues…

  • 5 asdf // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Dan asks, “WTF is wrong with this city??”

    Answer: It's filled with morons.

  • 6 dmcmanus // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Good to see common sense supporting working families. It's also good that their not going to have to push 140 cars that are parked along Shilshole Ave to be displaced into the rest of Ballard and disrupt other business's and families. Congrats to the Ballard Chamber and the Business's that support the Chamber.

  • 7 gnomie // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    You all have a choice to ride where it's safe.

    Would you ride on Holman road if some bicycle club recommended it as the best route???

    Get real, be safe out there!

  • 8 Biff // Apr 16, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    LOL. I lived in Chicago. To get stuff to happen here, one would need to prepare themselves to be insulted and called a dictator. We have too many committees and too many chieftains. Majority of the critical decisions that need to be made should be administrative by skilled professionals, not left open to endless debate and stalling by whatever obstructionist group needs a hobby. Chicago is known for its architecture -the design review is by professionals in the field whereas in Seattle its by concerned citizens and open to continuous critique, yet we wonder why everything “looks the same”. Although if it doesn't look the same, its critiqued for “not fitting in with the neighborhood”.

    As a city gets larger the administrative decision making is necessary and Seattle has passed the threshold I would argue as evidenced by well..the Seattle process.

  • 9 kurisu // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Would you kiss a straw man argument if gnomie told you it was a prince?

  • 10 msballard30 // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Actually, the judge said that the stretch between 17th Ave. NW and Vernon, which had NOT been analyzed as part of the SEPA process, needed to be analyzed before a decsion could be made about the trail (i.e., the judge did NOT call for an EIS as noted in the article). The stretch between 17th Ave. NW and Vernon is the most dangerous part of the proposed trail.

  • 11 mogan_diggens // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    why boycott local businesses? that just seems so unnecessary & extreme, the chamber has been involved to a degree with bringing ballard the farmer's market, seafood fest, new side walks on ballard ave., and increased security to the neighborhood parks, would you suggest boycotting all those things too?

    how do you feel about due diligence and protecting the environment?

  • 12 Dan // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Chicago's architecture rivals any “architecture” city in the world. When I lived there, I never took the time to enjoy it. When I visit now, I'm gape-mouth amazed by it. You are correct that Seattle's problem is too many committees and too many open ended debates (and the allowance of too much obstruction by non-elected citizens). People can talk sh*t till their blue in the face about the Chicago “machine” and the evil dictator Daley, but stuff happens in that town. I recall when there was debate about what to do with the airport on the lake (Meigs field) which I believe was essentially for tycoons to use, but on public land. Bitch and moan, gripe and debate…and bam! Overnight, Daley rolled in the bulldozers and raised in the darkness of night. No questions asked (probably illegal too) Now it's a kick ass park. I have to say, I wish we had a little more old city “get it done and shut your yap” mentality out here instead of the relentless entitlement and PC garbage that we are forever mired in.

  • 13 kurisu // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Actually, city designed the trail route to cause the least disruption and the businesses who want to put the trail “somewhere else” are promoting the removal of more parking and conflicts with residential, commercial and industrial driveways in other parts of the neighborhood. What does this have to do with working families? There are thousands of families and workers who use the trail, and thousands of parking spaces in Ballard.

  • 14 kurisu // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Ironic, since the city decided to direct trail users to Ballard Ave along this stretch to prevent the lawsuit. I guess that area past Salmon Bay is part of the “proposed” trail but not the “project.” How many years of splitting hairs and obstruction will it take for the trail to get built and for people not to get injured under the Ballard Bridge?

  • 15 gurple // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    The screamingly frustrating thing about this is that the part that would do the most good, from Fred Meyer to just west of the bridge, isn't particularly controversial. Taken as a standalone project, the city could probably get that through relatively easily.

    It would still dump people out onto a busy street and a dangerous left turn in both directions, but at least we'd avoid the rail crossings that break arms and teeth several times a year.

  • 16 Ytoo // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    I don't believe that anyone has locked the doors in other citites so unless you are incarcerated here……..

  • 17 Geeky Swedes // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Thank you, you are correct — we updated the story to clarify that this is an environmental study, not a full-blown EIS.

  • 18 kurisu // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    I agree that a boycott is stupid, but the Chamber still needs to be called out. They have not responded to requests to engage in a dialogue on the issue and have shut out trail supporters for many years. Many businesses have left the Chamber because of their bullying behavior.

  • 19 CyclistMike // Apr 16, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    “Our clients aren’t anti-trail, they’re not anti-bike. We want a safe trail that allows people to get through this area without undermining maritime viability…”

    Right, and crossing the train tracks and being in traffic as it stand right now is safe.

    Sigh, I have a feeling this project will never see the light of day during my lifetime, and I'm only 27

  • 20 CyclistMike // Apr 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    Protecting what environment, exactly? It's already polluted because of the businesses there and what hasn't already been paved over?

  • 21 Coyote Joe // Apr 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    1) Enters Ballard establishment
    2) Checks wall for Ballard Chamber of Commerce or asks proprietor
    3) If “yes”, politely explain why I won't be shopping there today, leave establishment.
    4) If “no”, thank proprietor for not being a member, shop normally.

    Remove politicians with your vote, remove businesses with your wallet.

  • 22 gumba // Apr 16, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    I would dispute that the stretch between 17th and Vernon is the most dangerous part on the proposed trail. The proposal is for a final alignment that parallels the RR spur and does not have to cross Shilshole. I suppose one could argue that this portion of the interim trail is somewhat dangerous because it forces cyclists to cross Shilshole, but the real danger is keeping the status quo. I would support pushing for completion of the permanent trail as soon as possible.

  • 23 dmcmanus // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    The Chamber raises a ton of money for local charities, promotes business's with family wages, promotes local music and the arts through ArtWalk. Those endeavors are more important to the community than a bike trail through an heavy industrial area of the city. It would seem a little short sited for a business to leave becuase of that don't you think.

  • 24 zingarello // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    I hope this 'environmental study' reveals some of the polluting the businesses in the area have been hiding for years.

  • 25 Coyote Joe // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Those endeavors are not reliant on the Chamber's efforts to block a community trail. Their support by local, however, is not.

    No one gets a free pass because some of the things they did are good. That's like telling a burglar, “Thanks for helping out at the Community Center, we'll let that little Breaking and Entering thing slide.”

    If the commerce of patrons with an interest in their community exceeds the Chamber memberships' interest in blocking the trail, then that will play out. If not, then they will need to rethink and change their priorities.

    It's not petty, it's not short-sighted, it's just simple social and economic dynamics. Or if you prefer “It's not a Dollar, it's a Vote”. :-)

  • 26 mogan_diggens // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    1) your polite campaign is effective in reducing chamber membership because said proprietor places more value in catering to Coyote Joe's dollars spent than the other value provided by the chamber.

    2) chamber goes under due to diminished membership.

    3) trail is built

    4) no one lobbies the city for increased the safety of our parks & downtown core

    5) crime rises

    6) no one puts on seafood fest

    7) less people are attracted to our downtown core

    8) revenue drops for said proprietor's business

    9) proprietor goes out of business

    9) Coyote Joe doesn't have anywhere to eat, shop, or hang out in ballard

    10) Coyote Joe safely rides his bike to Fremont

    11) Coyote Joe realizes businesses there don't value something as much as he does

    12) Coyote Joe launches peaceful campaign to conform another neighborhood to his standards

  • 27 Coyote Joe // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Just so I'm clear… “Some Customers Refusing to Patronize a Business That Engages In Activities is Short Sighted” but “Business Engaging in Activities That Are Objectionable to Some Customers” is just fine?

    Look, if enough Community Members agree with the Chamber, then the impact of that lost business will be negligible. Kind of like an election. We aren't afraid of a little vote and personal opinion in action are we?

  • 28 Coyote Joe // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    That's a very creative, albeit cynical chain of events. Seriously, got another dollop of fear and uncertainty on that propaganda sundae? Let's try another alternate time line, I mean while we're playing magic eight-ball

    2) Chamber constituency realizes mistakes, re-prioritizes. Chamber moves toward more community aware agenda regarding trail… after all, the Chamber does cite community as part of their mission, right?

    3) Trail is built

    4) Everything continues as normal; aliens do not invade, super villains don't menace Ballard, mogan_diggens ponders value of C- in Logic 1o1 course at community college.

    Hey, there's always the chance people don't agree with the need for the trail and keep on spending as usual. Why are people that are anti-trail so afraid of seeing if that's the case?

  • 29 CyclistMike // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    *claps*

  • 30 kurisu // Apr 16, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    I would change “everything continues as normal” to “dramatic drop in injuries as trail is moved away from RR tracks”

    I don't support a boycott though will continue to comment on bad behavior by the chamber.

  • 31 gurple // Apr 16, 2010 at 10:00 pm

    I never particularly thought a boycott would be effective, but I at least understood the intended purpose when there was a lawsuit in progress that Chamber members might urge their organization to drop. In some magical universe where enough people got involved, a boycott might actually have gotten something positive done.

    What's the point now?

  • 32 NoraBell // Apr 16, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    Infuriating as this is, it's not a great time to be boycotting businesses. These businesses have staff. A business that doesn't get business closes. Staff is now unemployed. The unemployment rate goes up once more.

  • 33 Coyote Joe // Apr 16, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    On the contrary, now is precisely when businesses need to be particularly aware of and responsive to their clientele and their community. It's much easier and convenient for a business to ignore those factors during lucrative times.

    We are in a period when savvy business owners can build loyalty, respect and relationships with their clients and when clients can see what their local business are really made of.

  • 34 GirlCyclist // Apr 16, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    I have an URGENT message for all of those people that think that the tracks are dangerous. There are these things called “potholes” out there and it is very, very important that you try to ride AROUND them. If you don't know what they look like ask someone to point them out to you.

    Seriously, I ride across those tracks every day and the only time that I've had a problem was when it snowed. On the other hand the crossing by 6th, the one that Cascade holds up as an example of a good crossing turns into an eight by twenty skating rink every time it rains or there's dew or a frost.

  • 35 KCR // Apr 16, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    I was taking the proposed interim route when I got doored by a car in Ballard last year (July 19, 2009), ironically taking Old Ballard Ave because it was a recommended safer route than Shishole. Permanent injuries and 6 months of fighting their insurance just to get the medical bills paid was the eventual outcome of that incident.

    If trail spanned the Missing Link, I wouldn't have had to go through that. It is what it is, and I will have to live with this for the rest of my life. I would like to see the trail pushed through on the permanent route as soon as possible to spare anyone else the same experience, something I wouldn't wish upon my enemies nor even the appealants who insist on blocking the development of a trail that would bring customers to the area.

    Until the completion of the trail, I will continue to spend my money at places other than busineses in Ballard; not because I believe that boycotting industry in the area will create change but because there is an unacceptable level of risk for personal injury on the proposed route.

  • 36 gurple // Apr 16, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    The only time I ever had a problem with the tracks was the first time I crossed them. It was the first time I had ever crossed tracks on a bike. I went over the handlebars, scraped up my knuckles, and only saved myself from a cracked bone or two because I know how to roll.

    Yes, I was a n00b. I was a totally green rider trying something of relatively low difficulty that I now do every day with hardly a thought.

    Lotta n00bs on that “trail”, though. And there are always going to be.

  • 37 NoraBell // Apr 16, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    In a perfect world. In this one there are already people who have been out of work for a year or more. I'd rather not see any more businesses close and have the employees suffer for the actions of the employer.

  • 38 briancg // Apr 17, 2010 at 12:14 am

    It seems fair to review that part of the trail with businesses in mind, but why would studying 4-5 blocks take years? That doesn't seem possible even for bureaucrats!

    Most of the existing route has a bunch of space on the sides that is gravel or abandoned (I think…) railroad track. Why not just expand it a little to make room for real bike lanes on either side of the road and use those rubber railroad crossing things (as in Fremont) for under the bridge?

  • 39 SPG // Apr 17, 2010 at 12:34 am

    “due process” is a potent weapon of the obstructionist.

  • 40 SPG // Apr 17, 2010 at 12:38 am

    The businesses have a choice to do business somewhere else.

    Would you put an “industry” in the middle of a strip of bars and boutiques?
    #@$*!!

    Get real, be stupid out there!

  • 41 SPG // Apr 17, 2010 at 12:41 am

    I think these kind of quotes are made to just crap on the other side. It's obvious that they are anti bike, anti safety, and anti everyone but themselves.

  • 42 SPG // Apr 17, 2010 at 12:51 am

    I was going to post a one word response to this whole thing: “bastards.”

    I've thought a bit more on this and I'm starting to think that Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel just bit themselves hard in their own butt. The trail as set to go forth last year would have looped around the block and completely avoided the issue of their land grab of all the public space between the wall of their building and the traffic lane. Now the review will be done on the stretch in front of their front door only, and since the judge already agreed with the city on the majority of points, and there is no more reason to negotiate a route to avoid suit, the trail will get built and this time it will roll right down Shilshole. Hopefully it will make the most unpleasant impact possible on SBSG.

  • 43 Barfly // Apr 17, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Bingo…seattle suffers from too much democracy and people with too much time on their hands (ie. citizen actvists).

  • 44 Mondoman // Apr 17, 2010 at 1:58 am

    I “have an interest in” my “community” and I want a trail and I think the proposed trail is in the wrong place, so I agree with the Chamber's suit. I don't think I'm Breaking and Entering… :)

  • 45 Mondoman // Apr 17, 2010 at 1:59 am

    huh????

  • 46 Mondoman // Apr 17, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Or not so obvious

  • 47 Mondoman // Apr 17, 2010 at 2:04 am

    The track isn't abandoned — it's used at least weekly.

  • 48 mogan_diggens // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:15 am

    OH YEAH, COYOTE JOE!

    1) what makes you think aliens still won't invade and, B) why would i ponder the C- i got in logic?!?! i earned it fair & square and if all goes as planned, i'll have my AA in 3 more years!

    so take THAT!

  • 49 gnomie // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Great! I can't wait to ride down Shilshoal and breath in the silica from the cement plant.
    Or wait! being doored on Ballard ave as an alternative.
    Sorry KCR!

    I can't post my response to anyone riding when it's frosty or snowy out (so sad)!

    Can we put our energy into a parking facility or two to move cars from the trail area?

  • 50 MichaelSnyder // Apr 17, 2010 at 4:29 am

    But the chamber hasn't given any constructive alternatives other than an unrealistic jetstons-esque “skybridge for bicycles” suggestion.

    If they really think the trail would be better someplace else, fund the study.

    In general, fewer crossings results in a safer trail. The fewest crossings is closest to the water.

    The city hired people to look at all of the alternatives, and debated it for more than a decade. This route is the safest route that they could find.

  • 51 JulianDavies // Apr 17, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Exactly what Hiller and SPG noted – the silver lining here is that we can dispense with the absurd “interim route”, created to appease SBSG and Ballard Oil (that worked out well, didn't it), and build the “future route” first.

    For all the time and money that's been wasted on the lawsuits, the Chamber could have worked out a deal for displaced parking at the old Yankee Diner lot (hotel or no hotel, there's plenty of room) or similar location.

  • 52 MichaelSnyder // Apr 17, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Well, it was abandoned.

    The BNSF abandoned it.

    When the city proposed putting the trail in, the Ballard industrials banded together and purchased a railroad.

    Yes, it is used…to pull 2-3 train cars a few times a week at 8-12 mph after 10pm.
    Mid-day it is used for free parking by the people who are suing the city.

  • 53 bbb1 // Apr 17, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Mogan-diggens

    due diligence is an environmental study on a section of trail the City makes clear, as did the City Council in 2003, that they have NO intention of building as part of this project or in the foreseeable future. So that's a good 'protection of the environment' ??

    Our legal system does allow seemingly endless opportunities to obstruct and delay – when will the appellants stop wasting taxpayer money, challenging a decision of non-significance upheld twice (City Hearing Examiner, and now, Superior Court judge) to finally construct the planned, designed, and funded sections of the Burke-Gilman Trail?

  • 54 bbb1 // Apr 17, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Mike – keep hope alive!!

  • 55 bbb1 // Apr 17, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Don't count on it, gurple. With money to burn, nearly all things are possible (delay, delay, delay).

  • 56 bbb1 // Apr 17, 2010 at 6:11 am

    dmcmanus

    devil is in the detail.
    i'ts not 140 cars parked along shilshole

    it's about 160 or so, stretched from 11th NW to 28th NW…one clump would impact mostly employee parking (11th to 17th) and the other clump would impact employee and visitor parking (Vernon to 28th NW).

    and you will note, if you look, dozens and dozens of under=used, revenue-generating parking spaces on streets and in lots within 1/4 mile of almost anywhere you want to be in Ballard.

    We need to wake up about parking in Ballard – we can do some really good things. We just have to sit down and figure it out –

    No matter on which right of way you complete the burke-gilman trail, parking will be lost, and businesses and residents will be impacted (kind of like replacing the viaduct, constructing light rail, 520 bridge, etc. ) We live in a built world – how we create opportunities for positive change around those impacts is the discussion we should be having in Ballard, not this one.

  • 57 sweetrose // Apr 17, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    and weekends it is used by shoppers and Sunday market attendees.

  • 58 BBO // Apr 17, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    The City didn't go through proper procedures, I know this isn't popular to say because many of you want your bike trail like a little kid wants hisher candy and cries. There are rules to follow, sorry that they are applied for all!!!!!

    The Ballard Chamber boycott must be working….Chai House, Bookstore, and many other businesses have closed their doors. You are having an impact!

  • 59 Coyote Joe // Apr 17, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Really, BBO, could you come with a more text book example of Fallacious Argument? That bit of verbal misdirection may work on Fox News, but in a relatively open forum, you will be called on it.

  • 60 Coyote Joe // Apr 17, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    How a Chamber of Commerce Works:

    Regardless of what any web site, PR, spokesman or mission statement says, at the end of the day a chamber of commerce is “a form of business network, e.g., a local organization of businesses whose goal is to further the interests of businesses”. To this end, many engage in community activities, interests, festivals and the like, but commerce is the goal. This is NOT a condemnation, but a frank observation.

    In the best of these organizations, the full membership is vocal & active. In others, a small circle controls the agenda. In either case, any appeal from the community or private individuals will be weighed against the goals of the Chamber itself. If those appeals are not deemed suitably consequential when considered against the Chamber's interests, they will generally be disregarded. All rhetoric aside, this is obviously the case with the handful of businesses that have been the most aggressive in blocking the trail project (namely, Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel, it would seem). Once again, not a condemnation and certainly their prerogative as a private organization.

    Given those goals and realities, yes, it is possible for community opinion to overcome the special interests of certain businesses with a vested interest through long court engagements and by overcoming continual delaying tactics, but it is also possible to simultaneously address the root motivation by changing the balance between “Appears to Benefit Commerce” and “The Community Wants a Trail”. More castles fall for lack of supplies than by violent sieges. By engaging in a boycott and dialogue of WHY this was being done with the business owners that compose the Ballard Chamber of Commerce. Members of the Chamber then face a few scenarios/conclusions:

    1) The business benefits of respecting the wishes of the community outweigh the business benefits to SBS&G, Et alia. They push their representation in the Chamber to change its agenda regarding the trail.

    2) The business benefits of respecting the wishes of the community do NOT outweigh the business benefits to SBS&G, Et alia. They continue their support of the Chamber agenda.

    3) The business members come to conclusion 1) but find they cannot influence the Chamber (either out of insufficient numbers or because Chamber outright refuses to acknowledge members’ wishes). They lean a valuable lesson about which members the Chamber values most and are given reason to consider their own future membership.

    4) Coyote Joe is a meanie who hates commerce, eats puppies and has some inexplicable, personal grudge against gravel.

    In that worst of scenarios, if a business found that their interests were not supported by the Chamber and left in protest, you can rest assured, they would rocket to the top of MY shopping list for their dedication to being responsive and considerate members of the community.

  • 61 BBO // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    The word that comes to mind for me each time this story is presented is “petulance.”

    I don't belong to the Ballard Chamber or any other such group because they don't represent me. In this case, The Chamber is in line with my beliefs. Sorry, but in the “real world” businesses and even home owners have regulations, permits, etc. that they must obey……yes, even the City and Feds have to.

    This will play out and whatever the result is…….well, it will be. The way some people on here act is scary. I hate to imagine what you were like on a date when your date declined your advances……did you get upset, barge through and do what YOU wanted, call himher names…….or did you have respect for the rules as established and enforced?

    I am being a tad simplistic, but I hope it may help some of you reflect. I have received threats—-phoned and emailed—-to my business. In this time of economic hardships, I would like to think people would have the sense to do what they can to help biz owners create more jobs and pay more of the incredible taxes that we have as part of our obligations.

  • 62 Coyote Joe // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    A tad simplistic? Comparing the legitimate activities of free citizens to engage in a boycotts to Rape? Nah, no one would accuse you of being off target there.

    The conclusion that people should do whatever is necessary to support business in general regardless of the actions of those business is a perfectly healthy response. Look where it's got us with S&L, Real Estate & Mortgage Industry and Coal Mining. Yup, no problems there.

    *sarcasm off*

  • 63 bbo // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Coyote Joe:

    Where did I refer to “boycott” in that post? Hmmm, oh, I guess it wasn't referenced at all, but that would have ignored the posts that “Coyote Joe” has on here, and this is not about a bike trail but more about COYOTE JOE and what he wants…………….perhaps? Read what is in a post, and not what is not.

    There, I thought you would like seeing your name again.

  • 64 bbo // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    I didn't conclude that people should do whatever is necessary to support business, did I???????

    The examples you cited are nothing I supported, and by trying to be smart this downturn in the economy hasn't impacted me with the exception of retirement.

    However, the cyclists turning a blind eye on regulations that the City didn't follow is the same sort of lax thinking that ends up with people being exposed to asbestos for many years while the Feds knew the dangers, and allows government agencies to feel entitled to do things that are wasteful, illegal, etc.

  • 65 Coyote Joe // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Fair enough, please replace the term “boycott” with “The way some people on here act is scary”.

    And if you have a serious objection to the name Coyote Joe, I'll gladly use a randomly generated one with each reply if it removes that objection. :-)

    Seriously, while I don't agree with your opinion or conclusions, you don't seem me attacking your right to express them by implying you're just making them to see you name appear.

  • 66 Coyote Joe // Apr 17, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    You did state “In this time of economic hardships, I would like to think people would have the sense to do what they can to help biz owners create more jobs and pay more of the incredible taxes that we have as part of our obligations.”. I don't believe that helping business is the highest expression of community spirit. It opens far too many doors to compromise of that very community. I believe the examples provided are valid examples of where business for business sake created that very compromise.

  • 67 bbb1 // Apr 17, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    BBO
    Point of clarification regarding the Superior Court Judge's ruling

    -He did support the City Hearing Examiner's rulings in regards to the challenges made by the Ballard Business Appellants – that is, he agreed that for the sections of trail that the City has actually designed, and has funding for, met the criteria for 'Determination of Non-Significance'

    -The City explicitly and robustly declined to plan for, design, or fund a trail between 17th NW and NW Vernon – this was the Mayor's conclusion in 2003, and the City Council's as well — it was felt that there was too much right of way business activity in this section to build a trail now.

    -The judge, in line with prior law, said, if ultimately, at some point in the future, the City decides to build the trail along Shilshole b/w 17th NW and NW Vernon, then they DO need to do an environmental analysis of this section,

  • 68 bbb1 // Apr 17, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    oops, cut myself off some how….where was i?

    ..then they DO need to do an environment analysis of this section, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO LEGISLATIVE OR FUNDING TO DO SO NOW.

    - So, it's not that the City didn't 'follow the rules' it's that they felt that it didn't make any sense to do an analysis for a section they've made clear is not on the radar in the foreseeable future.

    -Hence, they'll spend needlessly to design and analysis the impact of something they will not build.

    On every other count, the City did follow the rules, the Hearing Examiner agreed, and now a Superior Court judge has concurred.

    So, the analysis will need to be done. I think that's too bad, but that's the law, according to the judge. I hope the City does not challenge it, just as I hope the business appellants, after that analysis is done, will no longer challenge this up the chain of legal options. Why continue to do this, if you just 'want the city to follow the rules'? . The route was decided in 2003, after incredible public outreach, and the voters have twice voted to tax themselves to fund portions of it (Bridging the Gap and Parks Green Levy). Legal appeals can always continue to be mounted, but more useful expenditures can be made – on improved safety design at crossings, etc.

  • 69 pattr // Apr 17, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Am I missing something here? It seems the crux of the issue is that the few businesses involved have vehicles that cross the path and that could lead to potential accidents. Has it ever been proposed that something like railroad crossing arms be used when trucks are entering or exiting the businesses. And when this happens arms come down that prohibit bikers from crossing. And when the truck is past the arms go up allowing the bikers to proceed?

  • 70 cyclistandSUVdriver // Apr 17, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Whatever do you mean to say? Was that just some drunk rambling, because it doesn't make any sense.

  • 71 Name // Apr 17, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    No, pattr, you're not missing anything.

    Part of the problem seems to be the conflicting desires of bicycle commuters (and walkers/runners) versus bicycle fitness enthusiasts. I'm guessing that the majority of the commuters would be fine putting up with the crossing arms, and/or some stop signs, just like automobile commuters are, as long as the goal and the result was a safer commute.

    On the other hand, the bicycle fitness folks (the faster ones who use the trail for their training miles) would probably hate the stop and go that would result from doing this, and to a degree I understand why they want what they want – I just think it's just a case of the fitness folks knowing that if we implement a solution that works for everyone but them, we'll never revisit the issue and they'll have to settle for something other than their solution.

    Let the flamers begin. ;-)

  • 72 pattr // Apr 17, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    I just think it represents a happy compromise and respresents only a small portion of their bike path and realistically the crossing arms would be up 98% of the time. Both sides have strong opinions a compromise should be acceptable

  • 73 BallardBiker // Apr 18, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Actually if you read all of the documentation on this issue (available on the SDOT and CBC web sites) you will find that the city DID go through the proper procedures for the eventual trail route which is along Shilsole Ave not Ballard Ave. Ballard was intended as the temporary route!
    And I know for a fact that the Chai House closed because the rent went up. I seriously doubt any businesses have closed due to a “boycott”.
    This trail has to be completed! I just rode to a job at Northshore YMCA in Bothell and the only part of my trip with any danger was THE MISSING LINK!

  • 74 bbo // Apr 18, 2010 at 3:51 am

    pattr:

    Did you know that over 10 years ago the City commissioned a study and that the currently proposed route was not one of the 5 that was proposed? I would bet many people are “missing” that. When Mayor Nickels forced this route through, the City cleverly attempted to navigate required environmental studies and the like.

    Zealots shout “obstructionists” at the business community, but choose to have a “blind eye” when it comes to the real facts of this issue.

    Share the road. That is the motto……so with that in mind, let's share the road, even the ones with pot holes and railroad tracks that cyclists could easily avoid but choose not to!

  • 75 just_another_norwegian // Apr 18, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Petulant, spoiled children.

    So what else is new?

  • 76 SPG // Apr 18, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Blah blah blah… more obfuscation and distraction. The facts are that SBSG doesn't want to take a chance that they'll lose the public land that they've usurped for parking and truck movement in front of their business. They will do whatever it takes to keep this free land even if it means hundreds of injuries while they delay and obstruct.

  • 77 SPG // Apr 18, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I'm still a little upset over this trail issue and I'm not alone. I used to be the kind of person who would stand up for the needs of the local industry, but no more. When this area comes up to be rezoned I will write letters and speak in favor of the neighborhood improvement that will be possible with rezoning. In fact, I think I just might start lobbying to get the stretch from the Ballard Bridge to the locks rezoned. I think we can get a lot of public support for a move to make this area more in line with the modern needs of this city and neighborhood. Offices for tech workers, studios for artists, mixed use retail and residential, some new music venues, how will gravel compete with that when the sf rate goes up on their rent?
    These businesses should take notice. Obstruct the progress of a bike trail for the people and you won't have very many people who will support your needs later on.
    Excuse me while I commence my research and proposal writing…

  • 78 bbo // Apr 18, 2010 at 5:46 am

    So you KNOW the motives of others? Why do so many not take the facts at face value and look for some other motive and look to their imaginations is beyond me! Ballard needs more artists and music venues!!! Oh yes, that is the ticket. Rezone the area, drive up the cost per SF for land and building space, that is working so well along Market Street already, isn't it? Perhaps the transients would pick up for the lagging tax base when the “perfect Ballard” is achieved that is void of solid businesses………..come on people, what was wrong with the original studies from the early 90s????

  • 79 JulianDavies // Apr 18, 2010 at 7:29 am

    What unstudied route are you referring to – the interim or future route? I wouldn't be surprised if the interim route wasn't proposed, since it's asinine.

    Just because I'm on a bike doesn't mean I don't appreciate a direct route as much as any driver, and diverting up to Ballard and then back down to Shilshole just so SBSG employees can park for free on public right of way is ridiculous. There are any number of ways to make the SBSG in/out crossing safe for folks using the trail.

    As for the future route, I'd be shocked if it wasn't among the five, since it's the direct route along the public right of way (currently used for the occasional choo-choo ride).

    But unless you can produce or accurately reference this study, I'll remain more than a bit skeptical.

    As for “petulant”, and “spoiled”, and “childish”, I'm not sure you and the other business owners are coming off as statesmanlike as you might think you are.

  • 80 mao // Apr 18, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Lmao. What a bunch of cry babies. Most of you biking weirdos think its pretty cool to show up at other forums and scream at progress. Have some more of your own medicine.

  • 81 pattr // Apr 18, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    I still dont get what the big issue is. Both parties are at an impass. So propose a solution that would in some ways serve both parties interest. And in my opinion that solution is keep the route where it is and in the very few places that intersect with a business driveway install crossing arms that lower when trucks enter or leave those establishments. Yes it would for a small percentage of the time require bicyclist to apply their brakes and wait for 10 seconds. But at least it would provide a safer alternative and lower the projected accident rate.

  • 82 kurisu // Apr 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    That's great, just take an offhand swipe at the homeless while spreading your lies. The Ballard Corridor Study showed that the “Green Route” that was chosen crosses by far the fewest driveways and has the least vehicle traffic.

  • 83 MichaelSnyder // Apr 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Well, the current impass is the result of multiple rounds of consolations by the bicycle side and multiple rounds of stonewalling by the business side.

    The interim route is the compromise to attempt to appease the businesses…and they still sued.

    The businesses clearly stated in their neighborhood plan that their major priority goal was to prevent any new bicycle facility from being added in or near the areas zoned as industrial.

    I firmly believe that this has nothing to do with safety and has everything to do with old ballard vs. new ballard. I have yet to find a clearly stated point by point list of dangers provided by SBS&G or Ballard Chamber of Commerce other than “trucks are dangerous” and “bicycles are unpredictable”.

  • 84 gnomie // Apr 18, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Which part needs clarification?

    It's in response to a few previous posters. I guess it loses something in
    translation when I don't link each directed comment (I'm assuming everyone
    has read all posts thus far). My bad!

    I'm torn on this subject because I'm a cyclist first and I support the
    Ballard businesses second.
    To generalize, I don't think this is the best route for cycling given the
    heavy industry (industry was there first). Nor do I think the alternative
    plan is to clog up Ballard Ave (getting doored).

    I try to direct my thinking more towards finding *solutions* not just
    cutting each other down.
    The businesses want parking replaced for the 160 some odd spaces that are
    going to be lost. Not for the consumers but for their own vehicles so they
    can park near their business but not take up any parking for their
    customers, clients (free all day parking I might add).

    (BTW – riding a bike when its snowy or icy out does not lend itself to
    intelligent decisions). If someone complains about a dangerous area when its
    snowy or icy out they need to rethink when the root cause of the accident
    took place.

  • 85 BallardBiker // Apr 18, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    So the judge rules against one of the nine decisions regarding the Burke Gilman Trail completion in Ballard. The one decision was the interim trail along Ballard Avenue from 17th to Vernon Place. The judge is asking SDOT to have the State do a SEPA review of the impact a temporary trail would have on Ballard Avenue.
    The solution to this is simple to complete the trail along the final proposed route along Shilsole and forget the Ballard Avenue interim route.
    We do not need to waste time and money on a SEPA revue of a partial, interim route.
    Let’s get this trail finished ASAP and then we can all find something else to quibble about.
    It is time that we should be able to ride from West Ballard to all points East on a safe trail.
    Walkers want to do the same
    I will now ride Shilshole Ave every time I am going East or West for work or pleasure and take up my legal safe amount of the lane instead of taking the re-routes that I have been taking. And I encourage all riders to do the same.

  • 86 bbb1 // Apr 19, 2010 at 3:28 am

    BBO
    I'm with Julian Davies on this…..what study 10 yrs ago? That would be 2000. Many of us have been in the middle of this issue for several years before that, and I'm not aware, so if I am missing it, I'd love to learn about it. Can you be more specific?

  • 87 bbb1 // Apr 19, 2010 at 3:31 am

    Wait, I think I remember seeing some drawings that were from the late 80s, and in fact, they included nice sidewalks and a trail along Shilshole Ave, along with pavement improvements. In fact, the only improvements done were to the pavement, and perhaps in anticipation of what the City planned then, a railroad was created and right of way was franchised…is this the study you are talking about?

  • 88 SPG // Apr 19, 2010 at 6:58 am

    exactly.

  • 89 bbo // Apr 19, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    I apologize, time flies….I believe it was actually around 1993……..

  • 90 MichaelSnyder // Apr 19, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    BBO, again, can you be more specific and tell us exactly which study and what routes it was looking at.

    If you have hard evidence that a comprehensive study didn't look at Shilshole, give me your address and I'll come give you a crisp $20.

    For the entire rest of the Burke Gilman Trail, Sammamish River Trail, Lake Samamish Trail, Centennial Trail, and most of the Interurban Trail (except for where things like a shopping mall went in between when the rail was abandoned and when the trail was built) they all followed the abandoned rail routes.

    Unless this study was funded entirely by BINMIC, it would be negligence to not mention that route at all.

  • 91 Name // Apr 19, 2010 at 9:42 pm

    I'm guessing you're a cyclist, and I realize you believe the current argument has nothing to do with safety. That being said, let's say you're the “average” bicyclist and get your opinion on the following as ways to increase safety:

    4-way crossing arms?
    4-way traffic lights?
    4-way stop signs?

    enforcement of existing speed limits (the speed limit on the path is 15 mph unless otherwise posted, the speed limit on the streets is 25 unless otherwise posted).

    I'm specifying 4-way as a way to indicate that the inconvenience should be borne by all traffic in all directions, not just the folks on the trial or the ones on the streets.

    Thanks.

  • 92 MichaelSnyder // Apr 19, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    Name,

    It depends. What safety problem are you trying to fix? Where are you suggesting that we put stop signs?

    We could put a 4-way stop at every intersection on Shilshole and that would certainly slow traffic down, but you'd end up with people cutting down the stop signs. It is a solution that doesn't make sense for the problem.

    We could put a 4 way stoplight at the entrance of SBS&G, but is it really worth the $250,000 that it costs the city to install one of those?

    So, what safety problem do you think exists in the trail design that needs to be fixed?

  • 93 pattr // Apr 19, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    @name….I am not a cyclist. I am a citizen who is sick and tired of this debate. To end the impasse I simply am proposing a compromise. A nice paved bike path with 4 way stops for bikes and vehicles sounds reasonable to a non biker/non gravel company owner.

  • 94 MichaelSnyder // Apr 19, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    I'm pretty sure that a 4-way stop would have been suggested by SDOT and by Cascade long before they finally agreed to the Ballard Ave interim route that has cyclists crossing Shilshole twice.

    Yes, a 4-way stop at SBS&G's and Ballard Oil's entrances is perfectly reasonable…except that at least for Ballard Oil, Warren claims that the visibility from his trucks is too poor to be able to see cyclists. He doesn't (from what I can see) point to any design aspect of the trail, instead he says that cyclists won't stop and he can't see cyclists so he claims he will close his business the day before the trail opens.

    How do you negotiate with that? He is a nice guy, but won't budge on this.

    Cyclists are tired of this debate too.

  • 95 Name // Apr 19, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    The safety problem I'm trying to address is where the trail intersects with hi-traffic streets, or low-traffic intersections with major implications (truck crossings and railroad crossings).

    For starters, what about 4-way stop signs at the entrance to SBS&G, and at that part of the trail near 46th where it crosses the railroad tracks (I've seen lots of complaints about that crossing, and it looks like going slower, or stopping, could eliminate almost all of them for minimal cost)?

    As for the costs, since SBS&G and the Ballard Chamber of Commerce both claim that they're also concerned about safety, asking them to pay for the stop signs, traffic signals, crossing arms, whatever would seem to be a good way to make them put up or shut up. If they decide to underwrite the cost, they could probably write it off as a business expense, and get good pr out of it as well.

    I don't know that people would cut down the stop signs if they were installed. They might complain about it, but risking arrest? And, even if it does piss them off, at least they're getting home in one piece so they can write their representative and complain about it.

  • 96 pattr // Apr 19, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    pretty comical to assume that anything was suggested or considered in this battle. If cyclist dont stop for a sign then they will get what they deserve same as anyone else that disobeys signs

  • 97 MichaelSnyder // Apr 19, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    The only reason why there are any intersections with high traffic streets is because of the compromise forced by SBS&G.

    The original proposal, and the proposed future final route, doesn't cross any high traffic streets. It only crosses a few business entrances and exits.

    There are dozens of ways to solve that problem, and SDOT knows them all and I'm sure SDOT has suggested most of them. A 4-way stop sign is among the simplest. Sensor activated flashing lights, a crosswalk button, a crosswalk, bollard posts, crossing arms, mirrors, barriers that force cyclists to slow to a walking pace, textured pavement, signal lights, and lots of other tools are available to solve any potential safety problem and SDOT likes to use those tools every chance they get.

    This (and the current string of injuries on the tracks) is why I'm convinced that safety is a red herring here.

    I'm convinced that SBS&G and others simply have gotten a free ride on street parking for years and refuse to pay for appropriate parking for their employees. Any trail will take space that these businesses have been using for employee parking.

  • 98 Name // Apr 20, 2010 at 12:45 am

    “A 4-way stop sign … Sensor activated flashing lights, a crosswalk button, a crosswalk, bollard posts, crossing arms, mirrors, barriers that force cyclists to slow to a walking pace, textured pavement, signal lights, and lots of other tools are available to solve any potential safety problem and SDOT likes to use those tools every chance they get.”

    Let's assume you're correct about the motivation of SBS&G, BCoC, and the others supporting them.

    Even so, if these remedies are “available to solve any potential safety problem”, and a safety problem exists (at least at the tracks), do you know if the bicycling organizations pushed for these remedies? I'm not a member of any of the groups involved on either side, but I thought you may know.

  • 99 MichaelSnyder // Apr 20, 2010 at 6:03 am

    So, I guess I didn't explain enough earlier. Those things make sense at intersections, but the track crossing that is a problem isn't at an intersection. It is under 15th mid-block.

    I suppose we could stick stop signs around there, and at least it should slow traffic down a bit, but it seems like that would violate the traffic control device standards. Multiple advocacy groups have pushed SDOT for years to fix that spot. The solution that SDOT came up with was to put the trail in. Other than a trail, my best idea would be to do some land swaps for a couple small corners of land and reconfigure the intersection to the east of 15th…but that is hugely expensive and problematic too.

Leave a Comment (read our comment rules)






News from the Seattle Times