The City's New Strategy to Complete Contentious Burke-Gilman "Missing Link"

Comments

1
Here's a modest proposal: Buy out the business's that claim to be damaged by the trail and turn their property into park land along the trail (or run the trail through it). Win/win. I'm sure a consortium of cyclist clubs and enthusiasts could raise the cash to do it with the help of a few wealthy donors.

Remove the problems. Everyone has a price.
2
@1
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me, ladies and germs. He'll be here all night. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
3
@1 - severe misreading of the entire situation.

@2 - *Clapclapclapclap*, Oh this comedian is just so funny! I'm glad I came here... I think I'll have another drink now.
4
Fuck the Ballard Chamber of Commerce. Many of the businesses that oppose this trail (Dante's cancer dogs, for example) are likely frequented by bike-riding SLOG readers. Don't shop/eat/drink anywhere with a Ballard Chamber member sticker on the window.
5
Or, on the other hand, the next time a bicyclist runs a stop sign right in front of your car ...
6
@5: We can always count on you to advocate vehicular homicide. Way to elevate the conversation! Keep being awesome!
7
@1 ... even if that was a good idea (not saying it is) ... then the city would be on the hook for any and all environmental cleanup of the lots (which would cost big $$$$)
8
@5 you forgot to log on as Strangers Worst Nightmare, you know that account you save for your bottom shelf trolling.
Mister G is saved for whining about the "progressive" war on cars.
9
#5 I actually like to STOP at stop signs, as I don't want to get run over on my bike. BTW thanks for your post about top news stories. Was hilarious! Thank heaven Seattle actually might complete Burke-Gilman in my lifetime!
10
This is just pathetic and embarassing. Honestly. Seattle has struggled to fulfill its bike infrastructure promises, but if nothing else they should have taken care of this, easily the most high traffic, and high profile bike route in the region.

As much as I disagree with the stance of the Ballard Chamber, politics is about building coalitions, using influence, and making things happen. Allowing a neighborhood business group to block the most important regional bike route for over a decade is simply inexcusable for our elected leaders.
11
I consider the accidents in Ballard to be a bicyclists' I.Q. test. They fail that test every day.
12
The four way stops at 17th and 48th will be great. I would like to see a "bicycles may use full lane for the length of Shilshole, then put up cameras to document the road raging drivers and unsafe passing maneuvers.
13
State law says bicycles have to be on the right, but mere traffic laws mean nothing to you, which might account for your safety issues.
14
Ballard appears to have a moderately high concentration of solo bike crashes - I've done that myself there and yeah, Mr. G it did feel a bit like I failed an intelligence test...

but Cienna's assertion that Ballard is well documented as the highest bicycle collision area in the city is not correct.

http://www.bikewise.org/pub/crash

I actually think mixed-use-paths are the most unsafe form of infrastructure for cyclists. I'm not going to hold that out as a fact though.
15
Mr. G says "...to be a bicyclists' IQ test."

your grammar suggests you failed as well.
16
That the missing link is still missing is ridiculous. Do the morons opposing the trail realize that the bikes who would use the trail are already riding through the missing link?

Also, everyone should ignore Mr. G. He's an implacable troll.
17
@3
That is entirely possible. I freely admit that I know next to nothing about this except for that it's a perennial favorite around here. But other than the expense (which is relative), how is buying the blockers out not a solution?

Cyclists want a trail. Businesses are usually motivated by money. Give them what they want to get what you want. Your expense (and, potentially, their gain) is short term but your gain is permanent.

Conservation groups interested in preserving forests do this with timber land. Why shouldn’t other special interest groups?

Though I guess you could wait for the city, and the courts, to do their thing… I wonder if anyone here will still be able to peddle a bike by then. Guess it will be a nice path to push a walker down though…
18
I know a guy with a business in the area. Not part of the opposition to the trail, but has a good view of what goes on. He told me he sees a steady stream of idiot bicycle tricks, including one where the bicyclist sped through a stop sign was killed. The meat wagon picked up the body within a block of the guy's business.

The bicycle idiots don't even seem to know that you're supposed to cross train tracks at a perpendicular angle. They try to ride parallel or cross at an oblique angle, and then are surprised when they crash. This is Darwin at work. Fuck 'em. Besides, bicyclists don't pay road taxes so they don't have any claim on repairs.
19
@18: Seattle's roads are funded primarily through sales and property taxes, which everyone pays. Bikes do no damage to infrastructure, so cyclists pay way more than their fair share to fund roadways. You're welcome.
20
@18 you forgot to toss in a reference to those horrid "progressives".
21
Not that mere facts will ever matter to freeloader bicyclists like #19, but what the hell. Actually the city spent about $11 million on street maintenance in 2012, and got $12 million from the state motor vehicle tax. But hey, why not lie? It's what McSchwinn and his bicycle buddies always do.

Oh, and cars and light trucks do no damage to pavement either. All vehicle-related pavement damage is done by buses and heavy trucks.

22
@21 re: cars do no damage to a road. Your link doesn't say that. It says they don't do much damage. But think of it this way, how many cars drive on a road per day. On my sleepy little Wallingford street, I'd guess about 100 per day, so now you have about 36,500 per year, or according to your link about 3 super heavy trucks per year. Over the span of twenty years, you've got a fucked up road. Now remember this is for a sleepy little street. Think about a main road. How can you say cars don't mess up roads when nearly all our roads are messed up?
Your animosity towards bikes is as rational as tiger fearing a mouse.
23
#22: Cars do little or no pavement damage in comparison to large trucks. It takes approximately 12,000 cars to do the same damage as a single 80,000 pound 18-wheel truck. Engineers who design pavement typically ignore the number of cars and only concern themselves about the number of trucks.

I do realize that bicyclists will tell any lie they think they'll get away with. Fortunately, we're going to run over your favorite mayor with a steamroller.
24
#22, arithmetic is a bitch, but try it. If, for purposes of argument, you do get 36,500 cars a year, that's the pavement-damage equivalent of three big moving trucks.

Look, you don't want to face the facts because they don't cut your way. The reason to have vehicle taxes on cars and light trucks (pickups and SUVs) is to raise money for street and highway maintenance, which means repairing damage done by trucks, buses, utility crews, and the weather. It's not a matter of weight at the low end.

The only light vehicles that don't pay separate vehicle taxes are bicycles. This is because bicyclists are freeloading assholes, and the politicians for some stupid reason listen to them. But it has nothing to do with cars and light trucks causing more pavement damage.

You and McSchwinn and the Cascade Bicycle Club and every other "progressive" shyster will keep lying about it, but the facts are against you.
25
I should have written "vehicle taxes on cars, motorcycles, and light trucks (pickups and SUVs.) A motor scooter pays $85 a year, but a snot nosed selfish bicyclist gets off for nothing.
26
@13- I know you don't care about reality, but I'm going to try to correct you because of my own compulsion regarding seeing lies go uncontested:

State law in Washington says cyclists should ride on the right if the cyclist feels it is safe. I can legally take the lane if I feel it is unsafe to ride on the right side of the lane.

Now feel free to respond with the usual death threat, you impotent jackass.
27
As usual, #26 told a lie. The state law says a bicyclist has to ride as far to the right as is safe. Not if the cyclist "feels" it's safe, but if it is safe. Which means that, contrary to what so many of you assholes think, you do not have the legal right to "take the lane" whenever the fuck you "feel" like it.
28
Mister G, glad you're back to form. "Progressive" is your punch line and it makes me sad when you can't use it in everyone of your posts.
I offered the math for you. I don't know why you felt the need to rewrite what I just wrote. We reached the same conclusion. That said, I ride a bike and own two cars. One for getting around and the other is a commercial vehicle I use for deliveries. So your 'free loader' statement is pretty baseless.
Can you have a discussion without insults? I'd like to see you try, it'd be easier to take you seriously.
29
@27 seriously, what's up with your bike hate? There's less cars on the road, more fuel for you to use and it helps people stay in shape, which in the long run saved everyone money in terms of healthcare.
30
@27- Look again, floppy, the judge of safety for a cyclist is the cyclist. The law does indeed mean I get to ride in the middle of the lane if I feel like it just as a driver can go exceptionally slow if they feel unsafe. Of course law enforcement may ticket anyone they perceive to be being deliberately obstructive and then they can take it to a judge if everyone wants to do that.

But just to re-iterate: You're wrong.
31
You pay vehicle taxes on the motor vehicles, but freeload with the bike. And then the bicyclists demand special facilities at taxpayer expense, even though they're "progressive" freeloaders. Your hobby shouldn't be subsidized by the state, and bicyclists should think about obeying the traffic laws for a change.
32
What's the problem with buying out the businesses? Eroding the varied economic base of a city cripples the city's economy, that's the problem. Light industrial, maritime and shipping-related businesses help keep the city going. We cannot survive just selling coffee, apps and bike shorts to each other. Keep [the last remaining part of] Ballard [semi-] industrial!

Which, sadly, means no safe bike path through Shilshole. Sure, people ride there, but that's not the same as having a city-sanctioned trail. Which can't be done safely with industry there. Same discussion as last time, and the time before that...
33
@31 so if someone isn't going to work, it's a hobby? Do you get mad watching joggers? People walking their dogs? Children riding their skateboards? What about Sunday drivers? If subsidizing a 'hobby' is your gripe, why aren't you howling about parks? Kid's sports? Public pools?
As far as bikes breaking traffic laws, where's the anger in the people driving while on their phones?
34
#28, you're wrong, but when did that ever stop a "progressive" bicyclist from lying. There is nothing in state law saying that the bicyclist's feelings are what determines safety. You can (and I am sure will) keep right on lying about this, but you'll be wrong. Here's the law:

RCW 46.61.770
Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

(1) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place shall ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is safe except as may be appropriate while preparing to make or while making turning movements ...


What some asshole bicyclists "feels" is safe doesn't matter to the law. It's only about what "is" safe. So, the next time you take the lane just to be an asshole, don't be surprised if someone flattens your ass. And if I'm on the jury, I'll acquit that driver.
35
#33, if they jogging in the street or walking the dog in the street, it might be an issue depending on the circumstances. In any case, if you're freeloading on a bicycle (i.e. riding it on a public way), then I consider it a hobby being subsidized by the taxpayers. Every vehicle given road use rights ought to be paying a specific vehicle tax to support road maintenance and construction.

The only vehicles that don't pay those taxes are bicycles. They get a special break, plus their riders are all too often a pack of reckless, law breaking assholes. As for cellphones in cars, this is a thread about bicycles. Typical "progressive" attempt to change the subject when cornered with the facts.
36
#32, the "progressives" of this city absolutely hate the working class, with a true passion.
37
@35 I wasn't changing the subject. I simply asked a related question about the rules of the road and was curious where you stand. I still don't see how I'm freeloading considering I'm being taxed twice on my other modes of transport.
Bicycles don't do any damage to the road, so I don't see how they need to pay for it. As far as added infrastructure to make biking safer. Sure, you could call that freeloading. But you could say the same about free art classes for seniors.
Anyhow, your vitriol for bicyclists is pretty humorous. Keep fighting the good fight against a those "progressives". I heard they tracked you down via Slog and will take your car away and replace it with a unicycle.
38
Bicycles don't do any damage to the road, so I don't see how they need to pay for it.

Neither do cars, motorcycles, or light trucks. Any damage they do as vehicles rounds down to zero, but they pay anyway. Only the bicyclists get off free. It would be a little more palatable if so many of them weren't such reckless, self-righteous, annoying little pricks.

As for the fight, hey, the least I can do is go against McSchwinn, and come to this or that comment section and point out what fakers, liars, and hypocrites the "progressives" of Seattle really are. I mean, take the plastic bag ban. Only a standard-issue "progressive" would ban the single most-earth friendly means of carrying groceries. Trivial, but it epitomizes the phoniness of this city's "progressives."

Oh, and I can vote against every levy, and in favor of Eyman's tax limitation initiatives, and can laugh out loud when the "progressives" whine about I-1185 and what has just happened in the state Senate. What else can you do?

p.s.: If they hold the senior art classes in the middle of the street, they should pay a vehicle fee.
39
@38 what about out of state drivers?
40
What about them?
41
@40 aren't they freeloading? They aren't paying for those roads.
42
@32
Oh! Well if cyclists want to use the space for recreation AND heavy industry, it sounds like they need grade separation. Maybe a cut and cover tunnel for bikes?
43
#41, you can't really be that stupid, can you? Do you actually need to have it spelled out for you, child?
44
@43 well, those insults sure are the mark of your maturity. I just wanted to see if your contempt for freeloading was universal. Those out of state 18 wheelers are causing a lot of damage.
Anyhow, I'm not the grump irrationally hating people who enjoy riding bikes. Cheers!
45
#44, child, as it concerns heavy trucks driven in more than one state, they pay "apportioned" fees to their home state, which then distributes money to the states where they drive. For smaller vehicles, the combination of reciprocal travel, lack of wear on the roads, and state gas taxes takes care of any "free riding."

I don't "hate" bicyclists, but I do want them to quit their freeloading and stop being such reckless assholes on the streets. I consider bicyclists to be spoiled children, and their favorite Mayor McSchwinn to be a corrupt, five-star jerk. But "hate?" Nope. Call it irritation and disrespect.
46
@45 so what do you purpose? Bikes have been on the roads of Seattle since there were roads in Seattle. And as the sage old man you clearly are, you know they're not going away. So, instead of joking about killing people with your car and bitching on the Internet, why not offer a suggestion? I'm open to talk about it, different points of view often can work together to create viable solutions. Unless, you're just trolling. Then troll away old man! Keep them "progressives" off your lawn and guard your non native plants!
47
@45 good roads exist BECAUSE of bicycles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_…

You hurt my brain. I was willing to humor you back in the intelligence test days, but you're just tiresome now.
48
#46, bicycles should pay the same road use taxes as motorcycles: $85 a year.
49
@21: Thanks for the PDF. Written proof that you're a dumbshit.
50
@48 see, that wasn't hard. You could have same this thread a lot of stupidity by simply ditching the insults and make a point.
How would you implement this tax? Would you require bikes to be registered with the state? Or would bicyclists simply volunteer to pay? Honestly, I don't see how you could make sure each bike on the road has paid this tax without some form of registration.
That said, have you done much research into bicycle registration? It has a pretty interesting history both domestically and aboard. I'm not saying it's impossible but past attempts certainly hint that it's a daunting task. Burdensome enough, that most countries have ditched it for monetary purposes and mostly register bikes simply for theft.
Like I said, and I have said to you many times in other threads, I'm most interested in ideas than insults. Do you think you're up to that?
51
MisterG, there's some kids on your lawn. Better see to that.
52
#50, the "progressives" of Seattle are every bit as stupid as the flip side of their coin, Sarah Palin. Just as resistant to facts, just as self-righteous, just as proud of their ignorance, just as hypocritical, just as selfish, just as dishonest.

You ask how to implement a bicycle tax. McGinn, the typical fuckin' "progressive" Seattle liar, says it can't be done. What a joke. He sits on top of a city government that, among other things, collects annual taxes on pets. That bureau could do it. So could the motor vehicle licensing bureaus that handle cars, light trucks, and motorcycles. It's no more "burdensome" for bikes than for other road vehicles.

But, of course, your pack of lying shitheads will do the Sarah Palin thing and spew out lies. The most galling thing about it is then you turn around and pose as being "smarter" than everyone else. Oh well, at least the rest of us are getting our revenge with I-1185 and what's happened in the state Senate.

53
@52. I thought we were getting somewhere with this whole acting like an adult. You know, stay on the topic. We all know the idiots lie on either of the extremes.
As I mentioned people have been trying to do what you are proposing but for some reason they all ended up ditching it. Do you wonder why?
I'm not saying I'm smarter than you. I'm simply pointing out that there is a history of trying to tax bikes and it seems to lose steam rather quickly. I think a more reasonable and doable system would be to add a tax on the sale of a bike. That's just my take.
I'm trying to be fair here, but it's really hard when you decide to go into diatribes against McGinn. I asked what you, not McGinn would do.
I haven't lied to you at all. I've pointed out that cars do a slim amount of damage to roads and that bike taxes have been tried in the past but always seem to fade away.
I don't see what I-1185 has anything to do with what we've been talking about. Unless, you're thinking a 2/3rds majority would go for a bike tax.
54
#53, you're a typical "progressive," Bike taxes have not been "tried in the past" here. They are no harder to administer than other vehicle taxes. The only thing stopping it is the "progressive" willingness to cater to bicyclists. And that one's going to get your favorite mayor bounced out on his ass next year.

As for I-1185, I mention it because I know how much you "progressives" hate it. I am truly enjoying the whining about it, and about the state Senate going to the Republicans. It's going to be a lot of fun watching the "progressive" mass transit dreams come to a screeching halt in the next couple years because of both those developments.
55
@54 bike taxes have been tried throughout Europe (you know that continent that loves taxes) and they ditched it. As I asked earlier, have you researched the issue?
I don't love McGinn, a lot of liberals don't either. I wouldn't say I carter to bicyclists, I just don't find them as threatening as you clearly do not do I think they're destroying our roads.
I guess you like wasting money rather finishing a project? That seems like a responsible way to go. It strikes me as rather sad to wish others' dreams crushed. But I don't know you in person and what you've gone through. I'd imagine from your hostility towards others, life hasn't been kind. I hope your day-to-day interactions with people around you go better than here.
56
#55, yes, I have researched the issue. Bike taxes got dropped in Europe because of the political influence of their Green parties, not because the taxes were difficult to administer. There was a license and fee in Toronto that was dropped because that city's government created a ridiculous administrative mechanism. But no "progressive" has ever been able to explain why Seattle can collect pet licensing fees but not bike fees, or why the motor vehicle license bureaus couldn't simply add bikes to the list of vehicles.

I don't think bicycles are destroying our roads. I can't imagine why you do. They do no road damage, just as cars, light trucks, and motorcycles do no road damage. If road damage was the only criterion for the levying of vehicle taxes, then only trucks should pay taxes. Buses are a special and more complicated category. But we require licenses and fees for more reasons: to fund maintenance caused by factors other than vehicle weight, to fund new construction, to facilitate the identification of vehicles, and to generate overall revenue.

Bicyclists frequently make the weight/damage argument. That argument is a lie. Then they will trot out the lie that it's logistically impossible to require licenses and fees. The bottom line is that bicyclists, as a group, are selfish freeloaders. It mirrors their common behavior on the streets, where they routinely ride recklessly and illegally.

As for whether my life has been kind, oh please, I think I can do without the phony concern of some slimy "progressive" hypocrite who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. The reason I'm vitriolic here is because the "progressive" fuckwads need so badly to be told, especially in a "polite" city, that plenty of people can see through your idiocy.
57
@56 thanks for looking into it. May I suggest drafting an initiative?
I wasn't being phony. I just wonder why you get so defensive so quickly. But, yeah, I went too far. Your life is your's and its none of business. But as far as not knowing what I'm talking about, you've been equally as guilty of that crime. What you say about progressives could be easily applied to your posts too.
58
#57, bullshit. For you to say that I don't have my facts right is one more glaring example of how Seattle's "progressives" are just as aggressively stupid as Sarah Palin ever was. Face it, it's never about facts with you people. You're just as faith-based as the people to whom you think you're so, so superior.
59
@58 so, you're claiming you're correct 100 percent of the time?
60
Hell, if I was correct half the time, I'd have damn close to 50% on your crowd.
61
@60. That's the spirit! Enjoy your weekend Mister G. Have a good new year.
62
I will do both, CbytheSea, and hope you do too. I'll even suggest a New Year's resolution for you: "Science, math, logic, and facts apply to everyone, including 'progressives' like me."
63
@62 can do. I suggest: "being civil is a better way to convey my ideas to people".
64
#63, as soon as I see you objecting to the rampant "progressive" incivility here, I might even take you seriously. Until then, I'll view it as just one more example of the rank hypocrisy that characterizes the "progressives" of Seattle.
65
@34- You can quote the law but you can't understand it. Yes it says "is safe" but like I said the judgement of what is safe is in the hands of the vehicle operator. So a bicyclist gets to take the lane if that feel that's what is safe.
66
the law used to say "practicable" instead of "safe" Mr G canessplain the difference for us,...