In an appeal to the city’s hearing examiner, a group of Ballard-area businesses—including usual suspects Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel, Ballard Oil, the Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center (BINMIC), and the Ballard Chamber of Commerce—are challenging the city’s determination that completing the “missing link” of the trail from 11th Ave. NW to the Ballard Locks will have no significant environmental impact. (Currently, to get through Ballard, cyclists must traverse a confusing stretch of road where poorly marked bike lanes crisscross back and forth across railroad tracks). Allowing the project to move forward, the businesses claim, “substantively fails to protect the right of every citizen of the state… to a safe and healthful environment.”
Let’s ignore the irony of that challenge for a moment and look at the substance. Essentially, what the Ballard businesses are claiming is this: The city, in allowing the bike-path construction to proceed, is allowing a use that’s “noncompatible” with industrial businesses that will probably result in “a trail user [being] hurt or killed.” The rest of the complaint is a throw-everything-at-the-wall attempt to justify that objection. Among other things, the challenge charges that the city has not adequately considered the bike path’s impact on air quality because of changed traffic patterns elsewhere; has not reviewed whether a bike path is consistent with zoning in the area; has not looked at whether the path is inconsistent with the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance; and has not considered the trail’s impact on traffic. The complaint argues that extending the trail “will substantially and adversely impact the use and enjoyment of properties and businesses along the proposed alignment” of the trail.
At this point, the city has been discussing—and the Ballard businesses have been objecting to—the Burke-Gilman Trail extension for nearly a decade. The city’s hearing examiner is scheduled to take up the appeal on Monday, March 23, at 6:00 pm.
Some of us happen to think things like the Ballard Terminal Railroad are worth preserving. Did you even know Ballard had its own short line railroad?
I’m always trying to find out exactly how many individuals benefit from this stuff but nobody seems to know. How many bicyclists are we trying to accommodate here anyway?
Ballard Oil got mentioned twice. Are they two times as evil to you Erica?
Um, let’s be honest here, shall we? The City has spent the last 10 years trying to ram this trail down the throats of adjacent businesses, not “discussing” it with them.
Elenchos, don’t you know that the needs of a few bicyclists ALWAYS outweigh the needs of everyone else?
Get with the pogrom, dude!
Here’s a thought…
If the “substance” of the matter is that “The city, in allowing the bike-path construction to proceed, is allowing a use that’s “noncompatible” with industrial businesses that will probably result in “a trail user [being] hurt or killed” then address that issue…
Why not get an organization with an interest in having the trail (like the Cascade Bicycle Club) to indemnify the concerned business’s in perpetuity against lawsuits arising from bicyclists that get hurt or killed while cycling through what is essentially an industrial area?
I’m sure that such evil organizations (BIG OIL) must only be acting out of their own self interest to avoid the inevitable lawsuits (they couldn’t really actually care if one of their rigs rubbed a few cyclists into a bloody smear every once in a while could they?) So protect them from that inevitable event, and you’ll get your little trail and what would they care?
Find a way to assume the risk along with the benefit. Or would that be to radical a concept for a bunch bicyclists?
Two things need to change:
1. Bikers need to obey the road signs
2. Truckers need to obey the road signs
If those 2 things happen, there will be zero impact to extending the trail.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
That won’t friggin happen.
I bicycle that route to my place of business, which is in the industrial canal zone. Putting the trail through there is asking for trouble, not the least of which is losing the mix of small industry, housing and shops that makes Ballard a healthy place to live. If I wanted an industry-free neighborhood I would live in Kirkland.
There are a lot of cyclists who use that route to Ballard, and at present, it’s pretty ratty from the end of the trail by the Fred Meyer. Personally, I think improving the bike infrastructure will make things better for cyclists and drivers (and truckers) alike. For instance, if I’m heading toward Ballard, when I get to the end of the trail, I have to diagonally cross an intersection with a four way stop, bike down the middle of the road to avoid getting my wheel pinched in the railroad tracks, bulge out into traffic momentarily so I can cross the tracks at a right angle, and avoid the sand and gravel that pools in the destroyed edges of the road. When I’m driving along that route, I have to be aware of all of the pitfalls for the cyclists and look for them in these odd places because, well, that’s where they have to be. So clean it up. Make it clearer for everyone.
I appreciate the frustration that truckers have, but I think that in this case, they’re being needlessly obstreperous. First of all, increase traffic congestion is more of a problem for truckers than anything, and the overwhelming majority of said increase is from cars, not cyclists. And again, the cyclists are there. Pretending they’re not seems more of a recipe for serious injury than dealing with the reality.
Finally, I have a love/hate relationship with Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel. On the one hand, they were very helpful to me when I was skim coating the walls of my house. I left a very satisfied customer. On the other hand, I have had a couple of instances of being harassed by Salmon Bay trucks when on my bicycle. For instance, when in the bike lane on 34th and Stoneway, which, heading west is a go-straight lane for cyclists and a turn-right lane for other vehicles. I once had a cement truck sitting right behind me revving its engine and honking because I would not get out of its way so it could turn right on red. I was even on the inside edge of the lane, so that a regular car could have squeezed beside me and made the turn, but the truck was too big. So he had to wait an extra 30 seconds. This sort of behavior is ridiculous and, frankly, unprofessional. If Salmon Bay wants to be respected in the community, they need to train their drivers to be professional and courteous at their jobs, and hello! Driving is a social activity in which you have to interact with lots of folks who are not like you.
Whew. Okay, done with that little rant. It’s funny how being physically threatened with a ten ton truck sticks with you.
I can’t stand that part of the trail, you can’t tell where it’s suppose to go, especially at night. At the very least there needs to be improved bike lane markers. It’s dangerous as it is now, I’m sure many motorists aren’t aware of a bike lane even existing there.
How does the bike trail impact the short line railroad? Just curious.
fix it!
someday soon riding bikes will be considered a serious activity, even by the dumb assholes on the slog!
@8
it raises their insurance rates so high they can’t stay afloat. The railroad was created to serve a few businesses (Salmon Bay Sand & Gravel Co., the Olsen Furniture Co., and Western Pioneer Shipping) that depended on it when BNSF abandoned the route about 10 ago. The railroad isn’t swimming in profits; it exists to fill a need.
If the bike trail benefited a large enough number of people, I think it might be worth it to put these businesses at risk. So how many people are we talking about? Anybody know? You’d think if this were being debated for 10 years someone would know the number.
“Putting the trail through there is asking for trouble, not the least of which is losing the mix of small industry, housing and shops that makes Ballard a healthy place to live.”
Seriously, can I have some of what your smoking?
Bike paths don’t divide neighborhoods, they don’t drive out industry, they INCREASE shopping traffic. With proper signage and some traffic enforcement, trucks and bikes will be much better off with a seperate bike path than sharing the road.
Nice logic, elenchos: You don’t know how many people use it, therefore it must be unknown. According to King County and the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, the number is about 2,000 users on average per day.
@11
Studies show that signage, and public service announcements, as well as training, and law enforcement, and increased penalties, have no long term effect on driver behavior. If the number of bikes or peds exceeds a certain threshhold, drivers become conscious of them and adjust their habits, but it takes seeing lots of actual bike riders, not pictures of bikes, for that to happen. So how many bikes are we talking about?
@12
Source?
Well, after being screwed over with the Bill Gates/Paul Allen express tunnel to their private jets on Boeing Field, you gotta figure they’re hurting …
@6,
How would this lead to the loss of housing and shops? You make no sense whatsoever.
@12,
That stat is for the entire 14-mile length of the B/G Trail, not the short segment Elenchos asked about.
Kind of a difference, that….
@16,
He said it would help destroy the mix of industry, housing, and shops in Ballard.
To put a finer point on it, it would do so by destroying the “industry” part (well, what’s left of it after the City decided to allow Fred Meyer and other retail/commercial/non-industrial uses into what had been designated as an area that was supposed to retain its industrial zoning)
I live on 24th and the plans for this route travel up Ballard Ave, not past these businesses, to appease these very people. The plan is to put in a stoplight near the Ballard bridge. Really dangerous intersection and tracks. There’s a place nearby where the owners actually keep medical supplies on hand for injured cyclists.
I wonder why the Ballard Chamber signed onto this…I thought most of their members would be behind the “Green Route” compromise.
@17
Thx. I knew that number sounded suspicious. Amazingly large, and kind of round too.
Very deceptive of you, Erica. Or lazy.
Does anyone know the real number of bicyclists who would benefit from putting these Ballard industries at risk? Erica?
elenchos, What actual evidence is there that this proposal would put any of these businesses at risk? Are you on their payroll or something?
@21
When you buy car insurance, don’t they ask your zip code and where you work? Do you not know that insurance rates are affected by where you drive? How can it possibly not be more risky to drive trucks and rail cars through a bike path than an industrial zone? Enlighten me here, would you?
I’m not on anyone’s payroll. I’m a fan of our local short line railroad — and I’m not the only one. I also want to protect local industries that make actual things, rather than middlemen who sell things made elsewhere. Mostly I’m offended by the never ending stream of lies from bike activists. What is so hard about telling the truth? Two thousand riders a day! For shame!
elenchos, so you are supporting Ballard Oil and Salmon Bay Sand & Gravel because they ” make actual things, rather than middlemen who sell things made elsewhere?” Those Ballard oil fields must be pretty productive.
The fishermen make fish, don’t they? Who do you think the oil is for? And what do you think they make with all that sand & gravel? Stuff! Buildings and bridges and infrastructure. Our endangered industrial base.
Honestly, I don’t know what kind of a future we have in a city full of boutiques renting umbrellas made in China.
Which would you rather have me ride on, Leary Way, or the trail?
Currently I bicycle on Leary Way most days because there isn’t a shoulder on Shilshole and drivers treat it like it was a highway.
Frankly, I’d be thrilled if they put 4 or 5 more stoplights on Shilshole. That would slow it down enough to make it safe to bicycle on and we don’t even need the trail except for those parents who want to ride with their children from Gas Works to the Ballard Locks.
Somehow Kenmore has the Burke going through an industrial area and taking an underpass to get through a high traffic spot, why can’t Ballard do the same?
Somehow the BNSF trail puts bikes on an overpass over the train tracks, why can’t Ballard do that?
Use some imagination folks! Chill, relax, maybe cyclists like me will bicycle to your store and buy something! Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel should be able to get, um, Sand and Gravel at a pretty good price, maybe they can sell Sand and Gravel to the city to make this bit of trail and to make an overpass or two so their trucks don’t have to bother with the trail users.
In 10 years you’d think we could have some imagination here and figure out something other than “It will put me out of business if people are walking and bicycling in front of my front door”.
I bike from the terminus of the Burke at Fred Meyer to the intersection of Shilshole/Market/24th every day. While having the trail extend all the way to the Lockspot would be nice, it isn’t critical. I really don’t find biking along Shilshole to be particularly dangerous: I stay to the right, have plenty of lights, and move along at a good brisk pace of 20 mph or so.
What IS dangerous it the RR crossing under the Ballard Bridge along NW 45th St/Shilshole. Motorists simply do not know how to behave around a cyclist who had to negotiate diagonal tracks: that is to say we have to slow down and make and S turn across them. I’ve been almost hit countless times performing that maneuver by motorists trying to pass me on the right.
Rather than concentrating on trying to get the Burke extended all the way to the Lockspot, I’d much rather see it simply extended past the RR tracks. Cyclists could reenter traffic at Shishole and 46th, preferably with a light, but if not it probably wouldn’t be any worse than the current intersection.
Background, if anyone is still reading…..
Ballard Terminal Railroad, signed an agreement in 1997 with the City (signed by the owner of Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel, who happens to also be the principal owner/instigator of the BTRR.)In that Franchise Agreement, the RR agreed that the city could build a trail. So, the issue isn’t the RR at all, which the City has no interest in shutting down or putting out of business.
The issue is that a few recalcitrant business owners (represented quite profitably by George Griffin and Josh Brower-on retainer from the owner of SBSG for the last few years-GG billed SBSG $9k for the last quarter of 2008) are convinced that improvements to the public right of way (that’s what we are talking about here–publicly held streets and rights-of-way) will be more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than NO improvements, as the situation currently is. That’s the crux of the matter. They see this as a threat to their livelihood, if and when there is an accident that involves someone in a local business and a trail user.
Never mentioned in this is the risk that those businesses and their drivers encounter every day as theydrive around the region….what if a SBSG truck backs up at a condo project adjacent to a school and strikes a child? Do we say roll up the sidewalk, don’t let people walk? What if the locomotive of the BTRR, which in its rounds, passes through the Locks Parking lot, where over 3 million visitors saunter to and fro every year, hits an unwitting out of town tourist and kills him or her? Has the local industrial assn or the BTRR called for the shutdown of the Locks because it impedes or is dangerous?
For anyone who’s walked or ridden through this area (i have for the past 2o yrs), it is clear that it is haphazard, unsafe for most modes of travel, and would be made tremendously safer for all modes, with no limitations in business access, with the planned trail improvements. The City has been working for years with local businesses about access and is prepared to pay for needed new loading docks, improved driveway access, etc., as part of the plan. And yes, the compromise was to NOT route the trail at present along in front of Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel’s main plant–but users of the trail will note that it flies right by the main truck parking and in and out with excess loads SBSG facility just east of Fred Meyer.
So, the trail will benefit ALL, whereas the current configuration is unsafe and has lead to injury of many. What’s the beef?