Seattle Press on Line - Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Dec 13, 2000 -- Ballard Trail Design Proposals Available

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to a recent letter ["Safety First on Ballard Bike Route," November 29] regarding completion of the Burke-Gilman Trail in Ballard. The Friends of the Burke-Gilman Trail commissioned me, a practicing urban designer, and Chuck Warsinske, ASLA, the current president of the Washington American Society of Landscape Architects, to look at the viability of locating the final section of the trail within the federally rail-banked South Ballard corridor.

For 25 years there have been assertions that a trail "could not be built," and that "innocents will die" if the trail is routed along Shilshole Avenue Northwest and the rail corridor. The Friends wanted to look at the issues related to location and safety and come up with a plan showing how it could be done.

Our design criteria included: maintaining the existing rail and street alignments as our first choice; applying federal design standards for both the rail and trail; and separating the trail from other vehicular lanes of traffic. Trail users clearly understand that safety is the first criterion for the trail, and in fact argue that having a dedicated separate trail through the marine industrial district is much safer than today's unimproved roadways.

We selected the "five most difficult areas" and came up with multiple trail, road, rail and parking alternatives, designed to be as simple, cost-effective and safety-conscious as possible. The Friends design committee, design and transportation professionals, and trail/rail-knowledgeable citizens reviewed the alternatives and gave critical comment.

After six months of work, the [committee] presented their design to a packed house November 16 at the Seattle Maritime Academy. We welcome the opportunity to share the design proposals with interested groups and individuals. To view some of the plans, check the Friends web site at www.burkegilmantrail.org, or call us at 789-2127.

Davidya Kasperzyk, AIA

Facts First on Ballard Bike Route

To the Editor:

In his letter [November 29], Dan Grinstead asserts that a bicycle trail through the industrial areas is not safe and simple just because Davidya Kasperzyk of Friends of the Burke-Gilman Trail says so. Agreed. Neither is that route unsafe just because Dan Grinstead says so. Why don't we see what historical accident data says?

Bicyclists have for years been riding from Gasworks Park to Ballard, by way of Northwest 46th Street, Canal Street and Leary Way, or by cycling through the Fremont and Ballard industrial areas south or southwest of these streets. They ride either on the back streets of the industrial areas or by using the Burke-Gilman Trail extensions as they became available. City Councilmember Nick Licata was kind enough to provide me with information about bicycle/motor vehicle accidents in the Gasworks Park-to-Ballard corridor. Police reports were obtained and reviewed on 38 accidents occurring at 20 locations in this corridor between 1987 and 2000.

Since, during these 13 years, none of the 38 accidents occurred within the industrial areas, it seems that safety is not a negative factor with regard to further building of Burke-Gilman Trail extensions in the Ballard industrial area.

In fact, 30 of these 38 accidents occurred on the 34th Street/Canal Street/Leary Way route, which carries heavy (and, on Leary Way, fast-moving) vehicular traffic. If extending the Burke-Gilman Trail through the Ballard industrial area draws cyclists off this route and onto the trail, safety could be enhanced.

This is not Davidya Kasperzyk speaking, nor Dan Grinstead, nor Walt Ramsden. It is the historical data speaking.

Walt Ramsden

Monorail Can Learn from Sound Transit's Mistakes

To the Editor:

Your editorial ["Ten Reasons Why Sound Transit Should Build a Monorail," November 29] is right on the mark in advocating the use of monorail technology to replace Sound Transit's light rail plans. Unfortunately, there are several potential obstacles in giving the monorail its full opportunity to become the most effective and preferred mass transit system for Seattle.

First: With the Sound Transit Board's reluctance to endanger the $500 million federal grant earmarked for light rail, it is now clear that this money has now become the tail wagging the dog. As an alternative to Sound Transit's light rail, a 21-mile freeway monorail system at a conservative $70 million per mile could potentially reach Snohomish without federal funding. The Sound Transit Board now needs to consider the use of monorail technology as the alternative that can minimize the need for federal funds.

Second: With the passing of the monorail initiative coinciding with the Sound Transit tunnel debacle, the revived ETC (Elevated Transportation Company) should fully evaluate the implications of the changes in Sound Transit planning along with studying possible monorail routes within the city. The $6 million available to the ETC for studies of a city monorail system deserves careful and judicious management in considering how it can also be effective in minimizing congestion, not only locally but also regionally.

Third: Efforts must be made to establish how any proposed monorail route's environmental impact on neighborhoods can be objectively evaluated by the public at various stages of planning in order not to repeat the mistakes of Sound Transit planning.

The Seattle Press has contributed much to the public's acceptance of monorail technology and can continue to contribute by evaluating ETC's monorail planning along the way to make implementation as successful as possible.

Folke Nyberg

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!