Burke Gilman Trail (Proposal to Change, Ordinance 907)



B

Billy Bigelow

Guest
Mayor Dave Hutchinson
City of Lake Forest Park
17425 Ballinger Way NE
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

http://www.cityoflfp.com/mayor/default.html

Proposed Ordinance 907 will put an end to paved "multi-purpose" trails in
the city of Lake Forest Park.

The Mayor has taken action to eliminate the Burke Gilman Trail at the north
end of Lake Washington. The trail is often referred to as a regional
treasure, with hundreds and thousands of King Count residents using the
trail.

The King Country Executive, Ron Sims has expressed his concern in a recent
letter to the Mayor. Email using the above link or write directly to Mayor
Tom Hutchinson. Opposition to Ordinance 907 is needed.
 
C

Chalo

Guest
(For those of you unfamiliar with the Burke-Gilman Trail here in the
Seattle area, it's a very impressive, useful piece of bike-oriented
infrastructure. Every decent city should have a path (or several)
like this:
http://www.metrokc.gov/parks/trails/trails/burke.htm
So you'll have to indulge us a little regionally specific discussion.)

"Billy Bigelow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> http://www.cityoflfp.com/mayor/default.html
>
> Proposed Ordinance 907 will put an end to paved "multi-purpose" trails in
> the city of Lake Forest Park.
>
> The Mayor has taken action to eliminate the Burke Gilman Trail at the north
> end of Lake Washington. The trail is often referred to as a regional
> treasure, with hundreds and thousands of King Count residents using the
> trail.


I contacted the mayor's office with this comment, after maikng clear
that I live in Seattle and not LFP:

{ Word is out that there is a proposed ordinance that would shut down
{ the Burke-Gilman Trail in Lake Forest Park. If true, this is
{ unacceptable.
{
{ The Burke-Gilman Trail is a local treasure that extends beyond any
( single jurisdiction in its value to the community. The continuity
( of the Trail must be preserved if it is to serve as a regional
( cycling thoroughfare.
{
{ Compared to a road, it is very inexpensive and of much higher
{ importance in addressing the needs of the underserved non-motoring
( public. It provides a place for people of all ages to get exercise
{ and recreation without having to cope with the constant danger,
( noise, and air pollution from cars in the adjacent lanes. The
( Trail plays an invaluable role in the socially responsible
( transportation solution adopted by many cycle commuters.
{
{ I ask that you act in the interest of the people of Lake Forest
{ Park and the surrounding communities and refuse to pass an
( ordinance that closes any multi-use paths or prohibits the
( development of new ones.

Although I did not ask for a reply, I heard back from Sarah Phillips
with a summary of the proposed ordinance:

: Generally, this proposed ordinance would require any redevelopment
of the
: trail undergo a conditional use permit, add pervious surfaces in
stream
: buffers and sensitive areas and to examine alternatives to at grade
: crossings.

I took a look at the text of the ordinance, which appears here:

http://www.cityoflfp.com/news/proposed-ord-907.pdf

While in principle, the provisions seem to be reasonable, there are
some pretty grave implications.

The fact that the ordinance requires a buffer on either side of the
trail equal in width to the trail corridor "including disturbed areas"
could make a usefully wide trail surface impossible in a narrow
right-of-way. I wonder why they don't attach this requirement for
vehicular streets, which obviously have a higher environmental impact
to their margins?

The requirement of impermeable surfacing on the trail would be fine,
if the city is willing to fund something like an open pavestone
surface. I doubt it, because those are quite expensive. Otherwise
it's going to be a gravel surface over dirt, not a great solution for
a high-traffic trail in the rainy Seattle area.

An attempt to avoid at-grade crossings of streets and driveways would
likewise be welcome, if it meant that the city would furnish underpass
culverts or overpass bridges, as appropriate, for the trail at every
crossing. I kind of doubt this will happen either.

I returned this subsequent comment to Sarah Phillips, who said she
forwarded it to the city clerk, mayor, and council:

{ I appreciate the Council's concern about permeable surfacing on
( multi-use paths, but it strikes me as totally ineffective
( window-dressing as long as we accept street construction the way
( it is. The impermeable cover represented by street pavement must
{ be 1,000 times as much area as that of all the multi-use paths
( combined.
{
{ Therefore I wonder, is this proposed ordinance really intended to
{ be of environmental benefit, or is it just another attempt at the
{ marginalization of the cycling community? One would think, if
{ environmental concerns were the top priority here, that action
( would begin where the problem lies: in the automotive
( rights-of-way.

Chalo Colina
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> (For those of you unfamiliar with the Burke-Gilman Trail here in the
> Seattle area, it's a very impressive, useful piece of bike-oriented
> infrastructure. Every decent city should have a path (or several)
> like this:
> http://www.metrokc.gov/parks/trails/trails/burke.htm
> So you'll have to indulge us a little regionally specific discussion.)


The Cascade commuter board has this discussion which might be of interest:
http://www.cascade.org/Community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=6&threadid=1242


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky