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/mess-
ageview.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