Who’s the best District 6 candidate for biking and safe streets? – UPDATED

District: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Seattle City Council Districts map.As noted in our previous posts, Seattle Bike Blog is not doing official endorsements this primary. Instead, I’ll be going district-by-district, posting videos from the MASS Coalition’s transportation forums along with a roundup of transportation-related endorsements and other notable news items and thoughts.

Oh, Mike O’Brien. Please don’t leave us.

District 6 has drawn the biggest field of candidates, and the race is also among the least clear for biking and safe streets. On one hand, there are a lot of candidates who told Lester Black at the Stranger (be sure to check out the spreadsheet of responses) that they ride bikes (Terry Rice, Jon Lisbin, Dan Strauss, Heidi Wills, Jay Fathi, Joey Massa and Ed Pottharst) and think the city should invest more money to build bike lanes (Rice, Strauss, Fathi, Massa, Pottharst). So that’s good.

But no single candidate has yet emerged as the favorite among transportation-focused organizations, which is disappointing.

Melissa Hall has a good social media presence, sharing quality takes on transportation issues. For example, she supports completing the Missing Link which is somehow not a unanimous opinion among candidates this year. Her campaign got off to a late start and has been building. The question is whether she has a big enough campaign operation to get enough votes out. As we saw with the last mayoral race, being right about stuff is not enough to win an election.

Summary of public feedback on the Missing Link Environmental Impact Statement. Shilshole is the planned route.

The only candidate to get multiple endorsements from the orgs we’ve been tracking is Dan Strauss, who is currently a staffer for Sally Bagshaw. Strauss says a lot of the right things except for one big one: He is against completing the Missing Link. That’s a huge red flag. The city has already studied this section of trail far beyond the point of absurdity, and they found no evidence that the trail would harm jobs or any of the other arguments opponents have used in fighting for the past couple decades. I also worry about what opposing the trail says about who has his ear. The overwhelming majority of people (over 80 percent) who responded to the city’s multiple public outreach efforts about the trail support completing it as designed. Only 5 percent wanted Leary, Strauss’s stated preference. So who is he listening to?

UPDATE: Strauss commented below, and then he and I talked on the phone to somewhat clarify his Missing Link position. He wouldn’t budge from saying that he prefers Leary. But his position isn’t because of the business appellants, it’s because of the MLK Labor Council (I previously interviewed Nicole Grant about the council’s opposition).

“I know that a lot of people in the past have used Leary as a false alternative,” he said. “I want to get it done.” He also described himself as “very pro-bike.”

“I want a connected network of protected bike lanes,” he said. “I’m gonna go to the mat on the whole bike network.”

Work is scheduled to begin this fall, though schedule relies on a court ruling.  I asked him if he would try to stop trail construction when/if work begins.

“My preference would still be Leary. But for me, we need to get it done now,” he said. So what does that mean? I dunno.

This is an issue that came up for Jay Fathi, too. The Urbanist had good things to say about him, but then noted, “in conversation about the Burke-Gilman Trail’s Missing Link…he explicitly said that his campaign advisers had recommended that he not take a position on the issue, and so he would not. Candidly uncandid–a novel approach!” Yeah, you don’t get points for that, and I wonder about your advisors.

Look, candidates, if you can’t defend what the people want because some big businesses oppose it, then I worry about your dedication to this job. The Missing Link is beyond debate. Every argument has been studied extensively, and the decisions have been made. Opposing the trail at this point is inexcusable and, I promise you, unpopular. People just want the city to finish the damn trail and move on. Nobody wants someone walking in at this late point and trying to reopen all the arguments again. Luckily, though, it should not require further Council action because city decisions about design and funding have all been made. And if things somehow stay on schedule, construction will be underway before these candidates even take office. But you never know with this project. There always seems to be another way to delay it.

Heidi Wills has gone a totally different direction with her Missing Link opposition, promoting the idea of an elevated trail. While obviously the views from an elevated trail would be cool and all, it’s a terrible idea. The city owns the right of way on the ground for this trail. It is shovel-ready and vetted more thoroughly than any other trail maybe in the nation’s history. And we’ve already spent far, far more money on litigation and studies for this short section of trail than ever have been required. The idea that we would scratch all of that to design and build an elevated structure costing tens of millions of dollars more is beyond absurd. That kind of structure only makes sense for crossing over real barriers, like freeways or waterways, not for crossing over political barriers. If Seattle had tens of millions of dollars to spend on biking and walking, there are far more significant challenges to invest in other parts of town (like, you know, any I-5 crossing in the south end). In reality, the elevated “option” is an underhanded way to kill the project because it would never be built.

When asked about the Missing Link during the MASS forum, here’s how candidates responded:

  • Hall, Joey Massa and Terry Rice said yes.
  • Fathi and Wills were iffy.
  • Sergio Garcia, Strauss, Kate Martin and John Peeples said no.

Here’s a look at some endorsements:

  • Transit Riders Union: No endorsement Dan Strauss (this recent endorsement is not yet listed online, but I confirmed it with TRU)
  • The Stranger: Dan Strauss
  • The Urbanist: No endorsement
  • Seattle Transit Blog: No endorsement yet UPDATE: Dan Strauss and Melissa Hall rated excellent
  • Seattle Subway (PDF): Melissa Hall and Dan Strauss

Below is the video from the Move All Seattle Sustainably coalition’s transportation and housing forum for District 6. Rooted In Rights not only produced the video, they also created this handy transcript (.txt)

But you can hear each candidate give general statements in this cool Seattle Channel online voter’s guide.

This post is also a chance for you all to share your thoughts and promote your favorite D6 candidates in the comments below. Did I totally gloss over or miss something important? Let me know in the comments below. If you work for a campaign, you are welcome to participate, as well. Just please disclose which campaign you work for.

This entry was posted in news and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Who’s the best District 6 candidate for biking and safe streets? – UPDATED

  1. Fnarf says:

    I really like Dan Strauss — I gave him my vouchers — but this is a dealbreaker for me. It’s Hall. I’m terrified that the general is going to be Garcia v. Wills, though. Can’t stand either of them.

    • Tom Fucoloro says:

      In a race this big, you can really spin in circles trying to game theory the outcome (do I vote for this person to block this worse person? Etc). And without quality polling, which we won’t be getting, everything is really just a wild guess. If Dan hadn’t taken this Missing Link stance, he’d be on much more solid ground. I think that was a big mistake. Folks need to decide how important that one issue is in the context of the whole city’s business, especially since it shouldn’t come up in Council again.

    • Ballard Biker says:

      If only we had instant runoff instead of the outdated “first past the post” system that’s given our country the two, but really one-ish, party system that we’re stuck with, we wouldn’t have to consider the lesser of two evils when we vote!

      • I know, right? Maine has it, and it works really well. Australia uses it too. Much better than the Victorian era first past the post system

      • louploup2 says:

        I totally agree; we need instant runoff elections for council (and mayor and city attorney). Unfortunately, the “top two” initiative that greatly reduced political parties’ power (Initiative 872 in 2004) also forced local governments to have a primary. Until we change that state law to allow local governments to adopt instant runoff elections, we are stuck. Tell your legislatures; we need to make this a talking point.

  2. The trail is definitely a deal breaker for me. I am all in for Hall except worry she won’t have enough votes and I’m not sure how I feel about her campaign being against congestion pricing. I need to do more homework there.

    • Tom Fucoloro says:

      I was thinking about saying something about that. I don’t think congestion pricing is a good litmus test right now because the “how” is so incredibly important. You could, for example, use congestion pricing primarily as a way to make it easier for rich people to drive through the city center. Or we could focus on equity and funding transit and providing region-wide low-income passes, etc. But what will all that cost to administer? Is it feasible? We don’t know any of that yet because that level of detail hasn’t been properly studied.

      And, given that Mayor Durkan is the one proposing it, do you trust that she will do congestion pricing right and for the right reasons? I don’t.

      So while I believe an equitable congestion pricing scheme is very much possible and could be great, I don’t hold it against candidates who oppose it (especially in a yes-or-no scenario) if I know equity is their concern and not, you know, being pro-car.

  3. Multimodal says:

    Write in Mike O’Brian?

    For me it’s Hall or Pottharst.

    Here’s what I got from Fathi this week.

    “Although I have met with several interested parties on this issue over the past few months, I met with trail advocates for the first time last week, and am continuing to review the abundant information I am receiving from over the years regarding planning, lawsuits, appeals, etc. etc. I commit to doing everything possible as our District 6 councilmember to get these 2 ‘pieces’ connected ASAP. ”

    I’m not impressed. He appears clueless about such a big issue in this district. I take it that he’ll do whatever Salmon Bay Sand & Gravel want him to do. I’ve read else where that he’s for the Leary cycle track.

    Wills has taken money from gross people in the past (strippergate) so I don’t trust her judgement.

    Mustache man has a really odd response in the video. Doesn’t like the trail because his mom in Miami couldn’t use it. What?!!!! It’s a multi-use trail not just a bike trail. BTW, in case he reads this, there’s a guy who wheels his wheelchair up 34th Ave regularly. Not everyone in Ballard is like your mom in Miami. She’s welcome to walk the trail when she makes it to Ballard.

  4. Will in Seattle says:

    I hate agreeing with Fnarf, but I will

  5. Ted Sweeney says:

    I’m a daily bike commuter and trail user, live in the district, and spent a number of years coordinating the University of Washington’s active transportation programs. Having known him for years, I really believe Dan is the best District 6 candidate for safe streets city-wide. And hasn’t that been the gap? Missing Link isn’t be our biggest fight right now with the bike master plan so far off track. Regardless of city-wide polling, BGT alignment remains a complex and contentious issue in District 6 – and this is a district race. Dan rides bikes, and was seriously injured as a young adult when a driver hit him with their car while Dan was biking in the district. He gets the importance of our issues, and he already has relationships with the council and with city departments, knows the lay of the land, such that he can leverage the council position’s power to get progress on the city-wide network. These connections and his legislation experience are the things that have resonated with the Stranger, several unions, and his other endorsers. There are four truly viable candidates in the primary – Jay, Heidi, Sergio, and Dan (judging by endorsements, signs, and donors). None of those candidates pass the BGT litmus test – that should be your sign that this is a much more complicated issue in district. But I really do believe Dan is the one who will get progress for us city-wide. My two cents.

    • Multimodal says:

      I don’t buy it. It’s not time to give into the few greedy special interests with deep pockets. Shilshole needs to be improved for all residents. It’s past time to get it done. The BGT is for everyone! If your “good” candidates can’t support BGT what else will they give up on? Dan’s story is sad but it doesn’t matter if he can’t see the value in helping people who live here and need a truly safe route between Golden Gardens and Fremont. We have the resources now so don’t squander the opportunity.

    • Multimodal says:

      If he can’t support finishing the missing link in his district why would he be able to make progress elsewhere? Doesn’t make sense.

  6. Dan Strauss says:

    I want to see the Missing Link completed as soon as possible.

    The question asked was specifically regarding the Shilshole route and it is true that I would rather see it on Leary as a 15 foot trail, with additional protected bike lanes in each direction, and accompanied by transit only lanes, as well as, a pedestrian only zone on Ballard avenue (with appropriate local access for businesses).

    It was 1994 and I was 8 years old when I attended my first Missing Link meeting, and throughout my life I’ve worked to see it completed. Back then, the Missing Link included the section of trail next to Fred Meyer, and between the locks and Golden Gardens. Now we’ve gotten to the last mile.

    Ballard has changed in the past 20 years. We have different pressures on our downtown core than we did in 1994 when Rails to Trails was the only way we could build bicycle infrastructure in the city.

    In the 1994 Seattle, Shilshole was the correct route. In 2019, we have greater density, a need for transit only lanes, protected bike lanes that will likely be used by emerging transportation options, and a need for more pedestrian space.The width of Leary allows for all these modes to have safe and separated infrastructure, and with pedestrian only space on Ballard Avenue, there will be fewer intersections for the trail to cross than what was studied in the EIS.

    Ballard needs more human-scaled design overall, of which the missing Link is a critical piece, and we can no longer view it in a vacuum without also fighting for the transit and pedestrian needs of downtown Ballard.

    I was stunned to learn the section of the Missing Link being completed on Market Street was halted. I am exasperated at fighting lawsuits when we need this infrastructure more than ever.

    In 1994 there was not the political will for transit only lanes, protected bike lanes, or pedestrian-only space. The Ballard Farmer’s Market didn’t exist, and when it started it was lightly attended. Today we have a dense bustling downtown and we need to expand the Farmer’s Market.

    My support for completing the Missing Link is unwavering and in 2019 – I see greater potential for using Market Street to Leary Avenue to 17th Ave NW and under the Ballard Bridge. Using Leary under the Ballard Bridge is too congested, and the past proposals for Leary Avenue for just protected bike lanes to complete the Missing Link doesn’t adequately complete the trail. Additional design to fully understand alternatives will take less time than dragging out court battles.

    Even before Ballard was popular and when successful businesses moved to Market Street only to fail, Ballard had a strong economy. That is because every fishing boat in Fisherman’s Terminal is a small business employing hundreds and indirectly employing thousands of people who do not need to take on educational debt to have family-wage jobs. We need to keep these family wage jobs in our community.

    I want to see Ballard’s future have safe and connected bicycle infrastructure, serve our fishing fleet, move people in transit-only lanes, and have streets designed for people, not cars. I’ve been a part of this conversation long enough to know the false arguments, who said what and when, and I don’t get tricked by posturing because I know the history.

    We need to work together and get this done this year, not in another 20 years.

    • Justin Hansen says:

      And for this poor decision making on your part, you lost my vote. Safety is the issue here. You don’t even mention it in your comment. The Leary route crosses intersections, the Shilshole route crosses driveways. Tell me how many interactions with vehicles a person walking or biking will encounter on Leary vs Shilshole. Leary is a red herring that will be fought just as hard as we have already seen, only starting from the beginning. Plus they will be able to argue that Leary is nowhere near as safe as the Shilshole route, because the city already came to that conclusion. Your judgement is flawed on this, Dan. Your constituency will be more than businesses.

    • multimodal says:

      Yes, you have a sad bike story. Many people in Ballard do. That doesn’t excuse your short sighted vision that gives into the false narrative that a 1.4 mile trail which improves infrastructure will mean the end of the fishing industry. The trail won’t do that. It will be their short sighted business tactics of constantly trying to keep anyone but the fishing industry away from Shilshole Ave.

      Fisherman’s Terminal is not in Ballard but the BGT Missing Link is. Shilshole needs to be fixed. Have you been down there lately? Have you seen the chaotic situation?

      You talk about family wage jobs … do these folks live in Ballard? Why would you need to have free parking in front of CSR if you live in the area? I’ve heard that they need it because of the tools they carry. Why doesn’t Scott provide a place for their tools and/or trucks on his property. They’re strong men. They can park a block or two away, wheel their tools to work and pay for parking like everyone else. I’m not offered free parking where I work. What about Ballard residents who need to get to their living wage jobs safely without driving a car or taking a bus? I guess you don’t quite care about them.

      Admit it. These obstructionist businesses will not go out of business because Shilshole is improved for pedestrians, bicycles and other modes of transport. They’re just selfish and want control over public property that is paid for by our property taxes.

      Leary won’t work because it’s not safe and Metro needs it for buses. It has too many intersections with cars that turn right on red. I just saw someone last week drive through a red light intentionally. I also see cars blow past the stop signs on 17th on a regular basis. Read the report on the BGT Missing Link.

      Your stance clearly shows that you care most about SBS&G and their friends who have deep pockets. We need someone that will stand up to those bully tactics.

      DAN IS NOT OUR MAN.

      PS: I’ve lived here 30+ years, pay property taxes and use the trail on a regular basis for multiple reasons. I want a safe route from Golden Gardens to Fremont via South Shilshole.

    • DOUG. says:

      Hey Dan: In 1994, while you were attending your “first Missing Link meeting” as a 2nd grader, I was riding my bike from a rental house in Wallingford to the Backstage on Market to drink $3 Red Hooks and see a couple of bands.

      Now I own a house in Wallingford and ride to Ballard Station for $7 IPAs. The fact that almost nothing has changed on the bike route between the Fred Meyer and the Ballard Locks in the past 25 years is pathetic.

      Leary? Give me a break. This has been studied to death. If you happen to win this race, you need to change your position and support the planned, approved, and desired route along Shilshole. Bikes will outlive sand and gravel.

    • tom says:

      Sorry Dan, I can not vote for you given your position on not supporting the missing link along Shilshole. i am a district 6 voter. i have been to multiple public meetings on this topic and about 90% of the people support the Shilshole route. I do not see how you can get elected given your position or why you should be elected to represent district 6.
      We need to follow the money and see who is donating to these campaigns.

    • JM says:

      Dan, I know engaging in forums can be a total minefield, so thank you. I agree with most of the posts here, but want to offer this: if you can address these two points, you still have the opportunity of earning my vote.
      1) The EIS determined that Shilshole is the best and safest route. How do you justify disagreeing with that study, and as coincilmember will you value these impartial studies over the input of lobbyists? If yes, how can we trust that answer with your stance here?
      2) How would you fund a complete redesign at this point and keep the project on time and on budget? Or, if you wouldn’t, then would you actively defend the Shilshole route if the judges continue to make crazy rulings and add further delay?

      • Jessica Winter-Stoltzman says:

        I think jm’s framing of the issue is really good. Sure, everyone has an opinion and ideas for what to do about the missing link, but we should be past the point where everyone’s opinion is equally valid. It’s been discussed and studied and the professionals vetted all the options and came up with a plan. If we’re throwing that plan out and reopening the discussion based on some business’s opinions, then how will the discussion ever be resolved? I actually don’t have a preference for where it goes, I just want it built ASAP. I think that is Dan’s position too, if I’m understanding correctly. But I think the way to get that done is not to go back to square one every time some lobby complains in the vain hope for a compromise, but to say “thanks for all the input, it’s all been addressed in the many EISs and public comment periods and we’re moving forward now.” Whichever candidate says that earns my vote.

    • Rick P says:

      In my opinion, anyone who suggests Leary over Shilshole has not earnestly examined the two routes from a experiential biking perspective.

      The Leary route is the most dangerous. The number of significant intersections with car traffic that will cross the trail, (and even the necessary intersections additionally required on Market) would dramatically increase injuries to people. I have seen pedestrians hit in crosswalks due to cars turning right without looking in a couple of these intersections. I, myself have been almost hit while walking in crosswalks across Leary.

      I live in Ballard and will not use a Leary route on a bike – ever. My safety is more important than employee (and homeless) parking along Shilshole. It is my prediction that bikers on a Leary cycle track will die or be seriously injured and that the route will be eventually closed or rerouted, costing many more millions of dollars.

      Anyone concerned about safety should look carefully at the previous studies of these route alternatives and then travel along the proposed routes. Shilshole is the safest, cheapest, and easiest path forward. I am in my 60s and don’t travel at high speeds and I am not too concerned about which route is most direct – my issue is the safety of everyone traveling through Ballard.

      I can’t imagine voting for anyone who advocates the Leary route, it suggests a lack of knowledge of the implications of that alternative or a desire to avoid political pressure from certain businesses.

    • BallardCommuter says:

      Dan, I appreciate you weighing in here. But like other readers, your position doesn’t make sense to me. The fact that Ballard is becoming busier doesn’t make Leary a better option now than it was 20 years ago. In fact, it’s all the more reason to keep non-motorized traffic separate from the urban center. It’s a reality that Ballard is changing, and the waterfront businesses have to deal with some of that traffic, too. To make bicycling and walking more dangerous than they need to be at the same time that we need more Ballard residents to choose these modes of transportation is just a recipe for failure. A well-designed BGT, along Shilshole, with some traffic lights to help the waterfront businesses get in and out safely, and we could all coexist. I just hope whoever is chosen to represent Ballard will not sacrifice safety in favor of business interests.

    • AW says:

      I am truly disappointed about Dan’s position on the missing link. For just about everything else I agree with him but I feel we need a champion for the safer route along Shilshole. If the district council member doesn’t support Shilshole then who will ? Given that I travel this route every workday, I really cannot vote for Dan.

      If Dan’s position is “Just get this done ASAP” and the lawsuit gets resolved soon then will he support the ready to go Shilshole route or will he stand up for the businesses and stop it. It seems to me the fastest way to get this done is Shilshole.

      • Dan Strauss says:

        Thank you for all your feedback – I am more than happy to meet with anyone at anytime to discuss this further. I was simply clarifying that I answered a yes/no question that has more than a yes/no answer and I want to see the missing link completed as fast as possible.

        I promote a connected network of safe and separated infrastructure for people and families who ride bikes at every chance I get. These policy stances are on my website, in my letter to our community, and stated to people who oppose bike lanes. I committed to supporting people who bike.

        I have also always known the importance of family-wage jobs, MLK Labor didn’t convince me of this. I hear concerns about impacting family-wage jobs from people who bike, work, and do business in Ballard.

        Recently I organized a Design Charrette to amend the Thomas Greenway Street Concept Plan (created in 2013) because our city has changed how we envision our ROWs even in the last 6 years. We came away from the charrette with plans to emphasize more on human scale design than the original plan.

        Our city is growing and changing, I will always look to create human scale design and safe and separated infrastructure whenever possible. I will go to the mat for people who bike and completing our bicycle master plan.

        Please never hesitate to reach out to me directly, I would love to continue the conversation.

      • Multimodal says:

        Dan, your Leary plan is not a multi-use trail and it won’t get built ASAP (if ever).. I’m sure you know that but don’t have the guts to say it. South Shilshole is ready to start construction now!

        What about those of us that live here and pay property tax? Your labor union is located in downtown Seattle not Ballard. So, you’re saying that you would rather represent them and Salmon Bay Sand & Gravel? Doesn’t sound right to me. Please reconsider. There might not be enough union members who actually live in district 6 to support you.

        Living wage jobs will not disappear when South Shilshole is improved for everyone that lives, works and pays taxes here.

        You don’t have my vote now or in the future unless you change your stance.

  7. DOUG. says:

    For cycling advocates, Ed Pottharst is BY FAR the best candidate in this race. He supports completing the Missing Link along Shilshole. And he’s a regular bike commuter from Ballard to the ID, despite being hearing impaired, which takes total balls.

  8. multimodal says:

    MLK Labor Council is being used by Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel to get their way.

    MLK Labor Council is located in downtown Seattle and not Ballard. Does Nicole live in District 6? I’m offended by her Shilshole is “taken” stance. It’s public property that our taxes have supported and not for private use by a few deep pocketed companies. She’s telling us that we do not have access to our own neighborhood infrastructure. That’s wrong!

    By taking money from them, Dan is saying he supports Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel which isn’t a “mom & pop” fishing company.

    At this point we need continue construction, build at 15 foot sidewalk down South Shilshole, install driveways and put up parking meters. Shilshole needs to stop being a sh*thole.

  9. Pingback: Friday news roundup

  10. Tom A says:

    Whoever makes it past the primary we need to push them about their positions on the missing link. This is a very important issue (and will dictate my vote) and would have been completed a decade or more ago if it was not for one or two businesses. The vast majority of District 6 voters want the project completed along Shilshole, anyone that has only casually followed the issue is aware of this.
    Why so many of the candidates are not supporting completion of the trail as soon as possible designed is baffling. Perhaps they have been contacted by a few select businesses with lots of money? Donated funds are public record, would be interesting where donations are from.

  11. eddiew says:

    Leary Way is an infeasible arterial for the BGT extension as it carries routes 40, 17, and 18. Routes 17 and 18 may disappear in 203X if ST3 Link is implemented. Route 40 or its successor could be there for decades. There is not enough width on either NW Market Street between 22nd and 24th avenues NW nor Leary Way to provide priority for both transit and bikes. Both bikes and buses need to be at the curbside; the former have to meet intending riders on the sidewalks.

    My apprehension about the BGT extension on Shilshole between 15th and 24th avenues NW is that the SDOT planned path is too narrow. SDOT selected the mode as a mixed use trail. on high-demand days, it would be too crowded. I expect faster riders will shift back to Shilshole. the plan does not seem to improve the pedestrian infrastructure on the north side of Shilshole; it has undisciplined parking.

    I expect the plan addresses the industrial driveways. they work well in the Fremont section. empathy and respect please. the Ballard Terminal RR is useful.

    I rode on Shilshole daily in 1993-95. the abrupt lane edge was awkward. the intersection at 17th Avenue NW really needs control. why has not that been provided over the decades to improve safety and flow for all modes?

    Yes, Mike O’Brien is not running for re-election.

  12. Chris Covert-Bowlds says:

    We support Ed Pottharst, a fellow bicycle commuter. Having listened to all the candidates in several forums, and spoken with most of them, I feel Ed would be the best supporter for getting the Missing Link done in the safest way, on Shilshole. Leary is more dangerous. The elevated trail Wills supports would never be built, due to cost.

  13. Kirk says:

    I live in District 6 and my vote only goes to a proponent of finishing the Missing Link on Shilshole. If there is such support for protected bike lanes on Leary, let’s do them both.

  14. Alec says:

    Strauss has stated some considerable things about denser, affordable housing, which is also a part of increasing bicycling ridership. He thought eliminating the occupancy limit of unrelated persons in single family zoned areas was a good idea, so that number per unit would be over 8. He asked me if there was anyway in the current legal system mobile homes could reside on single family zoned lots, although iirc he did not state he’d persue allowing it in general. I did float the idea of exemptions being granted if a prospective tenant could demonstrate they live without any record of a drivers license, a bill of sale of a car, and other rental agreements, so there’s less chance of parking conflicts. He did say the city has allowed many commercial parking lot admins to lease their spaces for residential night use. I guess it would be better if there was a statewide liability insurance program that all parking lot owners could use, from schools to churches.

  15. Pingback: Seattle District 6 candidate ratings – Seattle Transit Blog

  16. Melissa Hall says:

    I would like to see changes on Leary too, my kids daycare has had cars hit the building or playground three times this summer because the speeds seem to exceed the design.

    However the missing link is a different issue and it is past time to fix it. At this point we are at yet another lawsuit and it might be time to look at dramatic actions like vacating the road and donating it to a friends of the Burke Gilman group with easements for the businesses (because vacation of ROW is a catigorical exemption from an EIS) because at this point it just needs to be done so we need to look at all the process options instead of all of the lines on the map in the hope one that doesn’t upset anyone will magically appear.

  17. Lee Bruch says:

    I’ve been in a quandry about who to vote for in District 6.
    Dan Strauss is the candidate who comes closest to representing my views.
    However…
    His stance on the missing link is a deal breaker for me.
    Therefore…
    I won’t vote for the others, but I won’t vote for him.

    With very heavy heart, and disappointment at the choices I am being given, I’ve decided to write in the name of Councilmember Mike O’Brien.

    (I wish I could vote for candidates in the other districts that I strongly support.)

  18. Lee Bruch says:

    “The only thing we have to fear itself” (F D Roosevelt)

    The fear by some of the Missing Link along Shilshole is palpable, and frightens some of our politicians including Dan Strauss. But it is unfounded.

    When I was involved in the creation of Granville Island in Vancouver in the 1970’s the same fears prompted many to oppose the rejuvenation of Granville Island. Notable amongst the opponents was a major concrete plant. Several brave community LEADERS foresaw the opportunity, persevered, and LED through the opposition to create what has become Vancouver’s most popular destination. The fears proved to be unfounded. 40 years later the concrete plant is still thriving amidst the pedestrians and bikes … its biggest problem is dealing with vehicular traffic.

    In comparison the proposed missing link along Shilshole is minor; the only thing it proposes is a few truck crossings across a bike trail. It has been studied extensively through the SEPA process, and found to be the safest, least disruptive, and best of the many alternatives available. And when questioned about safety and insurance providers, they responded that it did not represent a problem. If SEPA means anything the results of its process should be followed, otherwise, we might as well get rid of the expensive SEPA process entirely.

    The only thing was have to fear is those who fear.

    • Multimodal says:

      Yes! Both can coexist.

      I don’t understand how the city can be barred from improving city infrastructure. This is not a pristine forest. This area has been polluted by the same businesses that oppose the multi-use trail. Dan’s Leary proposal is not a multi-use trail. Let’s prove them all wrong and vote for a candidate that has the guts to stand up for what is right. We can have both.

      A mult-use trail on South Shilshole does NOT mean the end to family wage jobs for Ballard residents and homeowners.

  19. Pingback: Parks levy with $166M for trails passes by wide margin, Council races take shape | Seattle Bike Blog

Leave a Reply