#MarketSt

2025-05-13

Upscale #EastBay suburban hamlet must pay $120,000 to settle case brought by a persistent projectionist , "#solarpunk novelist" and Mastodon user @AEMarling arrested in 2021 for being an alleged "public nuisance" after beaming portable political imagery onto #SanRamon #CityHall.

Marling is perhaps best known for his caustic commentary targeting petty #Twitler #CEO #MelonHusk with viral projection takes including “Space Karen,” “Lawless Oligarch” "Mediocre Manchild" and other critiques on the #American oligarch's corporate #SocialMedia HQ outpost along #MarketSt in #SanFrancisco.

Originally after being cited, Marling's attorney assumed the small suburban city would return his projection equipment and drop charges, but angry officials retained "outside counsel and private attorney to act as prosecutor, and they prosecuted this to the bitter end” which prompted the case to continue for years as Marling counter sued the bedroom community in #federalcourt for alleged violations of his #FirstAmendment and #FourthAmendment rights, as well as false arrest, among other legal claims that personally named city officials and #police personnel who pursued the charges. Named in Marling's suit were #CityAttorney Martin Lysons, city manager Joe Gorton, ex top cop Craig Stevens, current #PoliceChief Denton Carlson, Sgt. Michael Pistello, Officer Rick Gonzalez, pvt attorney Lance Bayer and city employee Karen McHenry-Smith. The first alleged criminal conspiratorial act by the local govt occured when petty police lied in their report about the spot where Marling even had the projector, claiming it was propped up against a traffic light on a sidewalk rather than placed in a landscaping bed.

From there, and even after an acquittal in an actual local court for the bogus citation, Marling filed a complaint alleging numerous civil violations, including of the First, Fourth and 14th amendments and the #CivilRights Act, as well as false imprisonment.

Marling said he hopes the legal #settlement discourages crackdowns on #activism in the future.

“For the police to try to detain in this fashion is illegal — I wasn’t violating any laws,” Marling said. “I guess you could say it was a slap on the wrist to try to encourage cities to not do this.” We only got to this point where the city finally "settled" and agreed to pay #legal costs and admit no #wrongdoing after years of #litigation.

enews.email.bayareanewsgroup.c

danvillesanramon.com/news/2023

eastbaytimes.com/2025/05/13/vi #CopWatch #FreeSpeech

2024-12-21

Feedback calls for walk/bike separation in Leary/Market plan, but people still prefer Shilshole for Missing Link

People still prefer the city’s fully-designed Burke-Gilman Trail plan on Shilshole, though that project remains held up in a web of legal challenges. So if the city decides they must move forward with a route along Leary Way and Market Street instead, they want to see much more separation between people walking and biking than what has been shown in early designs.

SDOT released the outreach summary report (PDF) for Councilmember Dan Strauss’s Burke-Gilman Trail Missing Link alternative on Leary Way and Market Street this week, and the responses are fairly straightforward and uncomplicated.

It seems tough to misread this chart. Folks do not like the idea of simply widening the sidewalk on Market Street and calling it a trail. No other point in the entire feedback report got more support than this. People riding bikes don’t want to try to bike through a crowded sidewalk in a business district, and people walking, rolling or hanging out on sidewalks don’t want people biking there either. I can’t imagine business owners love the idea of their front doors letting out directly into the path of a designated bike trail, either. This is just not how it’s supposed to be done.

The feedback report specifically points to Seattle Bike Blog at the reason for this result, noting, “Seattle Bike Blog published an article encouraging readers to share their feedback with SDOT about the project. This included a note to share specifically that SDOT should separate the path for people walking and people biking in front of businesses. This may have led to a higher number of comments for this particular theme.” First off, good work, everyone. But second, we were not the only ones making this point. A group of folks at the Ballard Landmark retirement and assisted living building as well as Carter Subaru and real estate developers Teutsch Partners have been fighting the Leary concept, and they also list a lack of separation between pedestrian and bicycling spaces as a problem. “There is no divider between the Missing Link and the sidewalk,” notes the NoLinkOnLeary website. “This makes the path more dangerous as pedestrians won’t know where to expect to meet bicyclists and scooters.” So it’s not just the Seattle Bike Blog readers who see the problem here, which is why that bar is so much longer than the rest of the chart. It’s a point of cross-community agreement.

One Leary, the results were a little muddier. Support for the project outpaced opposition 2 to 1, but the amount of opposition is notable. This is most likely from the NoLinkOnLeary campaign. Separating pedestrian and bicycling spaces is still the top point of agreement, though there is big support for safer intersections and crosswalks. The report notes that there was a lot of support for adding missing crosswalks at Vernon and Ione, which were points Seattle Bike Blog had suggested.

Again, separating modes was the top suggestion for the short section on 17th between Shilshole and Leary, though preserving trees made a good showing here.

Finally, the general feedback question showed a huge response for “prefers another route.” The reports explanation notes that most of these folks preferred the Shilshole route because it is more direct and has fewer conflict points such as driveways and busy commercial sidewalks. Cascade Bicycle Club has been consistent that while they support safety improvements and a bike route on Leary and Market, they do so in addition to their continued support for the trail plan on Shilshole. However, it wasn’t just bike riders pushing for Shilshole. The NoLinkOnLeary group has also been pushing for Shilshole as their preferred option. Someone at the Ballard Landmark even posted a poem about putting the trail on Shilshole in the window as well as signs pointing people to the NoLinkOnLeary.org website.

SHILSHOLE, OH SHILSHOLE,
YOU’RE MY BIKE TRAIL OF CHOICE.
I’M A ROLLING OLDIE, WHO LIVES NEARBY,
HOPING YOU’LL HEAR MY VOICE.
I WANT TO ROLL BUMPLESS BY THE CANAL,
WITH BOATS AND THE SEAGULLS’ SQUAWKS,
AND NOT DIVERT TO LEARY,
ON MY STROLL TO THE CHITTENHAM LOCKS.

-COLLEEN COGHLAN

Now, as much as I love a good trail advocacy poem (and I do, a lot), I don’t agree with everything on the NoLinkOnLeary site. There are ways to design a bike route that safely avoids conflicts with accessible loading zones, and SDOT’s team so far has clearly not been able to convince folks at the Ballard Landmark that they have the right solution. But I hope the folks are open to solutions other than just not building a bike route at all. There are a lot of potential benefits in this plan for Landmark residents, such as dramatically shorter and safer crosswalks. Bike riders seem ready to fight for a much improved design, and it would be great if folks can unite behind a shared vision. Folks should ask themselves, “If the city insists on building this trail on Leary, what are our demands?” Any missing crosswalks in the area? Any missing curb cuts? Do residents feel cut off from certain area destinations? Come up with a list. Bike advocacy groups are always going to be wary of language that implies total opposition to the idea of a bike route on a major street like Leary. But when I read the NoLinkOnLeary site, I see more points of agreement than differences. You can see the points of synergy in these charts. That’s a winning coalition.

Dead-end ideas

Every time the Missing Link comes up, there are a couple ideas people suggest that have already been ruled out and are not coming back. So I figured I’d address them here just in case you come across them somewhere.

A Ballard High Line

Like New York City’s amazing elevated park the High Line, why not build an elevated bike path on Shilshole that flies over the business driveways?

Well, as much as that does sound fun, it would be wildly expensive. If we are going to invest that kind of money in a piece of biking and walking infrastructure, then we should be spending it to cross actual barriers like freeways, ravines or waterways, not political barriers like a group of businesses that keep suing. Plus, these are maritime businesses that may need to move tall things in and out, so the path would need to be very tall. But also, what if someone wants to exit to visit Ballard destinations rather than just flying over the area? Are we going to have long and winding off-ramps along the way? Plus, anyone traveling to any point between trail access points would still be forced to navigate all the existing Missing Link challenges and hazards. I appreciate the dream behind the idea, but it doesn’t make sense here. I’m sorry. I’d love to talk about some other areas where this kind of thinking might work better, though.

Ballard Ave

Ballard Ave is currently the best bike route option for many people, but mostly because Shilshole and Leary are so terrible. Ballard Ave was included in the city’s list of options for the Missing Link route during the environmental review process, and people were extremely emphatic that they hated the idea. During public feedback, it registered only 1% support as the route preference (Shilshole received 81%). The Ballard Market folks in particular got mobilized very quickly and made it clear they were against it. I can assure you people would come out strongly against it all over again if it ever shows up on a list of options again, which I highly doubt will happen (it was listed in the study because the city had to show they considered all the options, and it was ruled out as quickly as possible). But even without the clear opposition from businesses and the market, Ballard Ave is a terrible place for the Missing Link. It’s got cobblestones for one, which is not accessible. It is also very active at various times of day and completely closed for travel every Sunday. Then after all those disadvantages, it would also require a redesign of Market Street with all the same issues the Leary design is facing there. So I agree that Ballard Ave is the best bike route today and that people will continue biking there even after the Missing Link is complete because that’s where many destinations are. But it is not the best place for a trail.

#SEAbikes #Seattle

Bar chart showing overwhelming support for more pedestrian and bike separation, the top point of feedback on the Market Street segment.For the Leary segment, there was much more approval of the design, though specific disapproval was also higher than on Market. A top request was to separate walking and biking spaces.Feedback on 17th again prioritizes separating pedestrian and bicycling spaces, though general support was higher and there the second most popular response was to preserve trees.
2024-08-15

Let SDOT know the Market/Leary Burke-Gilman route needs to separate walking and biking near storefronts

Top two images from SDOT’s early designs. Bottom is Seattle Bike Blog’s loose concept.

It is a great idea to redesign Leary Way NW and NW Market Street so they are safer for everyone while also connecting the Burke-Gilman Trail through Ballard, but SDOT’s current design needs significant work in order to achieve those goals.

SDOT has not released any new details about Councilmember Dan Strauss’ Market/Leary plan since we last reported on it, but they now have a simple online form for collecting public feedback. So go fill it out!

Question 1 regarding the Market Street segment is the most important. SDOT’s most recent 30% design includes several significant “mixing zones” where the trail and the sidewalk would merge together. SDOT’s own design guidelines for intersections say, “A mixing zone is not appropriate for two-way protected bike lanes.” The current design would create situations where people trying to bike in both directions along the route would mix with shoppers, people heading to the bus, people waiting for the walk signal to cross the street, and anyone else hanging out this this busy business district. This would be frustrating for people on bikes and it would be uncomfortable for people on the sidewalk. People should be able to hang out on the sidewalk without worrying about bikes coming through, and people biking should be able to rely on being able to travel along this route without needing to crawl through a crowd of people. It is in everybody’s best interest for walking and biking spaces to be separated in a busy business district, and the design team should be following best practices for two-way bike lanes through a business district. The Market segment also needs more traffic calming and safer crosswalks, goals that combine well with the goal of separating biking and walking spaces. SDOT’s Vision Zero research found that 80% of pedestrian deaths in Seattle occur on streets with multiple lanes in the same direction, so reducing the number of lanes on Market in this highly-walked business district is a worthy project entirely on its own merits while also creating the space needed to keep biking and walking separate.

If this project is designed well, the bike and scooter volumes could be very high, so it needs to be designed accordingly. Imagine a nice day with a constant stream of people biking and scootering out to Golden Gardens while another stream of people walk and bike through here to a bustling Sunday Farmer’s Market. That should be the design team’s use case.

Question 2 is about the Leary Way section, which is much closer to greatness than Market. Again, they should be designing it to two-way protected bike lane standards without mixing zones, but on Leary the space is already allocated for them to do so. This section needs tweaks, not a total redo. Be sure to voice enthusiastic support for the crosswalk and intersection improvements along this stretch, and request that every intersection leg have a crosswalk (Vernon is missing one crosswalk and NW Ione Pl does not have any marked crosswalks).

Question 3 is about the short section on 17th Ave NW to connect to the trail on Shilshole. Again, keep walking and biking spaces separate and designed to proper standards. The strange intersection of 17th and Leary is also missing some crosswalks seemingly in order to preserve a right turn slip lane. But I suspect the debate on this stretch will have more to do with the trees and parking. The current design would actually add parking while cutting down trees (though one of the three trees is angled over the sidewalk toward the buildings, so its days are likely numbered anyway). I personally think trees are more important than the car parking, but I suppose that’s more of a question for the local community to hash out.

Question 4 is an open-ended space for general feedback. My overarching thought is that the design team should not get hung up on whether they are designing a multi-use trail (AKA “shared-use path”) or a two-way protected bike lane. They should instead use the designs that are most appropriate for the context of a busy business district. If mixing zones are not acceptable for a two-way protected bike lane, they don’t suddenly become acceptable because you call it a shared-use path instead. Another general note is that while I am not against tearing down trees when the benefits are clearly worth it (creating a safe biking and walking route through Ballard is definitely worth it), the team should attempt to build around existing trees whenever possible even if that means utilizing more roadway space. You could also note here that you still support the city’s fully-designed trail on Shilshole that remains held up in endless court battles.

I look forward to enthusiastically supporting a high-quality Leary/Market design for connecting the Burke-Gilman Trail through Ballard.

Share

#SEAbikes #Seattle

Three images of the same view looking east on Market Street. The top is the current, the middle is SDOT's version and the bottom is Seattle Bike Blog's concept.
2024-07-10

In last-minute effort, Strauss successfully adds $20M for Burke-Gilman Trail via Leary/Market to the transportation levy proposal + The current design needs to get better

I was all set to write up a story about the uncertain future of the Ballard Missing Link of the Burke-Gilman Trail when, in a last-minute Hail Mary minutes before official adoption, Councilmember Dan Strauss reintroduced his previously-failed amendment to fund his trail connection plan via Leary Way and Market Street and found the votes to get it passed. Councilmembers Cathy Moore and Rob Saka switched their stances from a week ago to join Joy Hollingsworth, Tammy Morales, Tanya Woo and Strauss in voting yes. The funds were shifted out of the significantly-increased paving budget line.

The Burke-Gilman amendment (PDF) was the only change made Tuesday to the $1.55 billion transportation levy proposal (PDF), and it brought the total spending line for bicycle safety to $133.5 million. It may also have signaled a city policy change to shift focus from the fully-designed Shilshole trail route, which remains held up in court, to the Leary/Market route. The Leary/Market design has received lukewarm support from bicycle advocates, though Cascade Bicycle Club did put out an advocacy action alert in June supporting the Strauss amendment among others.

Josh Brower, attorney for the appellant group that has successfully trapped the trail in an endless series of court battles, sent out a press release celebrating the news.

“After 20 years of successfully protecting working-class Ballard, we are on the way to  a real solution to the Missing Link, together with a strong group of common-sense supporters who are truly dedicated to real transit equity and safety,” said Brower in the press release.

While bike orgs have not been overly supportive of the Leary/Market idea, they also have not been fighting it. Cascade Bicycle Club’s stance has so far been that they support bike safety on Leary and Market, but not at the expense of the preferred and designed Shilshole trail route. Seattle Bike Blog praised parts of the very early design, especially the traffic calming elements on Leary Way, but the recently-released 30% designs show that many major issues have not been addressed.

The biggest concern is that the trail route constantly mixes with busy commercial sidewalks in downtown Ballard rather than keeping people biking and walking separated. This design would make the pedestrian experience worse and would lead to constant conflicts between people biking and walking. Protected bike lane design best practices exist for a reason, but the current design largely ignores them. Yes, they keep calling it a “multi-use trail,” but to actual users on the ground that distinction is purely academic. In busy commercial areas, you gotta keep the modes separated, including at intersections, and the biking route needs to be continuous.

The 30% design shows the trail disappearing entirely before it reaches Market Street, routing people on bikes to share the busy sidewalk with people shopping, hanging out and waiting for the walk signal so they can cross the street. Everyone will hate this if they build it.

If done well, this trail could see large numbers of people on bikes daily, but those numbers will balloon dramatically on those peak Golden Gardens days. The project needs to be designed to handle high volumes of people on bikes without negatively impacting the sidewalk environment, otherwise it will fail. People should be able to hang out on the sidewalk on Market Street without worrying someone might come through on a bike, and people biking should be able to ride this route without having to constantly deal with people wandering into the path.

Biking on the Market Street not-a-trail looking east near 28th Ave NW.

CM Strauss’s argument is that they are just extending a design that already exists just west of 24th Ave NW on a stretch that for legal reasons the city is not allowed to call a trail (it is not even included on the official Seattle bike map). He’s right that it seems to work well enough now. It is also far less busy than the downtown core of Ballard, and the mixing zones near the intersections are all smaller and less complicated than what is planned near Leary and Market. Still, the best sections of the not-a-trail are separated from the sidewalk, and it all fits because the roadway has a traffic-calming design with one through lane in each direction rather than two.

The good news is that, as these existing segments demonstrate, there is enough space on Market Street to create high-quality, safe and comfortable biking and walking spaces simply by repurposing one of the four traffic lanes. Since we know Seattle streets with multiple lanes in the same direction are more deadly, reducing the number of lanes in this extremely walkable part of the neighborhood is a good idea on its own merits. SDOT can create a street with separate and comfortable sidewalk and biking spaces while also improving the safety for everyone using or crossing Market Street. A safer and higher-quality design could go a long way to convincing safe streets advocates to get on board, and it might also allow the city to keep the existing trees (I’m not entirely against cutting down trees if it is truly necessary to make a street better and safer, but SDOT should try not to if possible). Below is a quick and dirty sketch of what I mean.

Top two images from SDOT’s early designs. Bottom is Seattle Bike Blog’s concept. Imagine there’s a curb between the bike path and sidewalk. This path should also remain separated at the intersections.

As we noted in our previous deep dive into the early design, traffic volumes on Market Street drop dramatically west of 15th Ave NW. This street only carries 10,300 vehicles per day, which is about a third of what it carries east of 15th. In urban traffic volume terms, 10,000 is nothing. However, it is very important to keep the buses on time and reliable. The current design has bus lanes in each direction that disappear at many intersections. Using in-lane bus stops may be as good or better for bus reliability than bus lanes that transform into car-clogged turn lanes, though I am not a traffic engineer and I know this area is really weird and complicated. Still, I trust in SDOT’s traffic engineering team to come up with a solution that keeps busses moving reliably using the space of three traffic lanes.

I look forward to enthusiastically supporting a high-quality biking and walking connection on Market and Leary. But it’s going to require a significant rework of the 30% design to get there. Will SDOT go back and nail the design? Will it open without anyone once again going back on their word by suing it into oblivion? If it gets built and works well, I’ll happily take the L on the fight for a trail on Shilshole. Well, at least until Seattle some day gets the opportunity to tear out the rails and build the trail on the rail bed.

Share

#SEAbikes #Seattle

Three images of the same view looking east on Market Street. The top is the current, the middle is SDOT's version and the bottom is Seattle Bike Blog's concept.Top-down diagram showing the trail on Leary ending beofre reaching Market and then not starting against until after it crosses 22nd Ave NW.Photo of a group of families biking on the trail next to a sidewalk full of people.
2023-11-28

SDOT releases early design for Leary/Market bikeway, seeks feedback

https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2023/11/27/sdot-releases-early-design-for-leary-market-bikeway-seeks-feedback/

#SEAbikes #Seattle

Concept photo of Market Street with bike lane drawn next to the sidewalk.top-down concept diagram showing the proposed Market Street design. The north sidewalk is the same, but the south sidewalk will be 8 feet, then a 10-foot bikeway, then a 5-foot planting area, then four lanes of traffic with varying design based on turn lanes or bus lanes.Before and after photos with design concepts drawn.
2023-02-03

Client Info

Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst