Category: Uncategorized

There has been a flurry of news about combining 405 and 167 into a single corridor so that the State DOT could issue debt backed by future tolls and accelerate the improvements they’d like to make on those two roads.  The same logic would apply to the bike infrastructure.  Why doesn’t their plan include accelerated improvements to the bike trails in that corridor?  Here’s what’s needed:

1.  Complete the Interurban to Puyallup from its current end in Algona-Pacific.  There are segments in Edgewater and Fife that just need to be connected.  With a little extra money SDOT could also provide a connection to the Foothills Trail.
2. Connect the Interurban in Tukwila with the Eastside Rail Corridor in Renton.  Probably the best route would be through the Boeing parking lot at Tukwila Station and across on 7th to Burnett, but there might be a grade-separated route along 405 and Houser.
3. Complete the ERC – SDOT is already on the hook for a crossing of 405 where the Wilburton Tunnel used to be.  Otherwise most of the expense is just paving and resurfacing bridges and trestles.  (They’re going to need a bridge or underpass at NE 8th.)  At the north end the ERC will need to be tied into the Sammamish River trail and that could be done on either side of the river.
4. Improve the North Creek Trail (like fix the gap where it crosses 405 at  Beardsley and pave it through the business park.)  Extend the North Creek trail along Filbert (or even better, a grade-separated route along 405)
5. Tie into the Interurban at Swamp Creek either using the existing bridge at 196th or up Butternut and connect at Maple Street.  With a little extra money SDOT could provide a bike bridge/underpass route from Beach Street to the east side of I-5.

The total cost of this stuff would be minor in the context of the freeway expansion they’re proposing.  If they don’t build it into the bond project it won’t get done in my lifetime.  What’s it take?

So I got an email from Will saying that He and Chris had realized that Mika’s bike was too small for Chris and that there was a coupled frame for sale on the Seattle Craigslist.  I looked at the listing and it seemed legit – I agreed that I’d build it out in time for our trip.  Will hesitated but then bought it and the guy delivered to our house.  He was a decent guy who was cleaning out his basement.  He knew the guys at R&E and we talked about some his project bikes.

The frame was interesting.  It was made by Franklin – a custom frame builder in southeast Ohio whose website doesn’t have an address (but the on-line forums put him in Newark, OH.)  It had S&S couplers, nice welds, a nice paint job and an eccentric bottom bracket shell.  It had a derailleur hanger and lots of clearance for wide tires – but no holes for caliper brakes.  There were no stops for shifter cables, instead there was a cable guide running down the right side of the downtube and out the right chain stay.

I spent some time inventorying my parts bin, realizing that I could come up with old shifters and derailleurs and handlebars and brakes and I did have the wheel set off the litespeed with the ultegera hubs – meaning that for the cost of some clamp-on cable stops and bar tape I could have a rideable bike.  The more I thought about that, though, the less happy I was with it.  I emailed Will asking what the goal was – least cost or high-end riding experience.  He got back to me saying that he thought he’d keep the bike after the trip as his commuter in the Bay Area so he wanted something that was solid and, where possible, which looked good.

That pretty much settled it for me and I started researching Rholoff hubs, assuming that the lack of cable stops meant an internally geared set-up.  (I quickly figured out that the  Rholoff requires two control cables so the single-cable guide on the Franklin was a clue that it wasn’t designed for that brand.)    I got off into the weeds about gear range and sprocket sizes and shifter options.  I took my Rodriguez in for servicing at R&E and asked about lead time on the Rholoff conversion – they said it would take a couple weeks and that mid-August was pretty doable.

I emailed Will saying that I really felt that to do it right we ought to go with the Rholoff, even though it would cost a thousand dollars more than setting up a conventionally geared bike with new components (and a couple thousand more than setting it up from my parts bin.)  He said to go for it.

I strapped the frame to my back this afternoon and rode my Litespeed over to R&E.  They pointed out that the cable guide was on the wrong side for an internally geared hub and they couldn’t explain why it was configured the way it was.  I went ahead and ordered a wheel built on a Rholoff hub and a front wheel built on a SON28 generator hub.  I told them that I’d supply the crankset and bottom bracket when I picked up the bike they were servicing.  My plan is to use the Campagnolo Record BB and cranks I took off of the Tuscany – meaning I’ll have to have R&E use a 17T sprocket on the hub and source a 40T chainring with a 135 BCD (they exist but it’s not as easy as ordering from QBP.)   I told them that since I was going to have to have an external mech box anyway I wanted to go with the Rhobox and brifters.  Unless there is some issue I’ll use the Tiagra brifters I took off of my Fuji.  I’ve got a seat post that fits, and a decent saddle.  I’ve got a stem and spacers.  I’ll need handlebars (thinking carbon, either FSA or Easton) and brakes (planning to go with Rodriguez cantilevers.)

When I got home I kicked myself for not taking some more photos and for not getting a copy the Craigslist posting.   I’m excited about this project, it’s going to result in a super touring bike.  The crucial decision was the one to go with Rholoff, but there will be implementation details that will take some thought and I’m still puzzling about headlights and racks.  Good times!

Here’s the write-up

Mr. Scott:

Thank you for your comments on the draft 2019 Water System Plan.  Below are responses to your questions and comments.

1. How does SPU rationalize restricting access by the public (with manageable physical and sanitary security risks) while permitting hunting access for selected community groups (with arguably greater physical and sanitary risk)?

The Cedar River Watershed in accordance with the provisions of WAC 246-290, is designated as a Limited Alternative to Filtration Source and regulated by Washington Department of Health.  This designation mandates complete closure to the watershed lands to demonstrate control and protection for any activities that may impact water quality.  On a limited, controlled and supervised basis, based upon the 2006 Settlement Agreement with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, tribal members are allowed to hunt and gather while complying with our Water Quality and Protection Regulations, but no public or community hunts are allowed.

2. How does SPU justify granting on-going, unsupervised trail access to the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance if similar access on designated trails cannot be afforded to the greater bicycle community?

The EMBA through agreement, which expired in 2017 and included WA State Parks, was granted limited construction access permits into the Cedar River Watershed to construct the North Ridge Ollalie Trail on the northern boundary outside the hydrographic boundary.  EMBA, along with all of the contractors and consultants conducting approved work within the closed boundaries, were vetted and permitted for the scope of work as contracted.  No recreational use or otherwise unauthorized personnel were allowed under these access permits.  The construction has been completed, and there is no on-going access.

3. How did SPU arrive at the conclusion that land acquisition in the Kerriston Road enclave is an appropriate capital expenditure as opposed to pavement and fencing to manage limited access?

Seattle Public Utilities has proven for many years that complete ownership of the land and the ability to control access to that land is the overall best long-term strategy to manage a closed watershed boundary.  With Kerriston however, significant private, county, and state property still exists within that community, so working toward this will require a long-term approach that proactively monitors these access points.  We are currently analyzing additional temporary options to control access on this public right-of-way.

4. What is the process SPU would use to develop management plans to address limited access to this segment of the trail?

As mentioned above, maintaining a closed watershed and controlling all access is the only way to maintain our compliance with the Limited Alternative to Filtration rule regulated by Washington Department of Health.

Although no changes have been made to the text of the plan, I hope that the above information provides you with a better explanation of SPU’s policies and practices regarding watershed access.  Should you have additional questions, feel free to contact me at this email address.

Joan M. Kersnar, P.E.

Drinking Water Planning Manager

City of Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities

O: 206-684-0839 | joan.kersnar@seattle.gov

Bikes are supposed to detour to the west side of Montlake, cross 520, cross back across Montlake, and cross back across 520 again – for three weeks.

Sidewalk repair and detour along Montlake Blvd E begin as soon as Monday, June 18

Another one:

“The section of the trail surrounding the new headquarters campus on the Elliott Bay waterfront will close July 18, detouring pedestrians over the West Galer Street flyover and along Elliott Avenue, and sending cyclists along Alaskan Way.”

It’s construction season in Seattle, one of our two seasons (the other being the rainy season.)  Closures have been announced or are in effect on the Interurban both North and South of Seattle, on the Sammamish River trail, on the Tolt Pipeline trail – and on the Burke Gilman.

King County just issued a determination of non-significance with respect to the paving of the existing trail that branches off of the Cedar River trail.  (This is the initial segment of a trail that will eventually run over to Black Diamond and server as a connector between the Cedar and Green River trails.)

My issue is the statement that “A variety of wall  types, including solider (sic) pile, concrete cantilever, and gravity block will be installed…”  It’s a trail, folks.  it’s flat.  The railroad grade has been there for 100 years.  Why do we need to tear out the existing structures and engineer a cadillac version?  Pave it, use permeable asphalt if you want, but take the savings and pave the Cedar River trail to Landsburg.

The cost of building out the compromise route of the missing link on the Burke is now up to $26 million and it will go higher before they get done.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that most of the conflict I encounter while riding is in construction zones – in our system those guys really do rule.

Seattle Public Utilities circulated a draft of a water system plan and as a frequent user of the Tolt Pipeline Trail I felt a need to comment:

Joan Kersnar, Drinking Water Planning Manager
Seattle Public Utilities
P.O. Box 34018; Seattle, WA 98124-4018
(206) 684-0839 or joan.kersnar@seattle.gov

Comments on 2019 Water System Plan

Dear Ms. Kersnar:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Seattle Public Utilities (“SPU”) Public Review Draft (the “Draft”) of the 2019 Water System Plan (the “Plan”.)

The SEPA check list indicates that “The existing uncovered in-town reservoirs are closed for public use. The Lake Youngs, Tolt, and Cedar River Reservoirs are also closed for public use and the draft 2017 SPU Watershed Protection Plan includes further information on regulations, policies, and program details for these areas. “  It is important that the Plan address restricted access to these areas in order for those restrictions to be perceived as other than arbitrary.

It is clear from the Draft that SPU has evaluated the risk of contamination and other relevant risks insofar as covered reservoirs and in-town facilities are concerned and that it has concluded that public access in most cases can be properly managed. It is important that the Plan indicate that this same level of analysis and hazard mitigation will also be applied to the watershed areas so that reasoned decisions can be made regarding permitted recreational uses.

The discussions regarding Kerriston Road which are found in several places in the Draft, suggest that known exceptions to the access restrictions occur and that the risk to public safety and to SPU assets is not sufficient to warrant urgent actions. If the existing level of unauthorized access can be tolerated the Plan should address legalizing and managing this and similar activity. (The Plan should address how SPU can bring its significant expertise with relevant physical security, signage, lighting and design features to bear on managing public access to limited portions of the watershed areas.)

More specifically, the Cedar River Trail (Milwaukee RR corridor) between Landsburg Park and Rattlesnake Lake is an “attractive nusiance” that represents a gap in the regional trail system inviting illicit access (as evidenced by these GPS tracks.)

The Plan should address:

1. How SPU rationalizes restricting access by the public (with manageable physical and sanitary security risks) while permitting hunting access for selected community groups (with arguably greater physical and sanitary risk.)

2. How SPU justifies granting on-going, unsupervised trail access to the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance if similar access on designated trails cannot be afforded to the greater bicycle community

3. How SPU arrives at the conclusion that land acquisition in the Kerriston Road enclave is an appropriate capital expenditure as opposed to pavement and fencing to manage limited access.

4. The process SPU would use to develop management plans to address limited access to this segment of the trail

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I look forward to the final version of the Plan.

Sincerely,

Jerry Scott