the BNT trots out that old bogeyman of Ballard Oil, Warren Aakervik,

the Burke-Gilman bicyclist. (Note to new editor: Welcome to

Ballard, where the only controversy older than the Burke-Gilman Trail

is whether lutefisk is food or a divine joke.)

Sadly, the article in this past edition, Trail troubles,

contained nothing new. It simply rehashed the same arguments that were

well-researched, well-debated, and well-decided during the City's

2002-03 design study about Ballard's missing link section of the

trail. The public process undertaken was arduous, lasting nearly 18

months, enough to make any Seattle politician proud. The study

recommended a blend of two route options. The conclusion of

this exhaustive work was solid: SDOT is recommending options that

increase safety in all cases. The goal is to recommend an option that

bicyclist and pedestrians will use, and also one that is safe for both

users and adjacent businesses and property owners.

It's time to move forward. Completing the missing link offers

important benefits to Ballard, the city and the region. It will be one

more excellent, healthy, car-free choice for transportation and

recreation, not only for people who live and shop in Ballard, but also

for the people who work in our industrial-commercial zones.

It appears that Ballard may lose the transit benefits once promised by

the Monorail. We need the choices, safety and connections that the

missing link section will achieve. Now would be the right time for the

City to complete their promise and devote resources and funding to

build the much awaited missing link as soon as possible.

Jim Jensen

Ballard, USA