Aubrey Davis Park Trail Safety Improvements Project

Hi Carolyn, the grant does not require widening the trail through the lid park. The ADMP was adopted by the council in 2019, and the Plan limits trail width in the lid park to existing width, which is 12' paved currently. The grant application was resubmitted last year to comply with the ADMP, and it is the application that determines the scope of the grant if awarded.

I think some misunderstand the purpose of this grant, and what "widening" of the trail would really mean.

This trail is using a 12' paved width which is technically 2' wider than WSDOT's baseline width, but more consistent with King Co. standards. East of the town center the trail will be completely torn up when the new sewer line is installed, and King Co. will pay to rebuild and pave the new trail, but ironically will only agree to the cost of a 12' paved width, which is the width in the ADMP.

However 2' packed gravel shoulders will be installed east of the town center when the trail is rebuilt by King Co., mostly to create a flat surface should someone step onto this part of the trail, rather in a hole or soft ground left over from construction of the sewer line. Bicyclists and pedestrians (especially with strollers) don't use gravel paths, and they are not usable, especially by a pedestrian who doesn't even know a bicyclist is approaching from behind or is listening to music.

The city expects the gravel shoulders to become overgrown with grass and vegetation within five years anyway, and does not plan on maintaining the shoulders. So the path east of the TC will effectively be 12' of paved surface, like the trail through the lid park today. It makes little sense to add 2' wide gravel shoulders through the lid park instead of the current grass and vegetation shoulders that will simply become vegetated in a few years. There are no plans, and no money, to add 2' wide paved shoulders in the lid park, which would remove a great deal of pervious surfaces.

Let's not forget this trail through the town center runs along a narrow and busy sidewalk and past a bus stop and park and ride, with a grass median with newly planted Persian Hardwood trees, and no one is asking to remove the grass and trees to widen the sidewalk. We looked very hard for alternatives to the path on a sidewalk during the ADMP process -- ideally that would take bicyclists to our town center -- but could not come up with any that did not have opposition (Aljoya does not want bicyclists on the path south of I-90).

I agree with NIM's that this part of the trail can accommodate bikes and pedestrians, and dogs too. One of the ironies is I did not list one of the alternatives which I proposed pre-pandemic: do nothing. The fact is this part of the trail does not get much use. I have lived next to this trail since 2009 and raised two kids and used the trail both day and night, and the number of users is small. Most serious bicyclists use W. Mercer Way.

To date there have been two serious accidents. One was a bicyclist riding at a slow speed west of the tennis courts who was startled by a dog and fell to the hard pavement because he had toe clips on and suffered serious injuries. The other was the well-known Camicia case in which a woman was riding through a construction zone where the trail enters the park at W. Mercer and hit a bollard and was paralyzed. The city and construction company paid around $7.5 million each. That case went to the state supreme court, and the court held this is technically not a park but a road since it was transferred to WSDOT by the U.S. DOT, and therefore the city does not enjoy immunity from liability like it would from a recreational use.

The amount of use and conflicts changed with the pandemic and shelter in place rules which increased bicyclists and pedestrians on this part of the trail. The fact is there were more bicyclists from Seattle and they were less observant of speed limits and sharing the path, and had potty mouths.

I do agree with Dave Wisenteiner that it is a shame the city is spending $500,000 on around 5% of bicyclists who won't slow down when that money could be used for a new irrigation system, tree restoration and replacement, a new bathroom in the western field, and so many other park uses. But the city also does not want to pay out another $7.5 million in a lawsuit, which is the real point of this grant.

My guess is the city and consultant will start out with minimal designs, such as different surfaces and colors for the trail surface at the backstop and bathroom, and the bathroom could use a better design anyway that creates a better gathering place without increasing the impervious surfaces. One thing I noticed and pointed out to the city was simply placing sandwich style board that said "slow down" in the middle of the path descending from the tennis courts slowed bike speeds during the pandemic because bicyclists slowed down to avoid hitting the sandwich board.

The ultimate design has to: 1. maintain the current trail width, which is the same width effectively as east of the town center when the gravel shoulders become vegetated (12' paved); 2. not cost more than the grant (which rules out pouring more concrete); 3. not increase impervious surfaces because that is a policy of the new parks commission and new PROS plan; and 4. slow bicycle speeds from the tennis court to the bathroom, and ideally along the trail on the west side of the field, to avoid expensive lawsuits and collisions.

I do think some kind of traffic calming measure will be necessary at the backstop which is the "Y" for both trails going to the town center. If bicycles are slowed at this juncture I don't think they can create more speed by the bathroom.

I just don't see the hardship for bicyclists from a roundabout at this area since most responsible bicyclists slow down anyway, and the serious bicyclists are on W. Mercer Way. But this grant and project, as well as the risk of litigation, are about the irresponsible bicyclists, when that $500,000 could be spent so much better in other areas of the park.

You have to admit Dave Wisenteiner had a point when he asked why is the city is spending $500,000 because some bicyclists won't slow down when there is W. Mercer Way (and I have long proposed a dedicated bike path on the northern side of W. Mercer Way because that direction is uphill; I ride this part of W. Mercer Way every day to work and back and bicycles going east on the south side of W. Mercer Way are going downhill and usually go faster than I do at 25 mph), and city code I believe states bicyclists should ride clockwise since that is where the city has built shoulders along The Mercers.

As a member of Neighbors in Motion (NIM) a Mercer Island non-profit working to make our roads and trails safer for all users, I welcome this $500,000 state grant to improve the trails through Aubrey Davis park. It is a rare opportunity both to restore the trails to their original specifications and to make improvements to handle future use.

The shared-use trail was built by WSDOT 30 some years ago as part of the region’s transportation system that connects the floating bridge from Seattle to the East Channel Bridge to Bellevue. Unfortunately, the original shoulders have been allowed to deteriorate which makes the trail narrower, limits sight lines and makes passing more dangerous. There are no warning signs, painted lanes or normal safety elements that Seattle, Bellevue, Issaquah, Kirkland, Renton and the other lakeside communities use to make their trails safer, especially in crowded areas.

The state, Seattle, King County, the other lake side communities are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to add miles of new bicycle/pedestrian trails around Lake Washington which will only increase the trail’s usage. WSDOT has seen these trends and has repeatedly recommended in writing that the city widen the trails through the park. Now that state funds are available, the city should at least restore the trails to their original specifications, provide more space where possible and install the safety features this trail uses in other communities.

While bikes and pedestrians move at different speeds, fast cyclists and pelotons avoid using the park trails, because pedestrians in groups, walking dogs, or talking on iPhones make passing difficult even at very slow speeds. Cyclists use park trail because the park trails are direct and safer than riding in traffic on North Mercer Way which is suitable only for experienced cyclists. My experience is that pedestrians and cyclists treat each other with courtesy, and the only injury accidents I know of were caused by unleashed dogs interfering with cyclists, and a cyclist suffering a broken clavicle due to unmarked tree damage east of Island Crest Way.

As I mentioned during the first open house for this project, an example trail is the pathway system in Myrtle Edwards Park. In constrained areas where widening a single trail is not practical, the multi-use pathway separates into two trails so walkers and bikes can still be separated. Perhaps it wasn’t a priority at the time, but conditions have changed and bikeways are critical to a equitable and healthy future. As an elder cyclist, a way to safely bike through the park on a trail shared with other users would be appreciated.

Can’t make your meeting on the 17th but would like to share my experience on Sunday morning.
While walking toward town on the right side of the ballfields, a group of eight or 10 of the new fat tire high-speed electric bikes came past in a pack. Scattering pedestrians in both directions off the trail. Those bikes can go up to 30 miles an hour. Are they allowed on our bike trails? And what can be done to slow them down? Speed humps?

Please continue this Trail and Park to be shared for all PEOPLE of all ages and abilities. This should be a safe and shared trail/path. Please widen the trail and make People that Bike Lanes and People that Walk Lanes. I do both. What I have noticed is that People Walking are not sharing respectfully which is extremely unsafe for all users. Walkers tend to walk multiple abreast in congested areas. Walkers walk unpredictably- stopping in the middle of the trail, slowing down for unknown reasons. Walkers do not walk single file while People Biking are expected to. Walkers cross trails willy nilly vs looking both ways and waiting til there is no traffic and they do not follow a consolidated predicted crossing area. Walkeres have dog zip lines or worst unleashed dogs that create extremely dangerous shared conditions. The only thing we walkers are consistent with are saying that bikers ride too fast which is not true because we walkers create such unsafe shared use of trails that we riders are put at risk by walkers not being respectful. Remember, I am a Walker and I am a biking person.
We had a fair solution so all People could enjoy the Trail and have access to the park and the restroom. I am deeply disappointed and feel discriminated against as a person biking.
I would welcome Pedestrian Walking Calming measures to create rules for walking in more highly used trail areas: Single file, predictable speed, respectful sharing of the trail.
I would welcome designated Pedestrian Trail Crossing Areas.
I would welcome signage that educates people walking to more safely use and share the trail.
Wayfinding is important for all users.
Remove bollards as they are wildly unsafe. Put up clear signage -No Motorized Vehicles.
Walkers and Bikers should be directed to pull out areas to chit chat with friends and reminded that the middle of the Trail is not an appropriate visiting or viewing area. (Common Sense)
A Trail Side Walking Trail of Gravel for those that want to walk 3 abreast or at an unpredictable speed or walk a dog on a 6ft leash.
Dogs should have a fenced unleashed dog leash area. My dog thrives in these areas and so do I - love meeting people here.

Bikes should continue to be allowed to use the park and paths. Unleashed dogs cause the biggest safety hazard in this area. There should be a fenced in area where dogs can roam freely without concern. The paths may also benefit from small alcoves where walkers who run into friends can stand by the side of the path without impeding the flow of other users including bikers. Including a separate gravel trail may provide walkers with a bike free area for those that prefer this.

Aubry Davis is a small park and full of kids, dogs and pedestrians. I would avoid encouraging bikers to use the trail, instead a bike protected lane can be created on West Mercer way to north mercer way around the Roanoke and over to connect to the i-90 trail or to the other side of North Mercer way.

I'm commenting on behalf of Cascade Bicycle Club, which advocates for the safety of people who bike or want to. I'm including comments that we provided to the city at the start of this planning process. Those comments still hold true today as this conversation moves forward. In short, it is possible to safely accommodate people who walk, bike and roll on the trail through best practice design and engineering. This trail is an important asset to Mercer island and the region.

The I-90 Trail is an important segment of King County and central Puget Sound’s regional trails network. For hundreds of thousands of annual users, the trail connects Seattle to Bellevue and Mercer Island, across Lake Washington; in the future, the trail will be part of a continuous trails network from Alki Beach all the way to Snoqualmie Pass, and on to eastern Washington on the Palouse to Cascades Trail. For neighbors on the island and around the region, the trail is a treasured community asset.

Trails’ role in transportation is increasing. Trails⁠—including the I-90 Trail through Mercer Island⁠—are providing first/last mile connections for people walking and biking to and from transit stations, as well as standalone trips. The I-90 Trail is part of the network of trails that keeps our region moving – to work, to school, to play.

We strongly support trail standards that will accommodate current and projected use. As such, the Aubrey Davis Master Plan Update must meet or exceed modern trail standards. Forthcoming updates from AASHTO and WSDOT will likely standardize 14-foot trails where practicable; a minimum 12-foot trail width across the entirety of Mercer Island; separate facilities for people walking and biking where warranted; and trail design treatments right-sized for growing use.

In setting standards for the I-90 Trail through Mercer Island that meet the needs of users today and tomorrow, the City will ensure the highest safety outcomes for all users; align with coming East Link light rail and transit connections; support WSDOT’s modeshift goals; and meet best practices for active transportation infrastructure.

Thank you for your leadership to future-proof the Aubrey Davis Park Master Plan. We look forward to working with you to advance other projects and initiatives to make the region and Mercer Island community safer, more connected, and more accessible for people who bike.

The grant from WSDOT stipulates widening the trail. The City Council should maintain trust in City government by respecting the work done by many to secure the grant. The City should avoid a project that literally keeps us in the same rut that we are in now in AD. Improve the trail. Widen the trail.

I am opposed to the keeping the paths narrow in AD in order to discourage cyclers. Many avid cyclists avoid AD already, which is fine. Many of us not so avid cyclists (!) need to and want to stay off the roads. We need a trail through AD that minimizes conflict between types of users. This should include markings that improve compatibility of walkers, runners, cyclists, dog walkers, etc. Safety for kids should be improved. Speed limits that are consistent with a regional trail would be acceptable.

Thank you for your work and for considering my viewpoint.

I am a member of Neighbors in Motion (NIM), a Island based organization that promotes safe and responsible human powered transportation on the Island. We’ve been part of the ADMP discussion since it began a number of years ago.

The current Parks Committee proposal applies to the Upper Lid Park between 60th Ave. SE and 76th Ave. SE. That Section of Trail is part of the I-90/Mountains to Sound Trail; a Trail that has been continuously used by pedestrians and cyclists for about 30 years. While the Trail travels over Mercer Island, the land itself is owned by the State and any changes to the Trail must be approved by WSDOT. Due to population growth, greater investment in bike transportation by the lake communities, the growth of e-bikes and the greater focus on environmental solutions to our region’s transportation issues, we expect ridership on the Trail to continue to grow.

While we are not aware of any study of bike/pedestrian accidents in the Upper Lid (we know of only one accident involving an off-leash dog hitting a cyclist), there is a potential for conflict in the ball field/bathroom area. This area has a lot of traffic in the spring and summer months when more cyclists are riding, individuals are strolling or walking dogs and the ball fields are in use for games. Signage (adjacent to and/or painted on the Trail), different textures, cross walks, fences and other means are techniques commonly used by Seattle, Bellevue, King County and the State for their general use trails. They should be considered for Mercer Island as well.

For the current proposal, we’ve looked at the design treatments (posted on Let’s Talk—but now gone) proposed by KPG and while we will wait for the presentation on the details, we are encouraged by the various options to address the conflict area on the Upper Lid. We look forward to the meeting and giving our input. Jeff Koontz

I love this park and I honestly don't understand the hoopla over bike speeds. I've seen large groups of bikes gathered at the water fountain blocking the trail, but I've never thought they were going too fast. ADP doesn't attract that group, the fast folks seem to be on NMW.

Here is the city's description of this project in its March 2, 2021 post on Let's Talk:





"The Parks and Recreation Commission's "Project Framework" involves working with a consultant and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to develop a set of "low-impact" improvements such as striping, street bypass routes, speed limits, signage, trail markings, and shoulder restoration on the portion of the trail that goes through the "Lid Park". The specifics of the improvements, their locations and designs are yet to be determined. The project is intended to improve the comfort and safety for the many people that use the trail and the park. This effort would adhere to the Aubrey Davis Park Master Plan which generally maintains the trail at its existing width in the project area."




So the trail width through the lid park is set by the AMDP and cannot be enlarged except by amendment of the ADMP by the council.

The photo included with the notice of the public meeting is consistent with the design the citizens favored during the ADMP process, and is mostly consistent with the description in the March 2, 2021 comment quoted above that was influenced by council comments during the ADMP, which had been a very, very contentious process, and led to the formation of the parks commission.

We went through all of this during the ADMP, which led to a trail design that required the WSDOT grant to be resubmitted.

WSDOT sent a letter to the city at the very beginning of the ADMP process stating trail width needed to be 10' wide under its guidelines, with 2' shoulders. Only after the parks dept. went back to WSDOT with higher use numbers for the trail did WSDOT write back and say a wider trail could be used as well based on the higher (and some thought inflated) numbers. The city decided to use a 12' width for the trail east of the town center with 2' gravel shoulders, which the city states will grow in with vegetation (although many of the areas east of the town center don't have 16' total width, so either the trail will need to be narrowed or there will be no vegetation between N. Mercer Way and the I-90 retaining wall).

The parks dept. measured each inch of the trail through the Lid Park and found it was 12' wide, and it made little sense to replace grass shoulders with gravel shoulders that would grow in with grass over time.



How does a wider trail on a steep descent reduce bicycle/pedestrian conflicts or reduce the extent of injury from a collision if speeds are not reduced? Why did the city resubmit the WSDOT grant application?



The WSDOT grant application was resubmitted is it did not allow enough discretion in design to reduce bike speeds. If there is one thing everyone should be able to agree on it is this: WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM SAFE SPEED BICYCLISTS CAN RIDE IN THIS CONFLICTED AREA TO AVOID COLLISIONS AND INJURIES TO PEOPLE AND DOGS?

I would say 5 mph since it is a steep decline and bikes cannot stop very quickly when at higher speeds. Maybe some think 10 mph. We are talking about a pretty short distance from the tennis courts down past the bathroom. This is not a hardship for bicyclists.

The only real debate with the design is how to ensure those speeds are adhered to when history has shown (some) bicyclists won't voluntarily reduce speeds along this descent to safe speeds. I don't see how a wider path that encourages even higher speeds will do this. For example, if you wanted to reduce speeds on a road or street would you make it wider? No, you would install traffic calming measures, and if anything make it narrower.

Comment Submitted by Claire Martini, Leafline Trails Network:

I understand there's been continued discussion about trail improvements. Thought I'd jot a quick note in case any of this is helpful as council and staff chart next steps...

I wanted to share the recently finalized criteria for inclusion in the Leafline Trails Network—clarifying that this regional system includes multi-use facilities for recreation or transportation use, that should be wider than 10-12 feet where demand warrants (e.g., a high-use regional facility like the I-90 Trail). It also seemed that the letter sent by WSDOT back in 2019 continues to provide good guidance.

Last, since Jim Stanton mentioned that user conflict continues to be an area of concern for some community members, it's my understanding that more space and more organized facilities are the preferred solution. For example, UW and City of Seattle widened the Burke Gilman Trail where it goes through campus to increase predictability and dedicate space for different types of users; as use continues to grow, there were recommendations during the Campus Master Planning process to widen the trail further, and improve grade-separation. Submitted by Claire Martini, Leafline Trails Network 2/11/2022

The Parks Department, KPG and the Parks & Rec Commission seem to be going in the right direction to finalize the ADP Safety Improvements design. The concepts prioritize both wider bike trails and separate bike facilities, in addition to forgoing ineffective speed limits while highlighting traffic calming measures.

In my many years of averaging at least 2000 miles of bicycling miles per year, I have found the ADP bike trails to be mostly Ok. Where the trails weren't constrained to widths of less than 12 feet, the main issues have been off-leash dogs, reduced sightlines caused by vegetation impinging on the 2' buffer and lack of trail width and calming through the plaza.

In reviewing the 2019 Master Plan and the public input, the comments were largely skewed towards separating bike and pedestrian traffic on the bike trails, and widening the trails. In fact, the alternative to route bike traffic behind the restroom on a separate trail had an overwhelming 41 votes to 14 that favored a multi-modal plaza. Since the separate bike trail has died in committee, the focus should now be widening the section of trail adjacent to Feroglia and traffic calming measures.

My specific recommendations:

-Restore a 2' shoulder with 12' trail width wherever the trail isn't constrained by monuments. The 2' is critical to Safety by clearing sightlines, giving the trail "breathing room" and reducing the instances of dogs jumping out of bushes.

-Reject any notion of speed limits by instead focusing on more effective traffic calming. Paint and variations in asphalt or concrete color and texture, especially "busy " patterns are highly effective at breaking the monotony of continuous asphalt and causing bikers to pay attention and slow down.

-Widen the bike trail section adjacent to Feroglia Field. This is in keeping with WSDOT design standards and echos many of the sentiments from the Master Plan public outreach.

-Create a dedicated dog park while banning off-leash dogs in the remaining ADP. Off-leash dogs are incompatible with wheeled traffic and this is for their safety.

-Future-proof this critical element of the Mountain to Sound trail segment for anticipated growth of bicycle and active transportation.

Bicycle riders are generally a very risk-averse group and will take all precautionary measures to avoid collisions because "falling hurts". With proper design the ADP bike trail can join the many other examples of bike trails in Puget Sound region where bicycle and pedestrian traffic successfully co-exist.

I have been involved in this issue for the last four years, through the ADMP process, then the resubmittal of the WSDOT grant to obtain greater flexibility to address the main concern: pedestrian/bicycle conflicts from the tennis courts past the bathroom and down the steep hill. I have lived along the trail past the bathroom since 2009, and in this neighborhood since 1970, and raised two kids next to this park and trail.

The reality is due to the steep decline from the tennis courts past the bathrooms bicycle speeds have to match pedestrian speeds to protect pedestrians, which are around 3 mph, and allow bicyclists to stop for kids running to the field or chasing a ball, an off-leash dog, inattentive pedestrians who have the legal right of way, and pedestrians walking two abreast or walking a dog on a leash. Currently bicyclists descending from the tennis courts can reach 40 mph.

This is a mixed-use trail in both directions, so it often has pedestrians walking in both directions, sometimes with dogs, pedestrians standing still in the trail (subject to some pretty bad language from bicyclists), and bicyclists on both directions. Pedestrians cannot hear speeding bikes coming up from behind them, and pedestrians, dogs and kids are unpredictable, which is why they are on a trail in a park and not on the road. There is no amount of trail width that would make this safe for bicyclists going more than 5 mph. This issue has been studied so long I believe the city has real liability if it does not reduce speeds to reduce collisions, and to limit the amount of personal injury from collisions. That can only be accomplished with lower bike speeds.

All of the "alternatives" have been discussed ad nauseum over the years, and were proposed by one councilmember or another, in part based on safety, in part on liability, and part on cost.

The first alternative was proposed by former councilmember Dave Wisenteiner. His suggestion was the city should not spend any precious park funding because bicyclists refuse to ride at a safe speed on this mixed-use path. His recommendation was to ban bikes from the Lid Park, and route them onto W. Mercer Way.

The second alternative was proposed by former mayor Bruce Bassett. His proposal was to first use signage like a sign that shows speed, markings on the trail itself, and maybe traffic cameras to determine the extent of the problem, whether bicyclists will comply, and then if necessary, install roundabouts. This is an approach councilmember Lisa Anderl supported during adoption of the ADMP, and current Mayor Salim Nice. However I think we are past the signage stage.

This then led to a proposal by NIM's. Their proposal was for a separate paved trail from the tennis court down along the parking lot behind the bathroom. The problems with this idea were cost, it would eliminate the maintenance area behind the bathroom and dramatically increase long term city costs as maintenance equipment had to be trucked to the park each time it was needed, it was never part of the ADMP, neither trail would be exclusively for bicyclists by law, you still have the issue with kids and dogs running from the parking lot to the field except now the second trail runs right along the parking lot, a second path would add 12' of concrete to the existing concrete path to create 25' of contiguous width of concrete between the two trails when the Parks Commission has adopted a no new net impervious surface policy, a second path would encourage higher bike speeds, and there are massive concrete support pillars for the overpass. This idea was wisely rejected by the parks commission.

It also makes little sense to cut back vegetation beyond the edge of the trail, because that presupposes either a pedestrian jumps out of the way of a speeding bicyclist despite having the legal right of way, or a speeding bicyclist veers off the trail which will certainly take the bicyclist into the next layer of vegetation, including a tree trunk.

During the adoption of the ADMP, which was a very contentious process and thankfully led to the formation of the parks commission, it was discovered the WSDOT grant only allowed widening of the trail. WSDOT requires a trail 10' wide, and this trail is 12' wide, but the initial plan was to widen the trail with 2' gravel shoulders on each side. This proposal made no sense because pedestrians are not going to use the gravel path, it does not slow bike speeds, it increased impervious surfaces, if it failed and the $500,000 grant was exhausted the city would have to pay for measures to actually slow bike speeds, and it would remove vegetation and trees. As a result, the grant was resubmitted to WSDOT for greater flexibility.

At this point -- especially after the increased use during the pandemic -- the earlier plans for signage simply don't work to slow bike speeds, and at 40 mph someone could get killed, and that would likely be a kid running to a ballfield. There have already been several collisions between bicyclists and dogs.

If bikes are going to be allowed on a mixed-use trail near a ballfield and bathroom and parking lot the key is making sure bike speeds through this area are the same as pedestrians because pedestrians and kids and dogs are unpredictable in a park. Widening the trail does not accomplish this goal, which is why the grant was resubmitted. Bicyclists wishing to ride at higher speeds have an excellent alternative in West Mercer Way. The trail through the lid park is for kids on bikes, and those riding very slowly.

Probably a combination of measures is needed now. There needs to be signage around the tennis courts alerting bicyclists to speed brakes ahead, there needs to be some kind of roundabout next to the backstop to slow bike speeds before they reach the ingress from the parking lot and the ballfields, and a roundabout next to the bathroom. The current bathroom entrance is poorly designed. The water fountain can be moved to the side of the bathroom and the existing planter and concrete entrance used for a roundabout that has colored pavement to highlight it is a low-speed area without pouring a lot of new concrete.

This process should not have gone on this long. I have been writing to the parks dept. since 2010 noting the problems with speeding bicyclists and collisions. At this point the "alternatives" that will actually work so the city does not spend the $500,000 grant and then have to spend another $500,000 to get it right are banning bikes from this part of the park, or structural speed limiters which are roundabouts at the backstop and bathroom.

Other than these measures the only other alternative that will work IMO is Dave Wisenteiner's proposal to ban bikes from this area of the park.

Slowing bike speeds to pedestrian speeds through this steep area of the trail is not a hardship on bicyclists because serious and fast bicyclists have West Mercer Way. By beginning traffic calming at the tennis court, and using roundabouts at the backstop and bathroom, bikes are asked to proceed at a safe speed in a crowded area of the park for a short part of the trip, and forces bicyclists to co-exist with kids, pedestrians who can't hear a speeding bicyclist coming from behind, dog walkers, other bicyclists and people simply standing still on a path.

Now that this process has finally reached this stage I can't think of any other alternative that is going to shield the city from liability because this "trail" is legally a road, and not subject to the liability shield for recreation. But really the city's concern should not be about its liability but what is the most effective and most secure way to prevent high speed collisions, and that is removing the high speed part.

Very excited to see the Aubrey Davis Park Master Plan vision for the Mountains to Sound Trail through Aubrey Davis Park become a reality. The City did its due diligence hosting pop-up events, 4 public forums, and 3 open houses and came up with a great plan - based on balanced resident input - to reduce trail conflicts by widening the trail through ADP.

As the City develops its first Climate Action Plan this year in parallel to this trail design, consistency in messaging is key. We cannot achieve climate change goals without embracing the need to greatly improve our biking infrastructure. It is critical to embrace the reality of the E-bike movement now and in the future. Citizen safety is the City's paramount responsibility and Mercer Island is way behind surrounding municipalities in planning for and implementing safe bike transportation corridors. Let's implement our planned vision and make the trail safer!

The bike trails through the park are one of our gems on the island. Literally one of the few places where you don't have to ride on the street and take your chances. Safety on the trails could and should be improved -- a smart place to invest. Our goal should be to make the trails safe for all and continue to show our island in the best possible light.

As a walker, jogger and cyclist, I support a mixed-use trail to be enjoyed by walkers, joggers, cyclist and skaters. In order for a multi-modal trail to be safe it needs to be widened and marked with a dividing line to accommodate and to feel safe by all users. Additionally, a maximum speed limit should be posted and enforced, and proper signage should be posted.

My understanding is that there is a group of people who don't support widening the bike/pedestrian path thru Aubrey Davis park. In fact, they would prefer that bikes don't use the park at all.

Please understand that this bike path is a major bike commuting route and is part of the moutains-to-sound greenway. So, this path doesn't just affect Mercer Island residents but all those that bike commute to/from Seattle. Those numbers are growing substantially with the growing popularity of ebikes. Historically, most Mercer Island residents haven't cared at all about people outside of MI (despite the fact that most of them work off-island and benefit from resources around the region).

But, I would suggest that whatever signage is placed in the park--that bikers will continue to use paths thru the park. So, the sensible thing to do would be to either widen the path; separate bike and pedestrian paths (which, in my experience, rarely works); or create a separate bike lane along N Mercer Way (which would kill parking along that street).

The mixed-use paths in AD Park are too narrow to be safe. I know that some people think that banning bikes from the park makes sense, but this is not a realistic solution. I am glad that my elderly father can cycle through the park and stay off of the streets. I feel the same way about my children (one who is developmentally disabled), with whom my husband and I ride through the park. Banning bicycles is not an appropriate solution. AD park gets busy in the summer, and deserves wide paths to benefit all of us. I recommend adding signage about speed limits. Striping could also be added for "feet" and "wheels" to help with flow of pedestrians, skaters, and folks on bikes. There could be a dirt/gravel portion of the path for runners. I urge the city to find a design to benefit all of us, instead of giving in to those who want to keep the paths narrow, as this width is unsafe for multi-use. These paths need to be improved to better serve all of us, including my elderly father and children, to keep pedestrians, cyclists, and skaters safe. I especially appreciate multi-use paths because they benefit our vulnerable residents, like my elderly father and developmentally disabled child, who are safest off of the streets and on multi-use paths. Thank you!