Aubrey Davis Park Trail Safety Improvements Project

Removed by moderator.

This was posted today on Nextdoor by Adonis Gallardo:

I should have written this message sooner but I was hospitalized, had to have surgery and am still in alot of pain.

I went out at 9pm (on 6/10) on the I-90 trail for a quick 30 min ride because it was still light out and I have good tires (even after it rains). I went up past the baseball fields to Audrey Davis and turned back.

I could see a woman on the right side of the bike path without lights and went around her to keep going down hill. The path seemed clear, I had my lights on and all of a sudden, under the tree there was a guy with his bike standing there. I slammed on the back break but the tires slid since I was too close. I tried to go the other way but there was another guy standing in the dark with his bike too. I yelled for them to "watch out" but neither moved.

I flew off my bicycle trying avoid running into the 1 guy that was in my lane on the right. I bounced off the floor with my left arm in excruciating pain.

After sitting on the floor for a min they asked if they could call someone, the police or help me. I was disoriented and assumed they were Islanders but once we started walking down the hill to meet my neighbor one of them asked if I could "help them." I said sure but they had no Venmo because they were homeless. Between awkward silences I wondered for a split second if they would attack me if I did call the police, or run. Something told me to pretend I was not as injured as I was so they wouldn't be tempted to overpower me.

The short guy had helped me put my belongings in my basket when I fell but he was also too happy to grab my bicycle while we walked, it's electric and we'll taken care of.... The short guy was well groomed, light skinned but had an accent, he shared that he was Columbian. He was 5'2 and seemed to be wearing bike attire. His friend was a friendly, 5'4, brown guy that was more social but he was also the first to ask for cash. Both had well groomed goatees, it surprised me that they were homeless.

I wanted to believe that my arm was dislocated so I could tolerate the pain as I walked down to the corner by the I-90 ramp where the trail starts ( back in to the island). My neighbor arrived and the shorter of the 2 men acted like he didn't know how to put a bike lock on a bicycle.

I realize now that the reason they were gawking at my bicycle while I was getting in my friend's car to leave to go to the ER was because they were planning on stealing it all along. Even with a heavy duty u-lock they must have sawed it or cut it off right after we locked the bike to the railing because the bicycle was gone by 10am, Saturday, the next morning.

They never answered my question as to why they were both standing in the road in the dark. It was a crime of opportunity (I agree with MIPD) because I was injured but I wonder if they created the accident/opportunity scenario. The short guy kept avoiding looking at me to see his face, and neither of them so much as acknowledged that standing in the dark could create confusion, or showed any remorse.

I have an internal and external fracture in my left arm. I have never suffered any injury of this magnitude before. I'm not a clumsy person but when you are going downhill and a person is standing in the way, what do you call that?

They got what they wanted which is my electric bicycle. I suspect the "accident" was a way to try to immobilize me but I sat up and delayed their plan. Stay safe out there, even with full gear and lights these two definitely worked together to make an expensive bike disappear.

They said their names were Matt and Bryan but I wonder how much of that is true. If this was intentional I think this is a dangerous level of addiction that these two have reached, in order to help their habit. Thank goodness the injuries weren't worse.

Pleasantly surprised by the 30% design. It looks good! Now, don't water it down and ruin it. The extra pavement around the Feroglia bathroom is welcome and will give all users a safer experience in that area. The #1 goal of this project is Safety and that will help tremendously. This is what Islanders want.

The cycling community and Neighbors in Motion that have advocated for nearly 10 years with the city, county, and state to make the trails safer in the Aubrey Davis Park. The normal warning signs, trail markings, and wayfinding signs are missing, and surfaces, shoulders, and foliage have been allowed to deteriorate from their original 30 year old specifications. As a result, sight lines are reduced and passing areas narrowed. Moreover cycling and scooter traffic is going to grow across the island. Seattle, King County, Bellevue, Issaquah and the other eastside communities are investing over $300M in new cycling facilities, such as East Trail. On top of that the legislature has just passed a $1.3B bill to fund new cycling facilities and education. If we are going spend money to improve safety, we need to think about the future usage levels too.

The concept that cyclists in the park are a danger to pedestrians is imaginary and not supported by the data. Discussions with city staff could only identify 3 cycling accidents on the lid, none of them with pedestrians. Two cyclists fell on a wet slippery surface, and one slow moving cyclist fell when an off leash dog interfered with his front wheel resulting in a trip to the ER and serious longer term after effects. Speed limits on King Country trails are 15 MPH. Cyclists are very vulnerable in accidents and reflexibly slow down in proximity of pedestrians. Warning signs for cyclists and pedestrians and better trail markings would certainly further reduce the risks of all accidents.

North Mercer Way. Many experienced cyclists and cycling groups who want to go faster do ride North Mercer Way, but it is far more dangerous than riding the trails across the park. There are no shoulders, and traffic can be heavy and fast, especially during commuting hours. Most other people cycling from Seattle to the Eastside and vice versa generally use the lid trails. The city's original grant request specifically asked for funds to make the trail safer in part by widening the trail. After the grant was made, the city was able to eliminate the requirement to widen the trails, but the goal is still to make the trail safer for all users, not to make the trail less attractive to cyclists in the hopes that they will use a more dangerous route instead.

The city hired consultants to bring some expertise and new ideas to this project. Citizen reaction and input is great, but hopefully the decisions will be data and expertise driven.

Email received from George Bear on 2/25/2022
My experience has been that the large dog group that occupies the entire baseball field every late afternoon has become unruly, unsafe, and out of control. It’s almost impossible for any other recreational activities to take place because the dogs run around the entire field. Most of the dogs are not under voice control. They are very rambunctious and sometimes run into people. It also makes it feel very unsafe for small dogs. Please help find a solution so we can reclaim the park from off leash dogs and all be able to use the park again.
Thank you.

Email from Daniel Thompson on 2/25/2022:
I have been studying the (two) options on Let's Talk which are not bad if a little busy and a little more concrete than I like, which is par for a consultant.
The key in my opinion is the roundabout at the backstop because that slows bikes taking both paths at the Y. At that point it would be difficult for a bicyclist to reach an unsafe speed by the bathroom or past the fields along the western path. I just think slowing bike speeds at this spot is the point of the grant and resubmitting the application even if bicyclists don't understand that.
The signage at the entrance along West Mercer Way that it is a slow bike area is critical too.
Didn't the city just spend $178,000 to redo the crossing at West Mercer Way. Is that not adequate?
Once bike speeds are slowed at the roundabout I am not sure all the other traffic calming is necessary, including removing vegetation between the field and parking lot (although grass with trees would be nice too although screening a parking lot is nice). I have questions with a separate paved path from the dugout to the bathroom because pedestrians have legal priority on the trail, and most kids and pedestrians will walk along the field grass to the bathroom and then cross over, but bike speeds should be quite slow at that point. Why would a pedestrian cross a paved path from the dugout to reach another path when they can just walk on the main path and have legal priority? In any case a pervious surface like bark would be better if there is a pedestrian path at this spot.
The plaza at the bathroom was always poorly designed and can be a better gathering place without new impervious surfaces. Move the fountain to the side of the bathroom, remove the planter, and use that space to gather. I like the idea of colored concrete there.
I wish there were more options to comment on the poll. It is very binary. My advice to Jessi and the council is this project should still go before the parks commission when a design is selected because the parks commission has never had an opportunity to review the design, and my guess is the council would like to have the parks commission review the design first so there is consensus when it reaches the council.
I will be interested to see what the bike folks have to say about the designs.

I mostly agree with the comments by Jeff and so will use his template of discussing the options in each of the three areas. Although I don't generally like binary surveys/polls, between the consultant's two proposals is a pretty good design.

Outside consultant's initial draft designs tend to include everything and the kitchen sink, but really they are just a menu of options. The final plan will still go before the parks commission for edits, and the parks commission has been very good so far at removing what I call "park clutter", or design elements in a park that don't address the main purpose of the project, especially if they add impervious surfaces.

1. West Mercer Trail Crossing.

First, the city just spent $178,000 on the new W. Mercer Way crossing, and it seems pretty good to me. I also don't quite understand the three "nodes", and they were never part of the discussions during the ADMP. Ideally in the future a bathroom will be built in the parking lot where the porta potty is today that will serve as a gathering area and allow bicyclists to use a bathroom, but one node should be sufficient.

Likewise removing the sidewalk along I-90 was never a proposal, and I am not sure WSDOT would agree (and I would not be surprised if highway design manuals require such a sidewalk). Why spend the money to remove a sidewalk? I also don't get the kiosk. Three nodes and a kiosk start to look like park clutter to me.

The real purpose of this area of the design is as Jeff notes: wayfinding signage, to wit. 1. The trail through the park is a SLOW area; and 2. a much better and faster (and downhill) route is to the left along W. Mercer Way. I drive that road five days/week and most bicycles go faster than I do in a car because it is downhill to the Roanoke, a much better ride than up and down a hill in a sometimes busy park.

The only real element necessary in this area is the signage.

2. Trail Connection/Conflict From Tennis Court to Bathroom.

This area is why the grant application was resubmitted. The most critical element in the entire design is a roundabout at the backstop to slow bike speeds before they take either trail in the "Y" after that. If just the roundabout were affordable it would solve 90% of the conflict issues.

That said the design of the roundabout makes no sense. We want to slow bicyclists, not kill them. The roundabout has to be designed to allow a bicyclist who did not slow enough earlier to recover and not die.

Also for the life of me I don't understand why would you put seating around a roundabout at the bottom of a hill where bicyclists will be slowing (unless the roundabout has a tall piece of concrete in the middle and spectators want to see the carnage)? Or why would you run the path from the parking lot to the roundabout? This is the one area we want to separate slowing bikes and pedestrians, not mix them.

Design a roundabout that separates slowing bikes and pedestrians at this juncture, and anticipates there will be some bicyclists who don't start slowing in time for the roundabout. And eliminate the current path from the parking lot to where the roundabout will be located, and as noted below route those pedestrians to a marked crossing closer to the bathroom where bike speeds will have slowed.

3. Backstop To The Bathroom.

Bikes will have already slowed on this stretch due to the roundabout. Paving a separate walking path to the bathroom along the edge of the parking lot is a bad idea because:

1. It basically is an end run around the requirement in the ADMP the trail not be widened (especially with concrete).

2. It goes against the parks commission's principle of no new net impervious surfaces in the park.

3. It REQUIRES anyone on the field wanting to use the bathroom to cross the trail to get to the walking trail at all different points, exactly what you don't want to do. You want them to walk along the grass part of the field to cross closer to the bathroom in a central marked crossing where bike speeds are low, not near the roundabout.

The better approach for getting to the bathroom and managing pedestrians coming from the parking lot is informal natural fences, like the wood ranch style fences in the photos (natural materials being key, and not too high). These would funnel pedestrians (and dogs) from the parking lot to a central main crossing in the trail after the roundabout so bike speeds are slow and this part of the trail crossing is marked. Another (low) ranch style fence along the grass next to the field would funnel pedestrians wanting to use the bathroom or cross the trail away from the roundabout and towards the marked crossing.

This would eliminate the need to remove all the vegetation between the trail and the parking lot, although if the trees were left and the area grassed it would extend the feel of the park, but require more maintenance.

4. The Bathroom Gathering Area.

The bathroom has always been a poor design. Move the fountain to the west side of the bathroom, remove the concrete planter with the sad juniper and bench, and there is plenty of existing impervious surfaces to create a gathering area, maybe with some kind of colored concrete or ground surface. Not very expensive and easy. I don't like the plan to expand the gathering area with impervious surfaces that extend into the grass field.

4. Dogs.

Off-leash dogs are an issue, but dogs and leashes are the most contentious issue on the Island and I highly doubt the council wants this project to come before it with banning off-leash dogs part of the project.

The reality is the park neighbors like taking their off-leash dogs to the park (and I have lived next to this park since 2009). The key is to go slow through this area, and use the fencing I discuss above to keep off-leash dogs on the grass field, or along a single marked crossing from the parking lot across the trail to the grass field.

5. Inattentive Pedestrians.

The reality is pedestrians like walking in a park because they don't have to pay attention, and they have the legal right of way.

The best way to deal with pedestrians listening to music or not paying auditory attention to those irritating bike bells or "ON YOUR LEFT" is to mark the trail where the crossings are. And to ride slowly through this very short part of the Sound To Mountains Trail, especially when approaching a pedestrian from behind.

Hello, I’m a member of Neighbors in Motion and wanted to give written feedback regarding the AD Park Trail Safety Improvement Project as presented by KPG. The project is divided into three subprojects.

1. West Mercer Trail Crossing. Alternative A (central node) and B (3 pocket nodes) are similar but vary as to the number of “nodes” that would be built on the trail. The nodes are intended to give riders a resting area and access to bike amenities (pump/bike rack). At present, some cyclists gather in that area to regroup or meet up with other riders before circling the island and the nodes would enhance that option. On the other hand, I don’t know of any cyclists who have advocated for “nodes,” and they don’t appear to have a safety purpose, which was the original goal of the State grant. I consider them a “nice to have” vs. a “must have” and if money were needed to be spent elsewhere on safety improvements, I would do that instead. Other elements of this subproject are:
• Remove sidewalk along back of curb. That sidewalk is not used by cyclists (in my experience) and I don’t believe cyclists would miss it. Pedestrians may use it when walking down to the bottom of the hill. I don’t know what advantage there is to keeping or removing the sidewalk so at this point, I’d save the cost of removal and leave it.
• Additional wayfinding signage. This is likely the main reason for this subproject…in order to encourage experienced cyclists to ride the road on West Mercer Way (going east) while crossing the Island, instead of taking the AD Park route (on the lid). Experienced cyclists already do this, but if we are hoping to encourage others to take the road, the signage should be clear that it is an option for experienced riders. There are many options for signage, but language indicating that there is no trail or shoulder on parts of the road; that one would be riding with traffic; and that it is most suitable for experienced cyclists, should be considered. In addition, signage regarding the AD trail (through the lid) might include language about traveling the I-90/Mountains to Sound Trail to the downtown, the presence of pedestrian and dog traffic and that slower speeds are expected.
• Kiosk. Although I’m ambivalent about the “nodes”, constructing a kiosk is a good idea. If we had a kiosk there (or near the restrooms as is also an option) the city could post cycling maps and the Island’s “Rules of the Road” document.

2. Trail Connections at the 72nd Ave SE Overpass. This subproject is intended to slow bikes coming down the hill from the tennis courts before entering the ball field area. Option A creates a mini-roundabout while Option B creates a “decorative concrete node.”
• Option A: roundabout. I have two reservations about the roundabout. First, while roundabouts are often used on streets (and cyclists are familiar with them), they are hardly ever used on trails. There seems to be a growing acceptance of their use but it requires that there be enough space to correctly engineer the roundabout. In that area of the trail, it doesn’t seem like there is enough space to enlarge the roundabout enough to actually impact speed. Additionally, if this roundabout includes a raised concrete area in the middle, it would be dangerous. If this option is the final choice, the build out should be according to WSDOT and/or AASHTO specifications for bike trails and it should not have an elevated concrete area in the middle. My second reservation is I don’t know where pedestrians are supposed to be on the roundabout. There should be clear signage about how one is to navigate it.
• Option B: Concrete Node. This node should continue to have the striping that separates the sides of the trail, but otherwise this option is fine.
• Another Option. Instead of or in addition to a roundabout, we should mark the trail to encourage cyclists to slow down (slow zone, pedestrians ahead, etc.). Cyclists who regularly ride the trail are familiar with that section and the need to control speed, but a visual reminder would be helpful.
3. Restroom Facilities Area. Alternative A and Alternative B include new plazas. Alternative B also includes a separate pathway for pedestrians between the dugout and the bathroom. I prefer option B because of the walkway, but otherwise, they are close. Some general comments:
• For alternative B, I’m not clear what the circles are that have been placed in the “node” but if they are raised concrete and impede traffic, that would be a problem for cyclists and I would oppose that.
• In several places the plan calls for “informal fencing” to control where pedestrians can cross the trail. This is an effective, low tech way, of giving users of the trail predictability as to where pedestrians will cross. That is a good option. I would additionally add raised cross walk markings on the trail in those locations.

4. Things not in the plan that should be addressed.
• “Dogs on the trail” came up in the public questioning and in fact it is quite a problem on the upper lid. Some owners have their dogs off leash in that area creating a hazard for cyclists. As we have noted in the past, the only bike related injury that we are aware of in that section of the park involved an off-leash dog striking a cyclist leading to a serious injury. The KPG plan should address this issue.
• It was also noted that some pedestrians are unable to hear voice or bell audibles from cyclists because they are wearing ear buds or headsets. There is only so much one can do, but this is a common situation and KPG should address how it might be dealt with.

Jeff Koontz

Submitted by W. Clark Powell on 2/23: In the survey there was a missing element. It was the "none of the above" option. The same is true of the PROS project. There is no reason each park cannot be considered independently except that in doing the entire PROS for the whole Island at once the City has more control than the tax payers. I think our parks are pretty nice the way they are and I see any change executed by the City and Park Dept as being high risk to the users and tax payers.

Removed by moderator.

And I meant to add. You have a wall of ivy and should it collapse and someone is walking along the trail, the sheer weight of it could kill someone or their pet or bring a wall down.

Why is the City hiring consultants to come up with "Aubrey Davis Trail Safety Improvements," when "this project is primarily within WSDOT limited access and will require WSDOT review, coordination, and approval of design documentation?" Why don't you just ask WSDOT to come up with a safety plan for the Trail and then have them ask the City/KPG/Traffic Engineers review the safety plans, give their input, as well as citizens, and then wait for WSDOT to respond? And please try and find a way to get bicycles off the trails. Thank you.

I have lived in downtown Mercer Island for 6.5 years and use the trail as a walker and bicyclist, and would use it as a running trail if there were a soft-surface gravel or mulch trail on the side. I support maintaining an unbroken bicycling trail, without a need to dismount, as an important link in the regional network--one that is constantly expanding with extensions in Bellevue along I-90 that may someday be extended coast-to-coast as has already been done in Canada, with Eastrail, and with Stay Healthy Streets in Seattle that may become permanent. Facilitating regional bicycling has significant benefits, even for recreational trips, from promoting health to advertising real estate, and some of these benefits may be less obvious. For example, on one trip several years ago, which might not have happened had passing through Aubrey Davis Park been less convenient, I assisted police officers searching for an 8-year-old girl who had disappeared in the East Duwamish Greenbelt.

There are many ways to reduce bicycle-pedestrian conflicts that are less disruptive than prohibiting bicycles and probably much simpler and cheaper than upgrading West Mercer Way. I've seen them work in places like Redmond, Davis CA, etc.

Comment Submitted by Stephen Majewski:
Thanks for putting together an informative meeting. It seems like KPG was working around a limitation of 12' trail width, and I thought it was interesting that they did that in option "B" by actually having TWO trails. Apparently, that meets the letter of the law. The Master Plan is a very short paraphrasing of the WSDOT standards which generally recommend a 12' width, but leaves out the additional verbiage that wider will be necessary where there is substantial use. The Feroglia area is clearly an area of substantial use. If you need to meet the letter of the law, make a 12' trail through the plaza and then give it a 6' apron. Or call it a plaza. Trail, asphalt. Plaza, concrete. Two different things...The separate trail just means you'll have pedestrians on both trails. Submitted by Stephen Majewski 2/17/22

The trail across Mercer Island is a major bike commute route and I would not want to discourage people who commute by bicycle. It is true that ideally the bike path and pedestrian path should be separated. If that isn't possible, a speed limit of 15 mph is reasonable and possibly inside the Aubrey Davis Park, a speed limit of 10 mph might be better. The difficulty is enforcement! I think a speed limit in the park is especially needed for electric or battery powered bikes.

I’ve used the path from 72nd to Bellevue as a cyclist nearly ten years up to three times a week year round. I’ve also used it as a pedestrian on many days that I am not riding. The path has two primary issues. It’s width is inadequate and exacerbating that users are generally unaware of their effect on other users. All users could benefit everyone by being more self aware of how their actions affect others.

Pedestrians in groups walk side by side talking to each other and generally unaware of how they are occupying much of the path’s width to the detriment of cyclists. Even individual pedestrians often walk near the middle of the path. There is a lack of situational awareness among many pedestrians. Cyclists don’t announce themselves when coming on pedestrians from behind. Changing both behaviors is a worthy cause. Signage can help even a wider trail, including a bicycle speed limit consistent with other paths, a suggestion to announce overtaking pedestrians as well as suggestions for pedestrians to stay to the right and listen for cyclist’s bells.

However, the path in AD fundamentally is inadequate from North Mercer Way to where it descends steeply on the north side of the field due to the number of users much of the year, not just in summer. Rules will not resolve that shortcoming. Widening the path will address its inadequacy by giving all users more space and piece of mind. Looking forward 5 or 10 years it’s reasonable to expect it will be increasingly utilized.

Riding recently opened paved EasTrail along eastern Lake Washington offers a current county standard and contrast to the path across MI by being wider and having gravel shoulders for people who wish to be in a pedestrian only right of way, often with dogs on leash. EasTrail is a county project that sets a solid standard for an increasing volume of multiple users which it has already attracted. Covid has introduced many to walking and with increasing density on the north end, the trail needs to be considered having greater usage over years, not just for today or yesterday.

A North Mercer Way alternative bike lane attached to the existing roadway does not exist and would still not be satisfactory for casual riders who want to use the park and do not see a painted line creating safety.

Eliminating users (cyclists for example) is a shortsighted view and not a solution, only a band aid. The path has a capacity problem at its root and until that is addressed, not much else will work well or for long.

Charlie Zwick

Mclausen, Strongly agree that someone that's never had a grease chainring tattoo on their calf doesn't understand bike speeds. As a reference, I can maybe hit 35mph at the bottom of Gallagher hill, in a tuck, with a long running start and lots of room to run-out. 40 down that slight curved descent is insane. The truth is that, anything faster than walking seems crazy-fast to this kind of person and they will call any bike "speeding".
While I could probably exceed 20mph on the descent from the tennis courts, I don't.
-Too narrow
-limited sightlines
-too many obstacles, things to hit and not enough room to stop.
-too much work (I just climbed from from the floating bridge or W Mercer, after all...)
Mainly, it's that self-preservation thing, falling hurts!

This is a WSDOT grant for safety improvements in a transportation corridor, they're certainly not going to spend that on irrigation. I trust the City and KPG to develop some rational ideas that will probably include a mix of widening the trail, establishing 2' shoulders, roundabouts and separating peds from wheels.

https://ilovebicycling.com/average-bike-speed/

Average Cyclist Pro Cyclist
Average Bike Speed on Flat Terrain 18 mph 26 mph
Average Bike Speed up an 5% hill 9.5 mph 15 mph
Average Bike Speed up an 8% hill 7 mph 12 mph
Fastest Downhill Bike Speeds 47 – 57 mph 69 – 81 mph
Average sustainable watts for 1 hour (FTP) 200 watts 415 watts
5 second Sprint 33mph/700 watts 40mph/1250 watts
Tour De France Average Speed 25mph (average of the 3 weeks based on steep inclines and 4-5 hour race times)

For an average bicyclist like the poster 30 mph is probably top speed even on a decline. But that is for an average rider. As noted a Tour De France rider rides at an average speed of 25 mph over 21 races over 23 days including grueling mountain climbs. I have asked the city several times to post signs showing bike speeds along the trail and to record that data. So far the city has not. But I think it is not accurate to base maximum speeds on a typical average bike rider, although I would agree 40 mph might be higher than the average rider could obtain. Still being struck by an average rider going 25 or 30 mph would cause serious injury to any pedestrian, and of course average amateur riders do not have the skills a professional rider does.

I saw a reference that cyclists can reach speeds of 40 mph on the trails. This sounds like a comment from someone who speculates about bike speeds but lacks experience to make an intelligent comment. I race bikes and ride about 9000 miles per year. The slope of the trail in the park, the off-camber curves, the lack of width of the trail and the risk of conflicting users all combine to make achieving 40 mph speeds insane. For comparison, the I-90 trail coming from Seattle is straight, much longer, loses more elevation and often has a tailwind from the West. My best speeds on that descent are only slightly more than 30 mph, and that's from years of commuting from Seattle on a high-level road bike. The City should not rely on unsupported hypothetical speed figures from someone who lacks the data to support the assertion.

(1) WSDOT created the AD Park trail for bike commuting purposes. The City needs to honor the purpose of the trail in considering any changes.
(2) The legal standard for bike commuter trails has expanded since these trails were paved. Any changes to the trails should be brough up to legal standards (ie the width of the bike trail across SR 520) just like any major home renovation must be brought up to legal standard.
(3) Any argument that there are too many conflicts between cyclists and peds/dogs/kids/etc. supports widening the trail to current standards. The way to make the trail safer is to give users more room to spread out and avoid each other.
(4) Any expansion of impervious surface to bring the trails up to current standards would be minimal in relation to the total area of the AD Park. There is plenty of pervious surface in the park.
(5) Bike commuting should be encouraged to get people out of their cars. Any changes that discourage bike commuting will only increase vehicle traffic. This not only make congestion worse; it leads to a greater carbon footprint and reduces the safety of cyclists who use the roads. More vehicles are bad for the Island and the environment. More cycling is good for the Island and for the environment. Don't make decisions that discourage cycling.