Kelly's Brook Shared-Use-Path is the first catalyst project coming from the Bike St John's Master Plan. The shared-use path will extend from King's Bridge Road to Columbus Drive. It is mostly in place as a granular walking path today, linking several neighbourhoods through an important east-west greenway that largely parallels Empire Avenue. Its goal is to provide an attractive and continuous 4.8 km active transportation route in St. John’s, connecting popular destinations and amenities along the way. Path upgrades will be professionally designed by a team of consultants working closely with City staff. Part of the consultant’s contract is to plan and execute public engagement on the design elements, with a focus on the environment, path users and impacted neighbourhoods. Public and stakeholder input will inform design elements such as lighting, surface material choice, path alignment, trailhead and rest area design, wayfinding, and other decisions that may emerge during the design process.
The path will be shared use, wheel and walk, and will likely not follow Kelly’s Brook itself. Intersections will be upgraded where the path crosses, such as accessible signals, raised cross walks, tactile surfaces and/or curb bump outs for example. Sidewalks will also be upgraded to be 3 meters wide and power line polls moved where required. Wayfinding will be part of the design and the path may be lit during certain hours of the day. Kelly's Brook Shared-Use-Path connects with grocery stores, bus stops, recreation centres, community centres and playgrounds, and parking is available along the route.
Attached appendices to the agenda describe five surface types which are being considered for the shared-use path. Concrete is included as there are on-street sections; the path surface itself would not be concrete. City employees are considering aesthetics, accessibility, durability, and longevity of each surface material option.
The Universal Design Working Group (UDWG) provided the following feedback:
- Education may be needed around passing etiquette re: ringing bicycle bell as well as deaf/hard of hearing alternatives. Sight lines will be updated to ensure cyclists can see oncoming traffic. Recommended signage to promote the etiquette as well. Those who use or assist someone who uses a mobility aid may have some anxiety as a bike approaches, width should help here as well as education.
- Where possible, signage TWSI’s, and/or other indicators to show connection of the path are needed.
- At the start of sections of the path, where surface type allows, dotted lines may be painted to indicate two lanes.
- They will ensure rest stops are provided along the path.
- Further engagement with this working group as the project progresses including education campaign.
- If not accessible to all then do not list it as accessible (i.e. some of the surface areas add accessibility features for some users).
- Granular surfaces (including CORE) are not great for small, hard wheels on some wheelchairs or rollerblades, cane-users may also have challenges with these surfaces.
- Granular surfaces could not be effectively snow-cleared, would either need to use surface that is accessible year-round or indicate seasons when it is accessible.
- Surface should be accessible to all.
- May need to consider the conflicts between the different users and then address these issues in a positive way.
- Think Tank may be needed for the pictograph/wayfinding so that barriers are clearly defined.
- Safety concern with speed bike users could get on asphalt surface, sightlines will help, and this surface type is better for breaking (whereas granular would allow for uncontrolled stops that could move gravel, for example).
- Concerns over the use of wood (safety, slippery during wet and winter conditions as well as on areas of slope). Also concerns for potential for rot over time.
- UDWG members feel that it is difficult to provide informed opinions/recommendations without a comprehensive graphic description of the entire path showing a cross section of elevation, areas of conflict etc.
- The presenter verbally identified several areas that pose conflicts between various forms of mobility (intersections/trailheads/flooding). How will these be resolved to safely accommodate all users? Solutions developed for areas of conflict will need to include considerations for:
- Different light conditions (dusk vs daylight)
- Persons using mobility devices and wheelchairs
- Persons with vision loss (i.e.) Accessible Pedestrian Signals at crossings
- Deaf or hearing loss – (cannot hear bike bells or voices to be warned during areas of conflict [intersections, curves, slopes with blind spots])
- UDWG was not provided a copy of the document outlining the various surface areas that are being considered for the path. A copy of this document was requested so that the IAC can review before providing recommendations.
- The concept of a multi-use path is a good one and it is important to ensure that all forms of mobility are considered (the UDWG presentation was very focused on “wheel” only).
- Is it possible to simulate/test the preferred surface area for at least a 10-foot section so that various forms of mobility can be tested (in various weather) before final decisions are made?
- This multi-use path will be precedent setting and the committee want it to be a success. Resolving areas of conflict during the design phase will help to establish multi-use paths as a viable addition to our mobility networks.
During discussion, members provided the following comments:
- The surface will make a difference to accessibility for all users. Granular pea gravel surfaces may be challenging for accessibility.
- Safety is a priority and should be considered multi-use for cross disabilities.
- The project team working on the design consists of City staff, Stantec, Tool Design Group, and Trace Consulting. Concern was expressed that the information collected is clearly laid out for the full 5 kms. Data will need to be rich and detailed enough to do a synthesis and detailed information about the components should be provided to the group for review. The path should be laid out graphically by mapping in sections with all spatial information provided. In response, Mr. Donaher noted that there is an abundance of information and a mapping tool available on the website. The next phase of the project is detailed design, and the entire pathway will be laid out in detail with plan view and cross sections. This detailed process requires information that will be gathered during the engagement process.
- It was suggested that an empathy walk could be used as a tool to provide mapping to outline and describe the conflicts so that solutions can be developed.
- The surface material report is attached to the agenda and it was requested that members review it.
- A section of the trail could be used to test accessibility on different substrates.
- Asphalt may be of concern for safety due to the breakdown over time and the maintenance required. Further review of surface material is necessary.
Since the Universal Design Working Group (UDWG) has met, the engagement process for the Kelly's Brook Path has been launched. Members were advised that engagement meetings will be scheduled for next week and resources can be found on the website at the following link. Following engagement, the detailed design will be reviewed, and that section of the project will also require additional engagement with the UDWG and the Inclusion Advisory Committee.
Staff will take the recommendations from the Universal Design Working Group and formulate a Decision Note to bring back to the IAC for approval.