Razorback Greenway and other NWA Trail Systems

[zman9810]

I see what you're saying. But I do think the trail system plays a larger role. Granted I'm probably biased because I really do enjoy using the trail system myself. I do think the trail system gets used more often than some people may think. Although a lot of it is recreational, I've been surprised how many people I see that do use it to get groceries and such. No you can't buy a month's worth of groceries. But I see people with Walmart sacks quite a bit on the Mud Creek Trail, especially the western part of the trail that goes right by the Supercenter. But overall I think the trail system falls under one of those 'quality of life' categories. I'm not saying a company is going to choose Fayetteville just because it has a trail system. But you'd be surprised how companies look at a lot of things including that when picking a city to locate in. That being said I also realize you can't ignore a lot of other issues going on in the city just to have a trail system. But aside from the Scull Creek Trail, most of the funding has come from federal grants and such.

My second paragraph actually took the discussion off topic to a point. I was talking more about the plans to take roadways built specifically for motor vehicles and forcing bicycle use on them. The Mud Creek Trail extension is a prime example of that- it narrows a bridge built only with car and truck traffic in mind and narrows it. It takes a roadway rebuilt not long ago for safer vehicle use and forces an unsafe crossing and traffic congestion. In this instance, there is a much better, safer path for the trail and it is not being used.

I certainly agree that the trail system is a great amenity for the city and I use it regularly myself. I've thought about buying a bicycle but have no interest in sharing a road built for cars - it would be for trail use exclusively and I would avoid the at-grade crossings whenever possible.

I realize that it is politically incorrect to say anything negative about bicycle use in Fayetteville right now but with the push to encourage more bicycle use on city streets and plans to have a total of 129 miles of trails there is going to be a lot more controversy to come.

I think bicycle use is one of those things that most everyone wants to be for with good intentions. The flip side of that is that for all those people who support the share the road idea the vast majority will ride their bicycles only occassionally. It's like when people buy a treadmill with the intention of using it everyday and then it gets relegated to a place to lay stuff on. A lot of people think that if the city would just make it easier to ride a bicycle they would do so. In fact, they will do so enthusiastically at first and then the convenience and safety of the car will take over and the bicycle will sit locked up. Meanwhile, we will have city streets that have been narrowed and traffic congestion and a call to spend more money to relieve that congestion.

[aerotive]

You could see this coming when the city built the trail path at North as surface-level instead of as an under- or overpass, or a railroad-style protected crossing system, or whatever. Whether it's a cabal of bicyclists, lack of funds, or general incompetence is something I don't know the answer to. I do know that when I'm walking that trail (3 or 4 times per week) and there's busy traffic I walk up to the light at Leverett to avoid that stupid thing, and that when I'm driving I'm delayed many times a week by passing pedestrians and bicyclists. I'd like to how much gas and time will be wasted over the next few decades as a result of the decision to build it badly, and how many pedestrians and bicyclists will be injured or killed.

So the decision to narrow the bridge is no surprise at all. And as time goes on, as the city gets denser, as the trail system is built out and becomes more useful, as gas prices go up and people walk/bike more often, the problems at both locations will only worsen.

[Mith242]

You could see this coming when the city built the trail path at North as surface-level instead of as an under- or overpass, or a railroad-style protected crossing system, or whatever. Whether it's a cabal of bicyclists, lack of funds, or general incompetence is something I don't know the answer to. I do know that when I'm walking that trail (3 or 4 times per week) and there's busy traffic I walk up to the light at Leverett to avoid that stupid thing, and that when I'm driving I'm delayed many times a week by passing pedestrians and bicyclists. I'd like to how much gas and time will be wasted over the next few decades as a result of the decision to build it badly, and how many pedestrians and bicyclists will be injured or killed.

So the decision to narrow the bridge is no surprise at all. And as time goes on, as the city gets denser, as the trail system is built out and becomes more useful, as gas prices go up and people walk/bike more often, the problems at both locations will only worsen.

I'm pretty sure the reason a bridge wasn't built over North St was lack of funds. Even the smaller type bridges over the creeks are the main cost of the actual trails. I do think though that at some point more of an effort will be made to eventually try to put some sort of bridge over North St. Perhaps it's a different situation with this new trail crossing Garland Ave. Apparently they are looking to either put a bridge over it or a tunnel underneath. Maybe funding is different in that case because it's university land on both sides. Or maybe there's been enough complaints about North St that the city has now decided crossings over four lanes roads isn't going to work. I do know in the case of the Scull Creek Trail, most of the funding came from a tax voters approved. Now almost all the funding for the newer trails comes from federal grants. But as I said before, I would not be surprised that the city is already looking into at some point trying to put a bridge over North St at some point in the future. Eventually the city will have to find some sort of way. At some future point the Frisco Trail is supposed to extend south past MLK/6th. I imagine there's been a bit of a learning curve on the whole trail system. If we were to do it again the city might not opt to try the crossing at North St.

[zman9810]

I agree the North Street crossing is a bad situation as is Sycamore. I recently was walking south on Skull Creek Trail and when I got to the North Street crossing there was traffic coming in all 4 lanes. A small car driven by a young woman in the west bound outside lane stopped and motioned me across. Just behind her in the inside westbound lane came a SUV that didn't stop or even slow down and bumped over the crossing and kept going. The vehicles in the eastbound lanes stopped so I guess three out of four isn't bad but it just takes one unattentive driver to run someone over.

I tried an experiment at the Sycamore crossing. I got close enough to make the yellow flashing lights come on and observed how motorists reacted. A mini-van with two older women inside slowed and looked both ways. A Ford pickup sped through and didn't slow down or look at all. A Lincoln Towncar with an elderly gentlemen driving went through very slow but without looking at all or even seeming to realize that the lights were flashing. These crossings are accidents waiting to happen- the railroad crossing style with guards may be what is required for a safe crossing.

These examples are why I still don't understand why the Mud Creek Trail extension isn't being put under the Old Missouri Road bridge and on a separate bridge of it's own on the other side. It might take longer and cost more but in the long run is a much safer and user friendly path.

[zman9810]

Utility lines are being located for the Mud Creek Trail extension plan. The city recently put markings as to how far over the Old Missouri Road southbound traffic lane will have to jog over. It is going to be a traffic hazard to say the least. The northbound lane will be squeezed over into an area that will make the bridge feel very unsafe. The street crosswalk that is right at the minimally controlled Sweetbriar/ Old Missouri Road/ Brookhaven Dr. intersection will be just as dangerous. It is sad to see trail user and driver safety plus smooth traffic flow compromised for the sake of ambition, misguided motives and political pressure.

The Fayetteville Police Department has been very active as of late in patrolling Old Missouri Road. it makes one wonder what their position is as to how safe an alignment the extension is. If a city patrol car is stationed in that area constantly it would increase the safety a lot- but at what cost? The cost of an officer stationed in that area constantly from now on versus the cost of putting the path under the road bridge and on a separate bridge of it's own?....doesn't sound like a good tradeoff.

One of the reasons given for not extending the trail under the road bridge was that there wasn't enough rightaway on the other side for the trail. There is a reason there isn't enough rightaway- the Paradise Valley Athletic Club golf course extends into the city rightaway. The 17th hole has a sand trap just past the hole and it and the golf course fence are both well into the rightaway. Must be nice to have the power to tell the city what to do and they go along with it!

[Mith242]

Looking outside of Fayetteville this time. Rogers has tabled it's Master Trail Plan for now. Apparently some residents argued that the trail would hurt the property value of their homes. Although this seems to be a common theme that pops up a lot with people, I think it really tends to work the other way. A lot of people consider a nearby trail system to be an amenity, not something that takes away from the value of your home. This view seems to really pop up a lot outside of Fayetteville. I'm pretty sure Springdale residents have also complained about this as well. I guess I'm just curious if anyone really has any proof that a trail system could actually be detrimental to your property or if it's just misplaced worries over something 'different' or maybe just another form of NIMBYism.

[zman9810]

Here's a couple of shots of the Old Missouri Road bridge over Mud Creek showing how much of the roadway is being taken for the trail crossing. The faint red line is where the pavement has been in cut in preparation for construction. The trail alignment will take half of one lane and force southbound traffic ito what is now the northbound lane on a curved bridge on a heavily traveled street. For the City to say this is a safe way to extend the Mud Creek Trail is ridiculous- it is a bottleneck that employs the trail users as traffic calming devices. Considering there will be no barrier between the road and trail both trail users and drivers will be at risk of accident and injury if not death.

[Mith242]

Technically there won't be any barrier, but they will be putting up some of those reflective markers like the ones that were on Front St. Granted most of those are down now. I wonder when the city will get around to changing how the trail crosses Front St. I admit it's not the most ideal situation. But I'm not sure if it will be as bad as it sounds. The current lanes are pretty wide. But yeah it would be nice if they didn't have to reduce them down too much. I do admit I'm still not sure why the city couldn't put the trail underneath the bridge. But while the current design isn't ideal, I'm not sure it's going to be as bad as it may sound. I guess we'll have to see.

In some other news, sounds like sometime this Spring the city will put down some new turf around the Fulbright Expressway tunnel on the Scull Creek Trail. last year there was quite a few problems with erosion and a lot of mud ending up in the tunnel after it would rain.

I also have a map on the planned route of the future U of A Agri trail that the city will be starting later this year.

[zman9810]

"Technically there won't be any barrier, but they will be putting up some of those reflective markers like the ones that were on Front St. Granted most of those are down now. I wonder when the city will get around to changing how the trail crosses Front St. I admit it's not the most ideal situation. But I'm not sure if it will be as bad as it sounds. The current lanes are pretty wide. But yeah it would be nice if they didn't have to reduce them down too much. I do admit I'm still not sure why the city couldn't put the trail underneath the bridge. But while the current design isn't ideal, I'm not sure it's going to be as bad as it may sound. I guess we'll have to see."

That is one of the scariest aspects of it- there will be no real barrier but still an illusion of safety with the reflectors. The fact that the plan takes all the space from one side of the bridge will make it even harder to navigate safely. It is a very dark area at night which will add to the hazard.

The City could put trail under the bridge very easily. There is already an unimproved walking trail under the bridge. They could take back the rightaway that the golf course is using and put the path under the bridge and on a separate bridge of it's own. I guess it will take a serious accident to drive home the point to the City and the Sidewalks and Trails Taskforce to change course- by then it will be too late for someone though.

[Mith242]

Speaking of Front St, I found out they have a design for the Mud Creek Trail crossing on Front St. But it appears to be on hold because right now there's no money to fund it. I guess they decided to using what funding they had to work on new trails rather than make improvements on existing ones. Granted as far as I know there hasn't been any problem on Front St with pedestrians. I admit with limited funding I'd rather see new trails rather than making improvements to already existing ones. But hopefully that part of the Mud Creek Trail won't be put off for too long.

[zman9810]

Speaking of Front St, I found out they have a design for the Mud Creek Trail crossing on Front St. But it appears to be on hold because right now there's no money to fund it. I guess they decided to using what funding they had to work on new trails rather than make improvements on existing ones. Granted as far as I know there hasn't been any problem on Front St with pedestrians. I admit with limited funding I'd rather see new trails rather than making improvements to already existing ones. But hopefully that part of the Mud Creek Trail won't be put off for too long.

Mith- I realize that you a great supporter of the trails program as I am as well. It seems we are both regular users of the trails and both think that the trails network is a great asset for the city. I get the impression that we both think that the trails are an alternative transportation option for the residents of Fayetteville. I think we are both proponents of future urban development in Fayetteville and the metro.

I think where we do differ is in how the trails program is implemented- how it is planned out and what are the priorities. The City, specifically the Trails Coordinator and Sidewalks and Trails Task Force seem willing to sacrifice safety of both trails users and motor vehicle drivers alike in a rush to extend the trail system. The highways and streets that are the heart of Fayetteville's transportation network and will be in the future can not be forced to share space with pedestrians and bike riders without great risks to users of both. The negative affects on smooth traffic flow have already been documented in town.

This is not a NIMBY(Not-In-My-Backyard)issue- this is a City policy issue that affects anyone that drives or uses a trail in Fayetteville. The continued encroachment of the trails system on to roadways designed for motor vehicle use only will decrease the safety and smooth traffic flow of those roadways. It obviously decreases the safety of the trail users that have to contend with half-ton and up masses of metal trying to occupy the same space they are in.

The City, specifically the Trails Coordinator and Sidewalks and Trails Task Force, need to step back and look at what is best for the community as a whole rather than the narrow view of extend the trails length however they can find funding. The funding sources they are finding are infamous for not having oversight as to their importance to national impact- they are generally a type of fake environmentally friendly spending that works against the transportation funding needs of the country.

ps- please take time to reply

[wmr]

While I see how the under bridge option is preferable, I don't see how the trail crossing on the bridge is more dangerous than the existing sidewalk crossing on the bridge.

Its not ideal, and pedestrians will need to use caution, as will drivers, but I don't see it as a huge issue.

There are already sections where a trail user has to use the side of a bridge to cross, and the others are just narrow sidewalk portions. They are unnerving to go across at times, but its just something a trail user has to deal with.

There is a lot of traffic on Old Mo, but that bridge is relatively short, too.

Eventually, surely the city will go back and do this right. Currently the mission is to expand the existing trail system and get more people using it. Once that happens, funding will be easier to secure for improvements and expansions.

[Mith242]

I've mentioned this before but I'll bring my opinions up on this as well. I'd have to say I agree with WMR. Having the trail certainly isn't the ideal placement. But for whatever reason they couldn't get that done. I suppose having the narrow lanes will be a big annoyance to people who drive by there. Especially the ones who have to do it on a daily basis. But I guess my thinking is that people will get used to it. I certainly don't want to see anyone get hurt or have an accident. But I guess I am thinking it won't be as bad as it sounds. Granted maybe we'll have to see the finished product. If there was a choice in simply not doing it at all of choosing the current route I'd certainly have to go with the current route. I'm guessing not everyone will be happy with the Sharrow Program as well. I admit I'd much rather have a Trail System or at least bikes lanes. But I see why the city is doing it. For one it's going to take decades to try to complete the trail system as it is set up now. Of course that's not taking into account future growth either. More bike lanes would also be great, but let's face it. The funding for that is going to be somewhat limited and it's going to take a long time to get an overall bike lane system set up as well. At first I didn't think I'd want to ride on the streets at all on my bicycle. But it hasn't been too bad actually. There's of course some areas and some roads that I'll probably never choose to do it on. But I guess I like having some more options available. Even other cities known for being rather 'bike friendly' have realized there's only so much trail system and bike lanes you can set up and maintain. I think Fayetteville is just following the example that other cities are taking. At least the city seems to be learning from some of it's mistakes. Sounds like the new trail going through the U of A Agri area will have a bridge or tunnel at Garland rather than trying to have another crossing on what will eventually be a four lane road. But at the same time I guess a lot of it is just going to depend on what type of funding we can get. But for me personally I'd rather have the trail system keep growing even if sometimes the best optimal route isn't always available. Although I should also point out with in reason. I'm not going to suggest we start throwing a lot of trails crossing College Ave or anything like that. As far as the extension of the Mud Creek Trail goes. I think there's some pressure to expand the trail system over more for the east side of the city. Let's face it there's some influential people on the east side. I think some people on that side want to have some options of using the trail system without having to go for a drive over to the current end of the Mud Creek Trail. I'd also say Gulley Park is a pretty popular park in the city and the city would like to have the trail system connect up with it. Portland has a pretty good trail system linking up a lot of their parks together. I believe Fayetteville also wants to do something like this. Or at least for some of their more popular parks. The Frisco/Scull Creek Trails go pretty close to Wilson Park. I think the city eventually wants to officially have a trail spur linking the park to the trail system. If you include bike lanes Lake Fayetteville is also connected. Seems like Gulley Park is the next big goal.

[zman9810]

While I see how the under bridge option is preferable, I don't see how the trail crossing on the bridge is more dangerous than the existing sidewalk crossing on the bridge.

Its not ideal, and pedestrians will need to use caution, as will drivers, but I don't see it as a huge issue.

There are already sections where a trail user has to use the side of a bridge to cross, and the others are just narrow sidewalk portions. They are unnerving to go across at times, but its just something a trail user has to deal with.

There is a lot of traffic on Old Mo, but that bridge is relatively short, too.

Eventually, surely the city will go back and do this right. Currently the mission is to expand the existing trail system and get more people using it. Once that happens, funding will be easier to secure for improvements and expansions.

Actually...there isn't a sidewalk crossing the bridge now- that is just the outer edge of the bridge and not meant for pedestrian use. The bridge wasn't designed for trail use and forcing trail use upon by narrowing it works against it's intended design. The City's plan with the crossing and bridge narrowing is creating a traffic hazard and unsafe situation for all where it could be easily avoided. It's seems better to take the time and come up with the extra funds and do build it be safe.

Once it is built it will never be corrected- there will always be something else more pressing to spend money on.

[aerotive]

Sounds like the new trail going through the U of A Agri area will have a bridge or tunnel at Garland rather than trying to have another crossing on what will eventually be a four lane road.

There's some good news, and evidence that someone at the city is paying attention.

[Mith242]

There's some good news, and evidence that someone at the city is paying attention.

I admit I was a little surprised. A tunnel or bridge will end up being a large part of the cost involved with this new trail. Of course a bridge or tunnel would always be preferred than an actual street crossing. I just figured it's going to end up being a matter of cost more than anything. I guess the grant they got had enough money involved to allow them to do this option. I also wonder if there would be potential problem with that section of Garland being a state highway. I don't believe that section of North St is technically a state highway. With Garland I would imagine the AHTD could nix any idea of an actual street crossing. I'll be honest I haven't had as many problems with the North St crossing as I anticipated. But I also do try to avoid that part of the trail during certain times of day. But I still wouldn't mind seeing that crossing replaced with a bridge or tunnel at some point.

[zman9810]

The City needs to slow down and build a trail system that doesn't cause more problems than it is worth. By the time 129 miles of trail are built under the present policy the motor vehicle network will have been strangled into massive gridlock. The Sidewalks and Trails Task Force may have good intentions in their view but the fact is that motor vehicles are and will be the primary means of transportation in the city for the long term. Walking and riding bicycles will be primarily a recreational use and putting recreation over safety and a uncongested street network is a mistake.

By going slow and using the funds that are available to build a safer trail system that doesn't cause congestion on the streets the trails program will gain support and not have calls for it to lose all funding.

[Mith242]

The City needs to slow down and build a trail system that doesn't cause more problems than it is worth. By the time 129 miles of trail are built under the present policy the motor vehicle network will have been strangled into massive gridlock. The Sidewalks and Trails Task Force may have good intentions in their view but the fact is that motor vehicles are and will be the primary means of transportation in the city for the long term. Walking and riding bicycles will be primarily a recreational use and putting recreation over safety and a uncongested street network is a mistake.

By going slow and using the funds that are available to build a safer trail system that doesn't cause congestion on the streets the trails program will gain support and not have calls for it to lose all funding.

I admit the Mud Creek Trail extension isn't the ideal situation. But I guess I'm still not sure it's going to be quite as bad as it seems. I guess I'm going to have to wait and see the final product. But overall I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have to say I don't feel they are moving too quickly on the trail system. So far they seem to be averaging 2-3 miles a year. From my perspective if there's funding there then we should go ahead and use it and work on the trail system. I suppose there could be some years where funding may be rather limited and not much will be added on. I just hate to wait and possibly not have the funding there later. Maybe it's just going to come down to what parts of the trail system do they work on. I suppose they could work on some sections of the city where there isn't very high densities of people on the roads. But for me I'd rather see additional trails that actual connect to the trail system. But I could see if someone say in west Fayetteville wants more access to trails in their part of the city without having to drive to the other side of I-540. Eventually these other segments of trails could eventually be connected to the main system. But since I have good access to the main system, I'd rather the city just be able to add more connections off the mail system. But that's my perspective on it.

[zman9810]

name='Mith242' date='05 March 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1267834002' post='1108338']

I admit the Mud Creek Trail extension isn't the ideal situation. But I guess I'm still not sure it's going to be quite as bad as it seems. I guess I'm going to have to wait and see the final product. But overall I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have to say I don't feel they are moving too quickly on the trail system. So far they seem to be averaging 2-3 miles a year. From my perspective if there's funding there then we should go ahead and use it and work on the trail system. I suppose there could be some years where funding may be rather limited and not much will be added on. I just hate to wait and possibly not have the funding there later. Maybe it's just going to come down to what parts of the trail system do they work on. I suppose they could work on some sections of the city where there isn't very high densities of people on the roads. But for me I'd rather see additional trails that actual connect to the trail system. But I could see if someone say in west Fayetteville wants more access to trails in their part of the city without having to drive to the other side of I-540. Eventually these other segments of trails could eventually be connected to the main system. But since I have good access to the main system, I'd rather the city just be able to add more connections off the mail system. But that's my perspective on it.

[Mith242]

I forgot to mention this earlier. Looks like sometime during winter the city has put up a little interpretive sign/plaque about the Butterfield Overland Stage and Mail Route on the Lake Fayetteville Trail extension. With the warmer weather I've made it back up there to that part of the trail system. I had forgotten that the Butterfield Trail ran over there. In fact I think a section of it is actually under water now on the very eastern edge of Lake Fayetteville. But part of the Lake Fayetteville Trail now uses a part of the old Butterfield Route. There's also been some interest on the national level of perhaps looking into making the Butterfield Trail an official National trail. Not sure if that means this could mean there could be other parts added to the trail system. I imagine some parts of it are now made up of existing roadway. But it's still interesting to see that part of the Fayetteville Trail System could end up being part of a National Trail. Although nothing is official yet. The National Trail Division of the National Park Service, based out of Sante Fe, is doing the preliminary studies on possibly making the Butterfield Route an official National Trail in the next few years.

[Mith242]

If you're out on the trail system today or tomorrow enjoy the newly power washed Fulbright Tunnel on the Scull Creek Trail. It recently got it's quarterly or bimonthly power washing. Not quite sure just how often they do it. It's clean and dry, well relatively dry for the Fulbright Tunnel.

[Mith242]

I probably should have known. But I was out on the Scull Creek Trail and the north end of the Fulbright Expressway tunnel is flooded. Just like it tends to do when we have big rains during the Spring. Although this time it was obviously all the melting snow. Can't be a whole lot left so you'd think it shouldn't stay flooded too long.

[zman9810]

A near wreck today at the Mud Creek Trail extension site at the intersection of Old Missouri Road and Sweetbriat Dr. The city crew parks a truck and trailer in the outbound lane of the split Sweetbriar Dr. so that all traffic has to use the in bound lane. When Old Missouri is narrowed to one lane for construction the city crew does a poor job of directing traffic (if at all) and drivers aren't sure who goes and stops. Anyway, there was a truck coming out of Sweetbriar and a car turning into Sweetbriar and the truck driver was looking for traffic the other direction. Came close to a head-on collision. The city needs to do a better job of traffic management in the constructiion zone. Funny- a Fayetteville police stop was occurring less than a block away at the time.

[wmr]

A near wreck today at the Mud Creek Trail extension site at the intersection of Old Missouri Road and Sweetbriat Dr. The city crew parks a truck and trailer in the outbound lane of the split Sweetbriar Dr. so that all traffic has to use the in bound lane. When Old Missouri is narrowed to one lane for construction the city crew does a poor job of directing traffic (if at all) and drivers aren't sure who goes and stops. Anyway, there was a truck coming out of Sweetbriar and a car turning into Sweetbriar and the truck driver was looking for traffic the other direction. Came close to a head-on collision. The city needs to do a better job of traffic management in the constructiion zone. Funny- a Fayetteville police stop was occurring less than a block away at the time.

Yeah this must be a trails screw and not a city street crew or something. I have noticed this as well. They leave for the day and the street is down to one lane, but there's no one there to direct traffic around the site. It all seems to be done very informally. Hopefully it won't take much longer to get this completed.

[Mith242]

Looks like the Hogeye Marathon will be using the Fayetteville Trail part of this upcoming Sunday. I didn't see details on the exact time. But be on the lookout if you're planning on using the trails on Sunday.

Noticed they have got around to sticking up some of the signpost map on the Mud Creek Trail. Not sure why it took a while considering they've been on the Scull Creek and Frisco Trails a while now. Still none on the Lake Fayetteville Trail. Not sure if they're wanting to wait till they've finished the trail all around the lake or what.