Trails coordinator Matt Mihalevich led residents through areas of thick brush just south of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard during a trail tour Monday evening.
Photo: Todd Gill, Flyer staff
Nearly 40 people stood on Frisco Trail Monday evening to get a closer look at an upcoming trail project in south Fayetteville.
City staff placed map boards alongside the trail and answered questions related to the planned half-mile extension that will connect Frisco Trail to Walker Park.
Following the brief discussion, trails coordinator Matt Mihalevich led a walking tour of the proposed route which took the group through parking lots, areas of thick brush and a construction site near School Avenue that will soon be home to a student housing complex called The Grove.
Students, Mihalevich said, are part of the reason this new section of trail is so important. Besides passing through The Grove, the extension will also connect to the upcoming Tsa La Gi Trail which will pass through two other student complexes – Hill Place and a planned complex at the old Love Box property on Beechwood Avenue.
“We really want to try and hook those students up,” said Mihalevich. “So we really feel like the timing is critical to get this connection made.”
The project, while only covering a half mile, won’t come without challenges.
“It doesn’t seem long, but there’s a lot involved,” said Mihalevich. “There are two pretty busy state highways to cross so we want to do that in the most responsible and safest way.”
A tunnel will likely be built under Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, but a different approach is proposed at School Avenue.
Mihalevich said 2010 data from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department showed nearly twice as much traffic on MLK than at the School Avenue crossing. That data, combined with the added cost of building a bridge (about $800,000), will likely result in the use of a pedestrian hybrid beacon crossing.
Construction of the Frisco Trail extension will likely begin early next year.
More photos
This trail is scheduled to place a tunnel under Martin Luther King beginning right beside our CAR Clinic auto repair shop and going diagonally under MLK to Hawgtown. The problem I have with an underground tunnel (especially in this south Fayetteville area) is that underground tunnels do not have transparency. If students are using this tunnel (as is expected), the tunnel makes users an easy target for crimes. Why not use a cross walk or an over the road bridge? Both create transparency and ensure safety of those using the crossing. Further, an underground tunnel would be more costly to build – and whether you’re spending your own money or mine, I think it would be appropriate to use the funds wisely.
Unless you are IN the tunnel – it would be difficult to see someone sleeping, urinating, mugging or raping someone else. You can see and hear all that in an open bridge and crosswalk. Safety is where it’s at folks.
I am not completely sold on his argument but he does make a pretty good point.
Agree. I’m a big dude but even I get a little creeped out by the “Dementer’s Cave” underneath the highway.
This is an east/west road, which means that at peak traffic times the sun will be in driver’s eyes, and therefore won’t see pedestrians or a red traffic signal. The solution to a dark tunnel is to add more lights. If someone feels unsafe in the tunnel they are free to cross at the MLK/School intersection.
Jerry, I understand the sun gets in our eyes when driving. However, I’m not so sure I agree with your thoughts that people won’t see traffic signals They see them today… Right? More lights are a great addition to a tunnel. However, if your mother/daughter/wife were in the tunnel and being attacked, would the lights really stop the attacker? Truly, the answer is no. Lights will not stop attacks. Transparency stops attacks. Accountability. Someone else mentioned a police scanner type video system (which I believe should be required with any tunnel) – but even that will not stop attackers. They can mask their faces and attack before the police would have time to be on scene. I really believe there are far less attacks when people can SEE you than there are where people cannot openly see you. Thanks for your response.
I think you are going a little far with the tunnels being unsafe. If we were in Little Rock then I would totally understand your opinion. Have there been any incidences in the tunnel by Washington Regional that I am unaware of?
I have to agree that this is an alarmist point of view. I think that forcing hundreds of pedestrians and bike riders, including many families with small children, across MLK would be a far greater danger than the off-chance of random violent crime happening in a short tunnel. Just think about how many kids have been hit by cars on MLK just up the road by the high school. There have been many over the last 10 or 15 years.
The tunnels by Washington Regional are not in the homeless sector of the City. The homeless factor in this EXACT AREA is what has me concerned. I’m in 100% agreement with Neil. I’m a student and would never use a tunnel in this area of town.
Crossing MLK on a bike just makes me think of Frogger.
Kirsten, that was a very offensive comment. “Homeless” does not equal “criminal”. Do you know where most violent criminals live? They live in buildings… Houses. Apartments. Condos. Dormitories. Everywhere.
You are much more likely to be raped by friends or family than by a stranger in an alley.
That being said, the #1 thing you can do to guarantee your personal safety is to not walk alone after dark.
If the idea of using a tunnel scares you so much, maybe you ought to look into some self defense training be it armed or unarmed. Or avoid the tunnels and ride elsewhere that you feel safer.
The attacks on other opinions is inappropriate, disrespectul, and unprofessional. That aside, I can tell you that many in town already avoid the current tunnels because there is standing water (even when it hasn’t rained for days/weeks). This is highly unhealthy and definitely not a ‘Green Way’ to go. Current tunnels do not have police monitors. I am not a fan of the tunnelling at all. I do not support it. I am concerned about people sleeping in and defecating in the tunnels around that area. Call me offensive too if you feel so inclined. Facts are simply that — facts.
It seems as though the criticism has gone from crime to sanitation. But I’m not sure why a homeless person would defecate more in a tunnel than elsewhere, especially if they are planning on sleeping there?
The world is scary. And unfair.
MLK is so crazy, I think that pushing all that trail traffic across the road would be a far greater danger than the possibility of crimes occurring in a tunnel.
Why is everyone in the the pictures old?
Because they care enough to show up?
Ha. That comment made me laugh.
I personally prefer the tunnel. A pedestrian bridge is an eye sore (also has its own dangers. I remember being a kid in Anchorage, AK and using those). The crosswalk would be very dangerous for the reason Jerry pointed out.
The city needs to install those blue cop calling things the uofa has all over campus inside and around the tunnels.
Or lightbulbs.
I’m not a very big dude, but know some sweet Rex Kwan Do moves. For a minimal fee, perhaps coffee and some tasty bacon, I’d be more than willing to offer 24-7 security.
I completely do not agree with the project! The trail that’s in the open has already had numerous attacks happen on people, you add the tunnel and closed off aspect not good at all! People just need to share the road, be courteous and use their best judgment. Folks commuting on bikes or on foot need to use the designated areas and realize that if you are not using them or are abusing them folks in vehicles especially big trucks may not always see you. And drivers need to be mindful in the same as we cannot all afford a vehicle! But an underground closed off tunnel is not the answer in my book!
A tunnel, by its very nature, has at least two openings.
The tunnel is not the way to go in this area. The current tunnels do have standing water and I avoid them along with my family. I would not use a tunnel on 6th street at all for the same reasons Kristen mentions. My wife would not use a tunnel because she is either running alone or with another girlfriend or she’s got the kids. She does not feel safe in an underground tunnel system. That being said, didn’t the City of Fayetteville say in 2004 that we are commited to becoming a walkable city by building all our streets safer using the Complete Streets designs? What that means is putting in bike lanes, trees, benches, stores that are close to the street instead of being behind large parking lots, walkable side walks, and signage cross walk friendly technology at street lights, etc. Tunnels contradict what the city claimed to do in 2004. Dangerous pits on either side of the road, inviting crime, no decrease in driving speeds, etc. Like it or not, the area has the potential to have people living in the tunnel. That’s not safe for anyone. Fayetteville, think before you make a decision, please.
It is not simply a matter of fact that tunnels contradict the walkability and safety plans, but more a matter of opinion. The key question to consider is whether a tunnel or a sidewalk is safer and, by extension, more walkable – not an easy answer, I agree. If your personal opinion is that a tunnel is less safe than a crosswalk, then it would seem to contradict the walkability claim. I personally feel safer using the tunnel at 71B than using the crosswalk at North St. Yes, there is standing water in the tunnel but MLK is 10x busier than North. I prefer to get wet than run over. Based on this “opinion”, I think it does not contradict the walkability claim.
I don’t want a tunnel in my neighborhood. I am worried about crime and health and my property value. I don’t want a tunnel in my neighborhood. Those that like the idea, build one on your street.
Those are everyone’s streets. As a resident of the evil, crime haven on the south side I am all for the tunnel.
I live one block from the current tunnel, and I am very grateful to have safe, easy passage past a busy intersection.
Lots of crimes have happened on Frisco Trail. http://aubreyshepherd.blogspot.com/2008/12/trial-thieves-get-sentences-in-capital.html?m=1 read that for example. Add a dark tunnel – no thanks. Prefer a bridge any day.
The title of the blog that links to the story is rather misleading (and is possibly politically motivated). In the story, it also says that one of the attackers also attacked someone at Maple and Leverett, and there is no tunnel or trail there. I don’t think there are any more or less attacks on the trail, tunnel or no tunnel, than elsewhere (it may be nice if someone, say a reporter, gathered statistics to check this). I think that if people are wired that way, they will find a way to attack.
The reason the current tunnel near the mall has standing water is because it was built for that purpose. This river channel was retrofitted to serve as a traffic tunnel, and thus you get standing water. There was no attack on anyone’s opinion, and there is nothing inappropriate, disrespectful, and unprofessional about calling out generalizations and inaccuracies. If you don’t want to use a tunnel, don’t. And don’t base your argument on generalizations about a group of people. It’s naive at best to post a public comment and then get bent out of shape because someone responded to it.
Here’s a good overview of the pros and cons of bridges and tunnels. http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/pedestrian_and_bicycle_bridges_and_tunnels.cfm It’s my opinion that the biggest issue with the tunnels is they are too narrow and need more lighting. However, the city doesn’t have the money to build the world’s most awesome tunnel, and Walmart is paying the bill on this one. So without any cost to the taxpayer we’ll get another eco-friendly travel option – which is a good thing.
And a bridge is a great option too Jerry.
Did anyone note the part about not having the money for a bridge?
I’d prefer bridges to tunnels any day, but I’ll be grateful for any trail extensions that keep trail traffic off the roads.
A traffic light would be the cheapest and easiest.
I am really grateful we have such an amazing trail system and love that it keeps getting better and better. I would prefer a bridge over a tunnel, but will use either one.
Since MLK is also a state highway, the requirements for a pedestrian bridge are probably more stringent than they otherwise might be: ramp structures set back farther from the curb (longer bridge span) and greater vertical clearance from road surface to bridge structure (longer access ramps). A pedestrian bridge at fifteen feet above the street surface (13 to 14 feet of clearance) would require at least 180 feet of ramp, plus 25 feet of level intermediate landings. On the other hand, a tunnel with eight-foot height would have a floor about ten feet below the road surface, requiring at least 120 feet of ramp, plus 15 feet of level intermediate landing– more than a third less required length of access.
Ramps to a tunnel could follow the path of the trail more naturally than ramps to a bridge could, requiring less additional land area and imposing less disruption to users of the trail.
There is a continuous center left-turn lane in that stretch of MLK. Perhaps it could be interrupted by an island at the tunnel crossing so a glass-paver skylight could be used to provide daylight to the tunnel and house additional electric lighting for night use. (Glass-paver skylights could be used to daylight any portion of a tunnel below the sidewalk on the south side of MLK as well.)
A pedestrian bridge could be an interesting feature along the trail if carefully and imaginatively designed. An elevated sitting/stretching/exercise platform with maps and information– perhaps even telescopes and art features– would be a useful adjunct; perhaps such a thing could be integrated with a bus stop underneath it. Given the constraints of cost and location, however, that isn’t a likely outcome.
As someone who recently moved to the South side of town, just about two blocks from Walker park, I think that the concerns regarding the safety of the proposed tunnel are warranted. Not having been previously familiar with this area, I was unpleasantly surprised to discover the regular numbers of drunk (or otherwise intoxicated) men who stumble around Walker park, even in the middle of the morning. Because of this, I am uncomfortable jogging around the park alone in broad daylight, and would certainly be too scared to use a tunnel like this one at any time of day. A pedestrian bridge seems like a much better alternative. It wouldn’t require lights during the day, it wouldn’t become a haven for drunks at night, and it would be safer than having to cross MLK.
Let’s repair and promote this area instead if tunnelling under the problem!
This proposed tunnel is not going to create a walkable environment for top-side MLK nor will it promote a “welcome sign” for the businesses and residents in the commercial district. There are 23,000 cars per day at this proposed tunnel site; there are 24,000 cars per day using North College at LaFayette streets. There is a crosswalk at 71 and LaFayette with children ages 5 through 11 crossing safely every morning and night. Why can’t South Fayetteville have the same treatment as the intersection at 71 and LaFayette? That stretch has blossomed since the tree-lined median and improved lights were put in. Let’s fix this part of MLK too.
I have lived in South Fayetteville for 10 years with my now kindergartener and 6th grader. We cannot send even our 11-year-old to Walker Park alone due to the vagrants accosting him for a dollar. I am proud of South Fayetteville and we wouldn’t live anywhere else in Fayetteville. But I am not going to play like we don’t have issues that need fixing. A tunnel adds to our problems.
Non-vehicular tunnels in neighborhoods across America that have high vagrancy rates are consistently unfriendly places where folks choose to not go to the area or folks even dart across the road to avoid the tunnel. Cameras only record crimes after the crime is done. The “Complete Streets” methodology (see http://www.completestreets.org) supports all uses being put on the street to promote traffic calming and a more friendly walkable environment.
The crosswalk at 71 and LaFayette has a crossing guard for the kiddos M-F. Not sure if I would be comfortable letting my kids cross it without one.
The crossing distances, lane widths, and turning radiusses in all directions at 71/Lafayette are SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than those at the MLK/School crossing. Pedestrians are able to cross in shorter (safer) amount of time without being in the road for too long. . . making this a completely different example than what could be expected at MLK/School crosswalks.
With many more housing areas being developed south of the proposed tunnel, this area will have more density and therefore more usership of the trail. With additional usership comes “eyes on the trail” making it safer. Walking with a friend or dog and without headphones on will also greatly increase the safety of trail users. And, those who wish to not use the (free) tunnel can cross at the existing MLK/School crossings.
Wow! An actual conversation — both ‘for’ and ‘against’ — about the proposed tunnel! City engineers take note. Resolving the MLK crossing options should be a collaborative effort between the city and the local merchants and residents. (It seems incredible that I felt the need to write that last sentence!) To my knowledge, the city engineers hadn’t even informed the Car Care owners on MLK that a tunnel was being proposed at the time of the so-called public forum last Monday behind Greenhouse Grille.
To date, I’m against the tunnel because the city engineers have yet to acknowledge that there are many instances of nuisance crimes in South Fayetteville. The tunnel will inflate those numbers. This is the factual outcome of similar tunnels built in Aurora, Illinois and Frederick and Silver Spring, Maryland, among others.
Do you have a link to the crime rates related to the tunnels in Illinois and Maryland?
I searched ‘pedestrian tunnel pro con’ and found these links:
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/projects/documents/Sept16MPAGSummary.pdf
http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/activities/tlc/pdf/Frederick_East-Street1.pdf
There’s also this link which is a general summary of residental pedestrian tunnels:
http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/pedestrian_and_bicycle_bridges_and_tunnels.cfm
This site contains the following — as do most — as a downside:
?Crime, vandalism, graffiti, lighting, and drainage issues may also cause problems
I looked at your links and they are encouraging! And I grant you that if the neighborhood is crime free then there won’t be (or won’t likely be) crime in the tunnel. But this isn’t the case in South Fayetteville where petty crime exists.
So far I haven’t found evidence that tunnels are causing an increase in crime.
http://www.silverspringtrails.org/?cat=10
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/railtrails/Tunnels.html
I’m all for user-friendly sidewalks and many more signal protected crosswalks. Unfortunately Walmart isn’t giving us a grant for these items. And the city isn’t about to make any honest efforts to reduce and slow traffic, or promote walking.
I have yet to get a good explanation from the city as to why they put in partial protected signals along College Avenue when they put in the brick street borders. I can’t bring myself to call them sidewalks as they are so narrow in places to be nothing more than a glorified street curb. Anyway, sidebar. The Maple, Dickson, Center Street intersections don’t have signals on every corner. Which basically tells people we don’t really want you to get out of your cars and walk. The city didn’t even place a pedestrian signal at Mountain Street.
So at this point I’ll take a tunnel as long as it’s free.
I agree that a tunnel over there would be helpful. Dickson street would — I believe — attract enough bicycles and pedestrians that it would be safe. The more a tunnel is used the safer it is. Not sure the density exists in South Fayetteville to make this claim.
The density right near school/mlk is about to skyrocket when those apartment complexes are finished. The gentrification of that neighborhood is happening at a relatively quick pace, all things considered. It is greatly improved over what it was 15 years ago.
Lets move the shelter to Vandelay and Jerry Dudes neighborhood, reroute the trail there and then add a tunnel so they can use it. Keep the tunnel out of my neighborhood.
MLK/School is my neighborhood.
I live about 150 yards from the proposed tunnel location for years, then lived several blocks from the shelter for two more years, so, bite me. I know south Fayetteville and if I had my druthers I’d still live there.
*lived
Your comment about the shelter is really sad and disappointing. I spent several years volunteering at a soup kitchen and homeless shelter. While there are criminal elements, just like there are on a college campus and workplace, to marginalize people who are already on society’s margins is deeply offensive.
Many of these men and women were once employed, living in a nice home and had a full support system. You’d be amazed at how short a walk it is from that to becoming destitute. Combine that with mental illness that is only made worse by lack of access to care, and you have people who need our support, not our “not in my backyard” disgust.
The stretch of 6th Street/MLK is a state highway (45), but its continuation east of School Avenue has a speed limit of 25 mph. I would be interested to know what traffic-calming measures would be permissible in the vicinity of this trail crossing; in particular, I wonder if the 25 mph speed limit could be extended to South Garland, then increase from there.
I found these regarding tunnels as shelter: http://talk.nycsubway.org/perl/read?subtalk=285814
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-04-25/local/me-1035_1_pedestrian-tunnel
http://www.theeastsiderla.com/2011/03/what-to-do-about-silver-lakes-tunnel-of-trouble/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2002/10/21/BA189147.DTL
http://m.vancourier.com/svc/wlws.svc/getHtml#article/?articleId=5546565&isUniqueArticleId=true
http://www.thedowneypatriot.com/article.do;jsessionid=4B309EC9A194AE4E54493B0A308446E8?id=11152717
These regarding crime: http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/07222009/montnew211904_32529.shtml
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-30/local/me-118_1_pedestrian-tunnel
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/crime-and-law/gang-of-teens-rob-man-near-uni/2541588.aspx
http://www.signaltribunenewspaper.com/archives/9076
http://liverpool-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/warwick-farm-teen-assault-victim-kicks-free-of-would-be-attacker/
I read a study on 78 tunnels that states crimes are rare in tunnels but they are more common than crimes in transparent locations. We can’t stop every evil but we have an obligation to seek all options. Currently city engineers are telling me they are looking at many options. However, I read the scope of work requested from Garver. The engineers were not truthful with me. They are looking at one option for MLK. If a tunnel turns out to be the best option, I could support it. But when I’m lied to and the proper homework is not completed appropriately – I cannot support it.
Neil, I couldn’t agree more.
It’s the disrespect shown by the city engineers toward local merchants and residents that is the cause of much of this distrust. They (the engineers) went about their business with no community involvement right up to the Greenhouse Grille meeting last Monday. And by then there was one poster with a single MLK crossing option: the tunnel.
Furthermore, the Garver document is all about the tunnel. No other crossing option was included. If the tunnel is built, it will no doubt be wonderful for the first year or so. It’s an aging tunnel that it will become unsightly (imagine a parking garage or highway overpass) and be a magnet for garbage, graffiti, and worse. Maybe the design could mitigate these issues; I don’t know. It’s a concern that would require a degree of partnership between residents and the engineers that doesn’t exist.
Should the trails get special right-of-ways? A traffic light would be the easiest intersection.
The articles you cite are based on criminality in very large cities, which naturally have more property and violent crime than Fayetteville. New York City, East L.A., Downey CA, Vancouver and San Francisco have much higher crime rates than Fayetteville. Some of those crimes occur in tunnels. Most crimes do not.
You’re being alarmist. You are 1000 times more likely to get hit by a drunk driver in Northwest Arkansas than you are to be assaulted in a bike tunnel. Get serious and stop pretending that underground tunnels are dens of rape and murder.
Blarrrgh – I am simply providing examples as requested. We all have a right to our own opinions. I’m not attacking yours or calling you names. The same respect reciprocated would be appropriate. If a tunnel proves to be the safest choice, I’d support it. However, we aren’t getting the choice to even look at other options. I wish you a brilliant day and hope no one speaks as rudely to you as you have publicly spoken to me. (And I do not agree with you that NWA is full of drunks.)
Alarmist: a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.
I didn’t call you a single name, just so we’re clear. Further, I didn’t say NWA is full of drunks. That’s your conjecture.
You are citing statistics from cities that don’t share Fayetteville demographics. In 2009, there were two murders in Fayetteville proper, and 10 car-related fatalities. Two of those accidents were caused by drunk drivers. In 2008, all four of car-related fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. In 2006, four of eight car-related fatalities were caused by drunk drivers.
I apologize if I’ve hurt your feelings, but I am offended by commenters on the Flyer who don’t cite relevant facts, or don’t cite facts at all. Opinions are welcome, but they’re just that. When misinformed people present their opinion as facts, that’s irresponsible and breeds a culture of ignorance and fear.
Blarrrgh – Someone asked for examples of crimes and homeless occupancy. I simply copied and pasted a few things I found. I would encourage you to re-read my comments because I believe you’ll find you are confusing me with someone else. I’ve simply stated from the beginning that tunnels are not transparent – thusly difficult to see/hear what’s going on inside. If you disagree, feel free. I do have concerns with non-transparency. I’m not stating any statistics on Fayetteville or any other city for that matter. I also shared info on a study I read that was PRO Tunnel – which another commentor already pasted the link to. I could not find any statistics about the safety or unsafe nature of tunnels other than the one study of some 75 or 78 tunnels. Maybe that type of study has not been completed by an unbiased group? Who knows.
Calling someone an alarmist is name calling. It’s negative and meant to degrade a person. I am in no way negative nor am I attempting to cause alarm. I have legitimate concerns about a dark tunnel underneath MLK. I’m not alone in my thoughts and clearly you’re not alone in your thoughts that tunnels are okay.
Ultimately, we should all have an opportunity to share our opinions and make an informed choice. We don’t all have to agree, but everyone having an opportunity to be involved is critical. Dishonest city leadership that does not offer upfront communication causes alarm and fear. Mitigate the fear by creating an environment of open dialogue where people are not shunned or judged because they think differently than another person.
The world is made up of so many vast opinions. I learn EVERY DAY from my family, friends, customers and I value diverse thought. Can you imagine how awesome this blog would have been if all the accusations and rude commentary were not included? Unfortunately, some people see things one way and are not open to any other thought or idea. That’s what is irresponsible and that’s what breeds arrogance, ignorance, and fear.
Let’s not build the trail then.
Since cycling is the most efficient transportation ever invented, and Fayetteville as a community has decided to embrace cycling; the obvious solution to the problem of potential crime in a pedestrian tunnel is to make the bike path at ground level, and then put all the automobile traffic down in a tunnel. People locked safely in their cars can turn their lights on and go through a nice little tunnel, and then the walkers and bikers can safely travel north and south in the safe, fresh air.
Faytteville has a very vocal and politically active minority that has decided to embrace cycling. The majority of the community continues to use the motor vehicle with it’s convenience and comfort and will continue to even with the roadblocks put up that minority.
I detect your oh so subtle sarcasm, Bike Guy. I do.
You have a better sarcasm detector than I do.
No sarcasm here. Put the cars in tunnels. Bikes don’t kill pedestrians, cars do. The cars will be safer in a tunnel.