A cyclist crosses North Street at the Scull Creek Trail intersection Thursday afternoon in Fayetteville.
Todd Gill, Fayetteville Flyer
Drivers on North Street will soon have to stop at a newly installed traffic light at the Scull Creek Trail crossing. But not before the walkers, joggers and bicyclists first stop and activate a push-button signal.
Beginning Monday, June 11, the traffic light controls at the intersection will be set to flash mode in order to introduce drivers and trail users to the new setup. Two days later, on Wednesday, June 13, the signal will be fully operational.
Currently, the four-lane crossing utilizes a motion-activated radar unit which triggers flashing yellow lights for drivers and flashing red lights for trail users.
Traffic stops for two joggers Thursday afternoon.
Todd Gill, Fayetteville Flyer
Numerous complaints from both drivers and trail users, followed by a non-fatal accident in which a bicyclist was hit by a vehicle, prompted a Street Committee safety review of the crossing earlier this year.
“If you talk to anybody who uses that intersection very often, it’s pretty clear that nobody – whether in a car or a cyclist – really knows how to act at the intersection,” said Ward 2 Alderman Matthew Petty who also serves on the committee. “That makes it really unsafe.”
After a review of several options presented by city staff, the committee voted for a push-button activated signal which would stop vehicular traffic when prompted by a trail user.
“The push-button is a great idea,” said Petty. “That way, all the drivers know it’s a protected crossing and all the trail users know it’s a protected crossing.”
City staff said costs to install the signal were pretty minimal (about $2,500) since crews were able to use poles and other equipment the city already had in inventory.
I support this. It seems like it will be the most effective way to answer the obvious concerns here. I wish it meant we could also get rid of these stupid (read: senselessly expensive and terrible on my car) speed humps—you know, at least just at the locations with lights.
Also, if I remember correctly, the price cited in this article makes these lights cheaper than just ONE side of the road for our shock-ruining speed humps. ($6000 per hump, so $3000 per side, right?) Ridiculous.
Yeah, speed bumps need to go!!!!
i do hope there’s a watchdog timer, if i was a bored teenager i’d find it hilarious to stand at the crosswalk with my finger on the button at rush hour.
Alright, these are an improvement. Too bad it’s not just a normal four-way stop light, though, so bikes can just go through on a green light half the time. And, we need more speed tables!
What on earth is going on with our city government? The city has a real problem with Scull Creek trail where it crosses North street. This is where a tunnel is needed in a bad way. Why is mayor Jordan building a tunnel paid for by the citizens of Fayetteville on University of Arkansas, state of Arkansas land when the tunnel could have been built on North street where it would have have benefited the citizens of Fayetteville? The citizens of Fayetteville deserve a explanation Mr. Marr, Mr.Jordan ?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you saying you’d rather have a crosswalk on Highway 112 and a tunnel at North Street or are you saying the university and state should have paid for the city’s tunnel?
Right Todd for safety and to promote good traffic flow the tunnel should be on North St. If the UofA wanted the tunnel at Agri Park they should pay for the tunnel that simple.
I see, thanks. I think it would be great if the city could afford bridges or tunnels at all of the intersections, but I know that’s not realistic. I’ve never really felt unsafe at North Street, but I’m always really cautious when I cross on the trail. That said, I do think the new signal will prove to be more safe.
As for Highway 112, Meadow Valley Trail isn’t a university trail, it’s a city trail, so I don’t see why the university should’ve been required to build the tunnel for us.
And I could be wrong but I think the You of A is letting the city use their land to build the trail(s) on, which is pretty nice. They could say no.
The university lets the city operate a park and build a trail across their property. Very generous. And the university does not own hwy 112, which is where the tunnel is located. I don’t think the UofA is taking advantage of anyone in this situation.
There is a fiber-optic line on North which makes utility relocation incredibly expensive, which is why a tunnel was not possible.
Regarding the Highway 112 crossing, this trail section will be the only trail connection between the Scull Creek trail and west Fayetteville past I-540. If it is accurate what is said below that the U of donated the right-of-way for the trail, then that is a pretty generous contribution to a link in city infrastructure. Do the citizens in west Fayetteville deserve access to the city trail system?
Yea I bet the U of A couldn’t donate that wright of way fast enough to get a free tunnel. When a wright of way is granted ownership of the property does not transfer. Cool let people park at the Equine Pavilion and use the city tunnel to access Agri Park. Oh RJ I think the the trail can connect like it does at all of the street crossings in Fayetteville on the surfaces. If we are going to spend a million dollars on a tunnel lets at least build it on Fayetteville city property!
There is something fundamental and substantial that you are not understanding, but I can’t put my finger on it.
The tunnel wasn’t built for the UofA, it was for the trail extension that connects the Scull Creek trail to west Fayetteville. If the UofA donates the right-of-way, then it makes perfect sense to built the trail connection through that area rather than spend money acquiring right-of-ways from dozens and dozens of property owners. Anybody would have made that decision, which means it was the right decision.
What difference in the world does it make if the the city has right–of-way or fee ownership of the trail or tunnel property???
A tunnel would be the best solution.
The speed table or bump doesn’t bother me.
The new light seems to be a economical solution, but I’ll be interested to see its impact on traffic in that area.
Todd you don’t understand why the Mayor and Don Marr spending up wards of a million dollars some of which is my tax mone to improve state land ? I am sure the U of A is happy to see their property values rise with this addition while the North street intersection suffers what is so hard to understand? Jordan came from the UofA and is going back to work at the UofA after his Mayor gig maybe he gets a big raise for all the perks he can get the UofA with city money you think?
I guess I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I’m sorry.
I think he/she is saying they don’t like Mayor Jordon and Don Marr. As for the rest of the words, they seem to be just filler.
If you look at the map of the Meadow Valley Trail, you will see that for almost its entire length it follows property lines, except for the part that parallels Highway 112. If I read the map correctly, those property lines also have easements along them, which are there for the use of the city. The portion along 112 most likely also follows a property line, probably in an easement or in the right-of-way, In any case, any increase in value to adjacent land is incidental, and of little consequence unless the land is converted to residential or commercial use. But as a taxpayer, aren’t you glad that state property might become more valuable? It will probably never really matter, but it is to our advantage to keep up the value of University land.
Since the trails are funded in part by the HMR tax, you can decrease your personal burden for their support by not eating in restaurants or staying in local hotels or motels. Some trail funding comes from federal transportation enhancement funds. This is pretty good for Arkansas, because we get somewhat more than a dollar in federal funding for each dollar we pay in federal taxes. (Take /that/, blue states!)
I’m glad to know that you think a good trail system is a valuable asset and an enhancement to land value. A lot of people object to having trails near their homes or businesses because trails supposedly attract the wrong kind of people and increase the crime rate. (I guess I’m not in Kansas anymore.)
Oh, goody– another conspiracy! I haven’t read any ripping conspiracy potboilers since Robert Ludlum died.
Although I ride my bike down the trail almost every day, I feel a traffic light is not what is needed, at any point, on the trail. The trail should go above or below the roads. It’s a headache for people on the trail (and drivers) for the roads and trails to overlap. Furthermore, Fayetteville is such a headache to navigate already. Adding traffic lights at trail crossings only compounds the problem. Not to mention that a traffic light at that point on the trail, right next to the train tracks (and very close to two other traffic lights), seems like a bit much. Imagine driving East or West on North Street, between Leverett and Gregg, after the light is installed. If you hit each of the lights and a train crosses., it’ll take 20+ minutes to drive 1/4 of a mile! Before anyone claims that the city can’t afford a bridge or tunnel, go take a look at the bridge over the damn at Lake Fayetteville’s trail (and its price tag).
How does a bridge built eight years ago, at a cost of nearly a million dollars, prove that the city can afford to build a larger and more complicated bridge across North Street? A bridge over north street will be wider, and to meet accessibility standards the access ramps will be quite long. In 2005, the year the lake Fayetteville bridge was built, the average cost of a basic pedestrian bridge crossing a four-lane road was three to four million.
$2,500 vs. a few million dollars.
If a traffic light will only cost $2,500, I suppose you’re right that a traffic light is best there for now. After reading the article again, what concerns me now is that the push button stop signal will make trail users think that motorists are required to stop at other push button intersections on the trail (Sycamore and Poplar), but they are not required to do so. About the bridge: it wouldn’t necessarily have to be much longer than the road. Large spiral ramps (like spiral staircases) work well with space constraints.
I totally agree with Jared. Everyone keeps dancing around the point of installing an expensive tunnel on U of A property. I will guarantee you North street has about 5 times the crossings 112 does. The city could install two scaled down versions of the tunnel say on North street and a second location to help surface traffic in our fair city. More lack of planing on our city leaders part? There is a reason all the money was spent and the tunnel is located where it is . It would be refreshing to know the truth.
RE “Everyone keeps dancing around the point of installing an expensive tunnel on U of A property.”
Did you read my post above? To elaborate: there is no tunnel on University property. The tunnel is under the highway, which is state property. No dancing here.
We shouldn’t mind spending money to protect bikes and walkers. At least realize who’s not destroying us and who’s most vulnerable. Want to save money? Cut back on expansion of highway and street systems.
An efficient street network is far better for the environment than a bottlenecked, stop-and-go web of roads overwhelmed by population growth and ill planning. A vehicle traveling at a steady state is in its most conservatory mode. Slowing down and speeding up again for speed tables, pedestrian crossings, and stop lights is pure waste.
People want rapid, high-utility all-weather personal transportation. The internal combustion engine may be phased out for alternative propulsion in the future, but cars will be around for our lifetimes. That’s how it is. Unless you want to fund a stellar, comprehensive regional mass transit system, bikes won’t move the bulk of traffic on surface streets. Sorry.
Fayetteville has a problem with convenient, contiguous North-South routes, and the North Street crossing is at a major traffic convergence point of people dog-legging their way around town. I think everyone can agree a no-conflict pedestrian bridge would be a worthwhile upgrade. Can we divert some of that silly speed table/decorative center curbing treasury to this cause?
RE “Slowing down and speeding up again for speed tables…”
I drive across the speed tables at the same speed as I’ve been driving, which is at or, as traffic dictates, a bit below the speed limit. The speed tables do not trouble me, my lovely wife, or the car.
I live and work downtown. It takes me 10 minutes, no speeding, to drive two miles to work.
It takes me 15 minutes to bike 2.8 miles to work, taking college avenue and a few side streets. Home is on the south side of downtown and work is on the north side, so there are plenty of hills. The route home has more down slopes so I can make the trip in 10 minutes. No matter which route I take home there is a friendly watering hole available.
I find most people create their own traffic drama. Move closer to your office if you don’t like driving in traffic. I did, and it’s been great for my quality of life. I recovered three hours a day of my life back by ditching the commute. Leaving a gas guzzling truck in the garage has been great for my pocket book.
Offcamber is right on track. Lets stop spending money on speed tables that don’t work (except to knock your front end out of alingment) for traffic calming.
If you would slow down to the appropriate speed, your car would not be damaged. Speed bumps are designed to slow down traffic in residential neighborhoods. If you choose to ignore traffic laws and incidentally damage your ride, that’s your own fault.
One entrance East is Agri park, West Pauline Whittaker Equine center which is yes U of A property. The tunnel entrances are the most expensive part. The actual tunnel is pre-cast concrete sections and is relative cheap to install. you can’t use the tunnel without the entrances which are located on property which the city does not own. Paid for with our City County State Federal and global taxes oh wait a minute we don’t pay global tax’s yet
Who said anything about speeding Vandelay? Repeated striking speed bumps, tables will damage alignment and suspension on vehicles this will occur at legal speeds.
No, it won’t.
Vandelay My father owns a chain of service stations in Dallas frontend work on automobiles is a big part of their work. Customers who work at airports with speed bumps suffer alingment and supension damage.
Warnings
If a speed bump on private property results in damage to a vehicle or injury, the owner of the property could be held responsible. This could have legal or financial consequences
Read more: Regulations for Speed Bumps | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5022927_regulations-speed-bumps.html#ixzz1xIylvACn
Ok, I read more on the website you linked, including the next article, entitled “Do Speed Bumps Damage Vehicles?”. To quote:
“Damage to Vehicles
The intention of speed bumps is to slow vehicles. If a vehicle travels over a speed bump without slowing, it can be damaged. “
Yes Vandelay and if read the rest of the articles you Will see that damage can and will occur at speed limits. So if damage is going to occur at say 25 miles an hour the speed limit then ti stands to reason if you drive over the speed bump at 40 miles an hour your are still going to suffer damage WOW what a revelation Vandelay.
But a speed table (not speed bump) is a signal to slow the hell down as you drive over it. I can see how people who aren’t conscientious drivers or who just don’t quite understand the concept might struggle with them.
I like watching those super-cool “low riders” trying to drive over them.
Ok well you seem to be standing by your guns with the intention of hitting speed tables while driving too fast. As I drove through town yesterday I took notice of the speed tables, their grades, and the signage. Speed limit at the tables is 15 mph, with ample warning, and of course you are welcome to drive even slower. If you want to disregard public safety and continue to drive over the speed tables at a rate which damages your personal property, you just go for it. Again, the purpose of speed bumps is to slow down traffic. They accomplish this goal when intelligent drivers think to themselves, “if I drive over this too fast, I may damage my vehicle. I should slow down.”. You cam blame the inanimate objects or the people who put them there, but if you damage your vehicle it is because of your own choice. Personal Responsibility 101.
RE “Customers who work at airports with speed bumps suffer alingment and supension damage.”
There is a difference between a speed bump and a speed table. Speed tables have ramps on each side, and are designed to be used at up to a certain speed. Assuming the speed tables in Fayetteville are designed for use at or slightly above the posted speed limit, they should not damage vehicles traveling at or below the speed limit.
so slow down
Truth be known, we don’t have any speed tables in town. We have bike ramps. This city is cool that way.
I agree with previous posts…North is really busy with vehicular traffic AS WELL AS pedestrian/cyclists…. Traffic is going to be crazy there. A tunnel would have been a better solution. Maybe we’ll get one there eventually.
Agreed. A tunnel would be the ultimate solution. Even with the traffic light enhancements, automobile – pedestrian collisions and automobile – non-motorized, wheeled vehicle collisions will occur. I just hope that the light system will provide some legal protection for the non-motorized, wheeled vehicle operators.
I see a chain reaction here.
People aren’t going to want to travel down North anymore leading to more traffic on Sycamore, so another light is going to have to go there due to increasing traffic.
After recently driving on Sycamore I doubt North St. users will choose to use Sycamore as an alternate route. Sycamore is 25 miles per hour. North St. is 30 miles per hour. Moreover, attempt to take a left onto Garland from Sycamore sometime. Ultimately, North St. will continue to provide a faster, direct route to the west side of town even when you must stop for trail traffic.
Oh believe me, I live off Sycamore and work on Garland so I know what it’s like to take a left onto Garland. I’m talking about traffic going towards College from Garland. Garland to Sycamore and Leverett to Sycamore will become increasingly popular once people realize they’re going to have to stop for a traffic light every 15 seconds while a bike is coming thru one after another.
Yes, I agree, traffic may increase in that direction which will make Sycamore a very dangerous trail intersection.
I am a daily bicycle commuter on Scull Creek Trail. I cross at Sycamore and North. If or when traffic increases on Sycamore I will start walking across Sycamore rather than riding. By walking I am a pedestrian and pedestrians always have the right of way on a cross walk. Bicyclists, on the other hand, do not have the right of way according to my understanding of Arkansas State law. Don’t get me wrong, as a pedestrian and bicyclist I always yield to on-coming automobiles as I know that I will lose the fight.
I gotcha. I’m about to be a daily Scull Creek trail rider and I hope I can feel safe!! I know that’s what the North St light is about. I’m just interested to see what happens now I guess!
where is the current manager in all this? shouldn’t he have control over keeping the store open? can’t wait for whole foods to get here. i’m sure this plays into their hands, a store so poorly managed that employees take it over and tell the board what to do.
When I’m in an impatient mood, I would prefer a tunnel at the North Street trail crossing. (When I’m being rational, I don’t find the crossing to be an annoyance, and I can’t imagine that it would be less annoying to use Sycamore.) However, Scull Creek Trail crosses North Street near the lowest point in the cross section of that part of town– the bed of Scull Creek. With a floor elevation some twelve or thirteen feet below the road surface at that crossing, a tunnel in that location would very likely be wet much of the time. You would have to move the crossing quite a bit to the east or west, or engineer some prodigious drainage accommodations, to overcome that problem.