Iowa County supervisors debate trail crosswalk near bridge, cite safety and liability concerns

Iowa County supervisors spent the bulk of the meeting debating a proposed trail crossing and a state-installed crosswalk near a narrow county bridge and Gateway Park, with several supervisors saying pedestrian safety and liability make the bridge crossing problematic. Supervisor (S2) framed the issue around safety, noting potential conflicts between motorists stopping unexpectedly and trail users.

The discussion centered on whether the crosswalk the state intends to install is appropriate at the bridge location given posted speeds and visibility. Supervisor (S1) said the state cited the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as the basis for the crosswalk and noted the MUTCD recommends certain treatments when posted speeds reach 40 mph or higher. "They say that they're following the MUTCD," Supervisor (S1) said, explaining the state's rationale.

The exchange laid out competing concerns: liability and vehicle-trail interactions on one hand, and the county's interest in promoting trail connectivity and honoring the trail project's funding on the other. "I do never let anybody cross your road, liability wise," Supervisor (S2) said, arguing a crossing at the bridge would expose the county to risk. Other supervisors raised the bridge's geometry and the crest as complicating factors for a safe crossing.

Supervisors explored alternatives, including rerouting the trail to cross at North Street or through Gateway Park, and suggested pulling GIS maps to confirm jurisdiction and where a safer crossing could be sited. Supervisor (S4) proposed moving the crossing closer to town where posted speeds could be lower and where trail traffic would encounter more visible, calmer vehicle flows.

Board members also discussed operational options the county could control, including whether the county could decline the state crosswalk, require the state to move or modify the installation, or change the local posted speed for a short section. Supervisor (S1) suggested consulting engineering consultant Snyder and Associates and county conservation staff for technical guidance and asked staff to set a focused follow-up meeting with conservation and engineering representatives.

No formal vote was taken. The board agreed to gather additional information, contact Snyder and Associates and a consultant named Phil for engineering input, and return with recommendations rather than taking immediate action. The board also discussed the possibility of reducing the speed limit for a defined approach (a 100-yard section suggested during discussion) if a crossing is pursued.

What happens next: supervisors asked staff to schedule a follow-up meeting with conservation, engineers and trail representatives, obtain GIS confirmation of trail connections and jurisdictional boundaries, and report back with possible crossing locations, liability implications and recommended speed-limit changes.