County weighs bike-trail crossing design, DOT guidance and ADA features for North Street

The Iowa County meeting on May 13 focused for nearly an hour on a proposed bicycle-trail alignment and crossing at North Street (County B66). Public commenter Philip Rex (S3) presented a gravel-alignment sketch that avoids a bridge crossing and keeps most trail surface as compacted gravel; county staff and an engineering consultant reviewed DOT comments and accessibility requirements.

The DOT materials shared at the meeting note that marking a crosswalk with 24-inch-wide high-visibility stripes can create a “legally established crosswalk” and that drivers must yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks when traffic control signals are not in place. “Their intent is the bike trail people have to yield. Traffic does not stop, and that is the DOT’s intent,” Philip Rex (S3) said during the presentation, summarizing the DOT guidance the handout reflected.

County staff and committee members discussed ADA elements that DOT and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) reference for mid-block crossings: concrete landing panels, 60-inch turning/clearance areas, and truncated domes (raised tactile indicators) at curb ramps. S1, the meeting’s presiding official, said of the 24-inch crosswalk stripes, “If you’re asking me my opinion, I would say yes,” and supported being consistent with state practice.

The engineering consultant described rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) as a safety option and offered cost context: “For a pair of these online, you can buy them for about $3,600. So probably double that for installation and labor,” the consultant stated. The consultant also noted that some state projects have used larger deployments (a figure near $33,200 for a related state project was cited in the discussion) but said RRFBs are typically warranted only where traffic volumes and conditions meet specific thresholds (the transcript cites a 9,000 average daily traffic threshold in DOT guidance where RRFBs are more clearly warranted).

Board members flagged maintenance and jurisdiction questions: painting stripes and installing signs on county right-of-way would create ongoing county maintenance obligations for markings and signage. The board also discussed coordination with the city because portions of the crossing and sidewalk tie into city-maintained areas; staff said the county will need a right-of-way work permit and city permission for portions that fall inside municipal limits.

After questions and clarifications about sight distances, shoulder width, culvert needs and trail width (county staff noted the levy-top trail would be 10 feet on levy property and could neck down to 8 feet outside the levy), the board voted on a motion to allow staff and engineering to proceed with the design and to pursue the necessary right-of-way/permit approvals and city coordination. The motion carried by voice vote.

Next steps: county staff will refine plans per DOT comments, document required right-of-way permissions, and return with finalized permit materials and any cost estimates tied to added safety devices for further board review.