Wild Rivers Trail crossing on H will stay
Regan Kohler 28.MAY.08
SPOONER � The tricounty Wild Rivers Trail Commission endorsed a plan for the trail crossing at the site of the proposed Wal-Mart development on the north end of Spooner.
Thursday, May 22, the commission met at the highway shop, Spooner, to discuss options for the trail crossing at CTH H and Hwy. 63, after CTH H is realigned with CTH A. Olsson Associates, the engineering company working on the site improvements for the store, brought a couple of options before the whole commission.
Previously, the engineers had come before the Washburn County Transit Commission to discuss the site plans. These included closing the median at CTH H on Hwy. 53 and allowing only right turns in and out there, a roundabout on CTH H where the store is located and the realignment of the two county roads. This plan was approved by the commission, and the engineers also spoke of options for relocating the railroad crossing, which run parallel to the Wild Rivers Trail and Hwy. 63 at that spot, closer to the downtown depot. There will be a signal put up, with plenty of signage to alert traffic to train crossing, and having a gate on CTH H was still in discussion as of Thursday.
Civil engineer Will Matzek said at the meeting that his company had come up with some ideas for the Wild Rivers Trail. The first was to keep the trail parallel to the tracks and highway, with the traffic signal at the intersection preventing right turns on red, though some people seemed to be against that, Matzek added. He mentioned the possibility of the railroad switch being moved, that was brought up at the Transit Commission meeting, to minimize activity and protect trail users. There would be protective left-turn movements, Matzek said, and the right-turn lane would be improved. He said he felt this was a viable option.
The other idea, he said, was to rework the trail into a horseshoe pattern along the realigned CTH H, with the trail crossing further east rather than right next to the highway as it is now.
One disadvantage of this, Matzek said, is that though they�d be away from the busy intersection, the users wouldn�t be protected by the signals there. The other disadvantage, he said, is that users may keep using the same trail crossing they always have.
When Department of Natural Resources commission representative Tim Miller asked about the possibility of a gate where the railroad crosses, Matzek said the company is working with the Department of Transportation and the railroad owners on what makes the best sense. He said they hired a third-party consultant from Texas, who was recommended on good faith by the DOT to the company, to look into this.
Matzek added that there are no railroad gates on this line, so there would be an extra concern with maintenance if the gates break down and so forth.
�That�s kind of a negative aspect of it,� Matzek said.
Police Chief Robert Andrea said spreading the trail out to CTH H may create a problem because traffic would be faster at this spot. Andrea said in his years with the police force, there had been no incidents with the other trail crossing, on Hwy. 70 east.
�We just don�t have issues with the ATVs and the snowmobiles,� he said, acknowledging as well that this may not always be the case.
Andrea suggested raising the trail so it is visible to the traffic.
Matzek said they would raise it at the intersection to prevent any steep grades.
Engineer Mike Zmuda added that both sides of the trail would be brought up, and reflective markings could be used to identify it.
Matzek said, in answer to a question from Miller, that they could look into a bridge configuration for the trail, and other parts of the state have gone with this option, such as an area by Madison.
Zmuda said the trail runs parallel to CTH H for about 200-250 feet.
Deputy Park Ranger Tony DeStefano told the company that it is illegal for ATVs to ride on the state or county highways. He said the company would need legislation for the second option.
Matzek replied that if his company proceeds with that plan, they will be addressing all these concerns.
Andrea said it would be easier to keep the trail the same as it is now, since the potential of people cutting across at that intersection anyway or getting dust on CTH H is there with the second option.
Other commission members thought there would be a higher threat of an accident with the second option.
Commission member Steve Sather said he felt people driving motor vehicles already know the trail crosses there, and so would be more aware than if it were moved further up the road.
Matzek said another option would be for a tunnel on the trail, which would be more expensive as well as pose drainage issues and further restrictions. A tunnel probably wouldn�t work in this area, he said. Also, Matzek added, if two riders were coming from the opposite direction, there would need to be a good sight distance.
Andrea said that the more visibility the riders have, the better. DeStefano said that since lightweight utility vehicles are being used more on the trails, a tunnel would have to be huge.
�They�re big,� he said of the LUVs.
Barron County Board representative Keith Hardie asked if, should energy costs bring back the need for railroad service, it would be expensive to redo the area; right now, the local tourist trains only run a couple times a day. Northwest Regional Planning Director Sheldon Johnson then said there is still an extra set of tracks there from the past when railroad transport was active. If railroad service came back, Johnson said, the trail would just have to be eliminated.
Miller said he was in favor of keeping the crossing where it is, with visual signals added and improvements made. He said he felt it would be safer. Andrea agreed, and highway patrol supervisor Hank Graber said he felt this appealed more to everyone.
County forestry administrator Mike Peterson said that if it were to become a safety hazard, the bridge option is always available.
Matzek said the speed limit on Hwy. 63 will remain the same, and on CTH H it will be 35 mph. There is a speed limit on the Wild Rivers Trail further south, and forestry can enforce one to the north if need be.
The commission endorsed maintaining the current trail crossing, with all the safety provisions the engineers had discussed.
http://www.wcregister.net/
