City seeks clearer FUTS trail accessibility information, proposes interactive maps and signage

City of Flagstaff trail staff presented an update to the Commission on Inclusion and Adaptive Living proposing more detailed and user-friendly accessibility information for FUTS — the Flagstaff Urban Trail System — to help people of varying abilities choose suitable routes.

Martin Entz, presenting for City trail staff, said the existing trail descriptions on the FUTS website are largely text-based and can lack context for people unfamiliar with grade percentages and trail-surface terms. "Not all trails are accessible to everyone, but if we can provide better information upfront, more people can self select about what they're willing or able to do on a trail," he said.

Entz showed examples in the slide deck: trail length, surface (concrete/asphalt vs. aggregate), width, cross-slope, average and maximum grades, elevation range and mapped sections where grade exceeds 5 percent (the commonly cited ADA running-slope baseline). He said the city manages more than 400 miles of trails in the area and that only a small percentage currently meet ADA accessibility standards for fully accessible trails.

"We provide information on length, surface, width, cross slope, grade, elevation gain," Entz said, using the Buffalo Park accessible loop as a positive local example. Commissioners and attendees praised that loop: one commissioner said they regularly use the accessible loop in a power chair and had no issues.

Entz proposed several specific improvements: clearer labeling of typical, average and maximum grade with plain-language explanations (for example, "10% means 1 foot of rise for every 10 feet of trail"), trail profiles that show where steep sections occur, interactive online maps with layer toggles for accessibility attributes, QR codes on trailhead signs that link to up‑to‑date maps, and mapping of features such as benches, drinking fountains and restrooms.

The presentation also acknowledged limitations: some obstacles (small cracks, loose sand) are not practical to map individually, and aggregate trail firmness can vary by season or erosion. Entz recommended engaging therapeutic-recreation staff and trail users in follow-up testing; he said he would loop in Susan Purington (therapeutic recreation specialist) and Truman (upcoming therapeutic-recreation staff) for user feedback.

Commissioners asked practical questions about on‑trail signage (for example, placing warnings at the bottom of steep hills rather than only at the top so users can turn back safely). Entz said that was a useful idea and noted some existing trailhead profiles already show where steep segments begin.

Next steps noted by staff: update FUTS website trail descriptions, expand the interactive map, consult with therapeutic-recreation specialists and return to the commission with examples (staff suggested July as a possible return date). No formal action or vote was taken at the meeting.

Why this matters: clearer, standardized trail-access information helps people with mobility limits, users of adaptive bikes and power chairs, and visitors unfamiliar with percentage-grade terminology make safer, better-informed route choices.