Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineers propose Trinity Drive multiuse path as lower‑cost option to canyon‑edge Canyon Rim Trail extension
Summary
County staff presented feasibility options for extending the Canyon Rim Trail west toward the Los Alamos Medical Center. Canyon‑edge alignments require extensive easements, DOE coordination and large retaining structures; staff proposed a Trinity Drive 10‑foot multiuse path alternative with planning estimates of ~$8.5–9.5 million.
Get email alerts on the Transportation Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County engineering staff presented alternatives on Aug. 19 for extending the Canyon Rim Trail west toward Diamond Drive and Los Alamos Medical Center and asked council for direction on further feasibility work.
Staff recapped the county’s 2011 and 2016 planning work and said earlier canyon‑edge concepts face substantial hurdles: large sections of the preferred canyon edge and lower canyon are on Department of Energy (DOE) land, and construction would require significant easements, pedestrian bridges, retaining walls, tree removal and rock excavation. Environmental, cultural and archaeological constraints on or adjacent to DOE land were cited as complicating factors; staff said certain canyon‑bottom options would likely be infeasible or require complex DOE agreements for access and security.
As a practical alternative, engineers proposed building a separated 10‑foot shared‑use path on the south side of Trinity Drive, preserving curb and gutter and the existing bike lanes in one option and in another option shifting curb lines to gain more space. Planning‑level cost estimates presented to the council were roughly $8.5 million for an option that keeps existing lanes and adds a 10‑foot path, and approximately $9.5 million for a variant that reconfigures curb lines and eliminates one on‑pavement bike lane to provide space for a larger separated facility.
Staff emphasized steps that would be required if the council wants to proceed: programming a feasibility study, funding for planning and public engagement, preliminary design, and coordination with DOE and the state (the road is a state facility in places and would require right‑of‑way coordination with DOT). Councilors raised operational questions about driveway conflicts, bus stops and right‑turn lane interactions and encouraged study of separated facilities that keep bicyclists away from higher‑speed traffic where practicable.
No funding was approved at the meeting; staff asked for direction on whether to move forward with formal feasibility work and said they would return with a detailed scope and budget if the council requests it.
