Sandpoint committee recommends relocating unsafe Boyer Avenue RRFB; engineering review to field-fit new crossing

The Sandpoint Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee voted on April 9 to recommend relocating the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) on Boyer Avenue to a new mid-block location and to have engineering field-fit that location.

Committee Chair Kate Huseman opened the RRFB discussion after staff noted Holly Ellis was not present; Associate Planner Eric Brubaker described the existing crossing as being on a curve with a narrow planting strip and said, “It’s been struck a couple of times.” Brubaker told the committee that drivers’ attention is reduced by the adjacent roundabout and high approach speeds, making the present installation vulnerable and potentially unsafe for pedestrians.

Staff and committee members discussed three options: reinstall the beacon in its current location, remove the crosswalk, or relocate the unit to a spot with improved sight lines and more room between the pathway and travel lanes. Brubaker recommended a field visit with engineering to confirm exact sight lines and utility constraints before final design. He also noted the city has received grant funding to extend North Boyer trail connections, meaning any change should align with upcoming corridor work.

After discussion the committee made and seconded a motion to recommend relocating the RRFB. Committee members referenced a candidate location measured in GIS as roughly 300 feet north of the existing crossing; the motion asked that engineering ‘field-fit’ beacons at a new mid-block site. The transcript records three “Aye” responses and no opposition captured in the meeting record; the motion carried.

The committee assigned follow-up to staff: coordinate a site visit with engineering, confirm conflict with underground utilities or pavement transitions, and return with a recommended installation location and signage plan. Eric Brubaker said staff would form a small field team, include Holly Ellis and public works, and report back at a future meeting.

The committee’s action was procedural — a recommendation to take to engineers and, if needed, to council for implementation — rather than final construction authorization. No precise construction timeline or cost estimate was recorded in the meeting transcript.

What’s next: staff will coordinate an on-site engineering review and return to the committee with a recommended location and implementation details.