Bear Howard:
Bear Howard Chronicles
Listen to this story, read by a professional Ai announcer:
Sedona, AZ — The recent article in the local paper confirms what many of us who regularly use 179 have known for quite some time: the crosswalk between the two Tlaquepaques (north and south) does not, in fact, slow traffic. Instead, it plays a crucial role in facilitating smoother merging between uptown and westbound traffic. Despite complaints from well-meaning locals, the crosswalk creates necessary openings, helping traffic flow more efficiently. It also significantly enhances pedestrian safety and accessibility, fostering a more inclusive and community-friendly environment. Let’s not forget that there are local merchants on the north side trying to make a living, and the crosswalk aids in their business by attracting more foot traffic.
Here is the Red Rock News article for background on this BH chronicle. https://www.redrocknews.com/2024/11/29/test-show-crosswalk-closure-doesnt-speed-up-traffic/
Yesterday, I witnessed something that left me chuckling. A group of 20-plus people unhooked and moved a barricade blocking the closed crosswalk in front of Tlaquepaque. They went through all that effort rather than simply using the city-provided underpass steps away. Irony at its finest.
A Little History: Sedona’s growing popularity post-pandemic has prompted some locals to seek someone or something to blame for the increase in visitors and traffic. The crosswalk has become an easy target. Some residents and city council members have voiced opposition, citing congestion caused by the influx of tourists. However, it’s important to note that the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), not the city, governs 179, and they decided the crosswalk was necessary, so they built it when the new SR 179 was built in the 2000’s.
Despite vocal opposition, ADOT’s engineers have consistently stated that the crosswalk does not impede traffic flow. These engineers are not just offering opinions; their conclusions are based on rigorous analysis and years of expertise. Yet, the voices of the NIMBY citizen engineers, who believe they should have more sway in these decisions, often overshadow expert advice.
As we’ve seen before, the city council’s approval of the 179 underpasses was influenced by local pressure, leading them to overlook the broader impacts of the design. ADOT—the responsible agency for managing 179—has instructed the city to hold off on closing the crosswalk until studies show it would improve traffic flow. As you can see from the article, the verdict is not in on whether or not it will actually improve traffic flow during high tourism/traffic periods. First indications challenge the need to close the sidewalks at any time.
The Reality: Contrary to popular belief, ADOT studies have shown that the crosswalk is not the source of traffic problems. The real issue lies in too many cars on an inadequately designed SR 179 road and an inefficient intersection at the “Y.”
In the early 2000s, ADOT clearly stated that the two-lane $100 million plan would not work in rebuilding SR 179 from the Village to Sedona as a safer more efficient “road”. But, in the end, it was built as a two-lane road, with 10 roundabouts, and no traffic lights, after ADOT let a group of citizen “experts” be involved in the process of designing the proposed 12-mile road.
How did this happen? This group, called Voice of Choice lobbied, got their “slate” elected to the city council, and then used their “votes” to change the city’s support from ADOT’s 4-lane design to endorsing the citizen “experts” 2-lane approach. So, we have a $100 million two-lane road that has proven to be inadequate, just as ADOT’s experts predicted.
The mistake, however, was allowing the locals to have input to the extent that it steered the design process to what they preferred in opposition to ADOT’s professional engineer conclusions on future traffic needs for this well-used popular access road to Sedona. Someday in the future, the road will get rebuilt to correct what ADOT built in the mid-2000s. And let’s not forget that all of this road construction is being paid for with fuel taxes paid by the millions of Arizonans and tourists using the highways and buying gas.
Back to the “crosswalk.” The crosswalk will remain open (most of the time) alongside the million-dollar underpass, which, by the way, is a very nice river-view walkway. Previous city councils should have heeded lessons from earlier decisions that ignored expert opinions, allowing vocal residents with no design or planning expertise to unduly influence capital projects.
The Ongoing Debate: Whenever a new development or infrastructure project comes before the city council or Planning and Zoning, the usual suspects emerge: Sedona’s own citizen engineers and experts on literally everything. These are the individuals who complain on social media and at city meetings, often attempting to undermine traffic studies and technical data, demanding that projects be scrapped based on personal opinions rather than expert knowledge.
The current city council needs to learn from past mistakes and prioritize expert advice over the demands of loud but uninformed voices. Elected officials have a responsibility to make decisions grounded in facts and data, not to bend to pressure from a select few. The future of Sedona’s infrastructure depends on the council’s ability to make informed, long-term decisions that benefit the entire community, not just a small group of vocal residents. It is, after all, a “representative government” system, our city Council represents everybody, not those who can get their attention by yelling the loudest.
Conclusion: This is the outcome when amateurs run the show—whether at the federal level or in our small town. We now have an inefficient, poorly designed “new” highway and a tunnel under it that doesn’t serve its intended purpose—and we only have ourselves to blame.
Let’s hope the current city council learns this valuable lesson and allows professionals, not small-town interest groups without engineering or design experience, to lead the design of the new Western Gateway development. It’s time for Sedona to prioritize the long-term sustainability of its infrastructure and community needs, rather than listening to the loudest voices in the room.
Note: Images are Ai-generated and the story uses digital assistance for clarity and readability.
This is an advertisement
11 Comments
In this article, Bear Howard brings attention to the ongoing debate around the crosswalk on SR 179 in Sedona, Arizona. Despite opposition from some locals, Howard argues that the crosswalk does not impede traffic, but instead aids in smooth merging, pedestrian safety, and business for local merchants. He points out that the real traffic problem lies in the design of the road itself, a result of local influence that led to a less efficient, two-lane highway instead of a more suitable four-lane option proposed by ADOT. Howard critiques the city’s tendency to bend to the voices of a few vocal residents rather than relying on expert advice, which has contributed to an infrastructure that doesn’t meet the community’s long-term needs. His call is for the city council to prioritize professional expertise when planning future developments, such as the Western Gateway project, to ensure sustainable and efficient infrastructure for the future.
This reflection highlights the tension between local opinions and expert guidance, with Howard urging decision-makers to consider the broader picture when making infrastructure decisions.
Mr. Howard remains out of touch and people like him are the biggest barrier to better decisions that affect our town. Sedona needs more resident engagement, not less.
Mr. Howard is part of a long history of men who think that the wise men on the mountain top should run the show. The ignorant rabble doesn’t know what’s good for them and they have studies to prove it. It’s so ugly and repulsive. Thankfully many folks have worked hard over the years to push back. And we’re continuing now.
Listen to what this guy is actually saying: stay off NextDoor where you can dialog with your neighbors, don’t form citizen groups to advocate for your preferences, don’t be “loud” (meaning share your ideas), leave everything to him and his smart pals.
Well, they don’t seem very smart to me.
And as the recent vote on Safe Place to Park indicates, a majority of voters don’t think they are so wise either.
And let’s look at some of the examples he cites here. I’m not alone in being very grateful that 179 is just two lanes. The idea of another 4-lane highway ushering even more cars at much higher speeds into town is not appealing. In rush hour it’s a long trip to VOC and back, sure. Just as it is in towns with 10-lane highways like LA or Chicago or NY. But I’m guessing many folks who live here moved away from those places and those highways for a different way of life. No thanks. 2 lanes is perfectly fine with me here in Slowdona. There’s nothing cool about being in a hurry.
And maybe I am in the slim minority on the pedestrian underpass, but I think it’s a lovely addition to Tlaquepaque. Whatever the effect on traffic, I’m grateful The City completed that project and the resident engagement that requested it. It makes the Tlaquepaque experience so much nicer, further insulating it from outside-world stresses and making it more of a special place. Yes, simply not having to cross a busy street—much less a 4-lane one—accomplishes all that.
But I’m guessing your disdain for the rest of us lowly brutes prevents you from seeing any of it. It’s too bad.
You’re a hawk who thinks he’s dove and can’t spot the irony. I think you’re a tragic figure.
Good luck with your crusade.
Hard Pass said, “The ignorant rabble doesn’t know what’s good for them and they have studies to prove it. It’s so ugly and repulsive.Thankfully many folks have worked hard over the years to push back.” I Agree with Bear Howard, let’s relay on the experts not the people commenting on Next door. One is fact based there other self serving. Studies have showed the people that come to council meeting are almost against. A project never in support, they also tent to be white , retired and NIMBY’s
Hi Tom. I’d like to understand your response better and have many questions.
Would you feel the same way if I got to pick the experts? If not, does that reveal anything to you?
And don’t you find it even a little strange that the so-called experts around Mr. Howard only seem to lead us in one direction every single time? They want ever more; ignorant brutes be damned. And it’s a very specific “more” not based on empowering residents or small entrepreneurs or environmental stewardship. No, it’s quite different if we aren’t lying about it. But as Mr. Howard indicates in his hit piece: he wants the rest of us to shut up about it.
Again, just look at an example he cites here. He and his experts think 179 is “inadequate” and blames a resident group for voting to elect council members to represent their preferences.
Beyond the majority of Sedona voters, guess who else disagrees with him and these “experts”? You know who thinks 179 is, in fact, adequate? The whole rest of the world. The Red Rock Scenic Byway is consistently rated as one of the most beautiful and lovely drives on the planet, including in 2024. But Mr. Howard and his small, insignificant band of experts think they know best. Because of course they do. Trust them if you wish, but again, they seem pretty dim to me…and oh so self-important.
And am I the only one who noticed the mental break required for Mr. Howard to go from dissing Voice for Choice for supporting political candidates to represent their interests to just a few paragraphs later writing about the virtues of representative government? It seems clear that Mr. Howard thinks representative government is only virtuous when it ignores residents.
I don’t know if it’s best to ridicule these anti-democratic people or hire a team of experts to assess their cognitive functions. Regardless, I think we must keep pushing back.
And there you go…by One Festival…the A.I. summary!
There lacks here a critical view of projects that evolve as the result of studies: third party confirmation. Sedona has the single source provider Kimley Horn. With no competition, the pencil doesn’t need to stay sharp because there is no risk of your lunch being eaten by competitive bidding.
That isn’t Sedona’s fault. We’re rural. Bigger firms from elsewhere have extra cost to doing business here, so even if they did place a bid, there is risk the price would be to great to compensate for distance travelled. But we need to decide if keeping the pencil sharp is worth paying for.
We don’t need to pay for competition, which would be a steep price to pay and would bring howling of a different sort from residents. But maybe we can seek outside verification of study design and implementation plans. You could ask residents to weigh in for free. Sedona certainly does not lack voices to contribute to that effort! But you could also pay for outside council and bake that into the cost of doing business way out away from a metropolis. Really we should be doing both- hire expert review and get resident input.
By asking for critical review by residents and experts we avoid mistakes, like overlooking employee parking in the last Uptown parking study. Or by flubbing the traffic analysis on the Oak Creek Heritage Resort project. Or any number of other errors or omissions residents pointed out after the fact.
Not that it matters, because I’m just a sidewalk engineer, but the fact that different directions were affected differently by the crosswalk closures and the roundabout signaling simulations, says this is all very complicated and we need as many sets of eyes on this as possible.
Note this quote from the Red Rock News article: “the volume of traffic passing the crosswalk declined slightly while the crosswalk was closed and rebounded after the crosswalk was reopened.” A few snapshots in time with modification that has not fully marinated in the minds of drivers needs to be looked at skance. I believe ADOT understands this, and may be a large part of why testing needs to happen over such a long time (into late 2025).
Note also the quote from the article that indicates benefits to surge conditions, which anyone trapped on Cooks Hill when the road was shut down by police because the roundabouts log jammed will appreciate: “Baird said on Nov. 13, offering his professional opinion that adding signals to the roundabout would better enable it “to handle the huge surges in traffic,” as well as allowing the city to prioritize different kinds of traffic: “You can use the meters [sic] to ultimately give green time to transit.””. I know this is veering into talk about signaling, but everything is connected. By signalling to ensure flow, the benefits of a closed crosswalk compound, I believe.
Another benefit of the closure of the crosswalk is psychological. Many social media posts commented that traffic stayed flowing. That is a big deal. Stop and go raises ire. Flowing is good, even if it has no effect on travel time. I will often take a road less traveled, even if it’s slightly longer, and especially if there are good views, if is saves me from stop and go traffic, which puts more brake dust into our rivers and streams.
Playing a blame game does nothing. What we should strive for is being as beyond reproach as reasonably possible. That means being open and transparent, and seeking outside technical council for validation, AND resident input to prevent uprisings, which, in accordance to human nature, the electeds are going to respond to.
We can do better. Let’s keep talking about how to do that.
Yeah, this is well thought out, might be the same person that tells people to use turn signals in a roundabout, way to serve the monster retail industry, apparently the “telling us what we should feel/ think” folks are still at it.
“You’re a hawk who thinks he’s dove and can’t spot the irony. I think you’re a tragic figure.”
Totally!
What seems to be missed in Bear Howard’s article is that if ADOT had succeeded in ignoring the will of the citizens of Sedona, and put in a four lane highway from I-17 to the Village of Oak Creek, there would always be a point of going from 4 lanes to 2 which causes a bottleneck. Howard’s so-called “experts” and the City Council disregarded the citizens outrage over extending Forest Road to Hwy 89A. Now the citizens are saddled with a cost over-run in the millions of dollars. The parking structure in uptown is another example of the council listening to so-called “experts” instead of the citizens and it also has million dollar over-runs. The point is, relying on Mr. Howard’s experts without citizen input will often end up in financial disasters and/or results that the citizens never wanted.
Mr. Howard, don’t you agree that the bifurcated section of Hwy 179 that meanders through the forest with red cliffs on both sides and relatively slow speeds, adds to the positive experience that is Sedona. If it were a straight 4 lane highway with speeds exceeding 50 miles an hour, then coming to a bottleneck at the first roundabout in the Chapel area would cause many accidents, none of which are occurring with the present 2 lane highway. A 4 lane highway on 179 has never been a good idea and the citizens that you seem to despise knew it all along.
DKC Comments: A Rebuttal to the “Experts” Argument
Let’s start by looking at the facts. The recent discussions surrounding the extension of Forest Road to Highway 89A and the uptown parking structure are examples of citizen input and expert recommendations clashing—and, in the opinion of some, this has led to costly mistakes. DKC claims that the city council approved millions in cost overruns. While it’s true that projects can sometimes face overruns, it’s essential to recognize the bigger picture and understand the dynamics at play.
Understanding Sedona’s Government Structure:
First, it’s crucial to note that Sedona, like many cities in Arizona, operates under a city council-manager form of government. This means the council members are elected to represent the interests of the citizens. Still, they also rely on the expertise of city staff and consultants (the “experts”) to guide them in making informed decisions. DKC’s assertion that the city disregards “the will of the people” ignores that the council’s role is to make decisions based on a thorough understanding of community feedback and professional expertise. Sedona is not a direct democracy; a mere popularity vote on social media or local Nextdoor complaints does not determine the council’s decisions.
The Role of Experts:
It’s easy to point fingers at the experts when projects face challenges, but experts are called upon to provide insight, research, and informed opinions on complex issues. For instance, the Forest Road project was driven by legitimate concerns around fire safety, traffic, and emergency access. Experts in urban planning, transportation, and emergency management were involved in designing a solution that would ultimately help improve the safety of Sedona residents. Yes, the project has its costs, but let’s not forget that visitors contribute significantly to Sedona’s economy—80% of the project’s funding will come from those very visitors. It’s essential to recognize the broader community benefit, including the future safety of our residents.
Parking Structure in Uptown:
The uptown parking structure also faced criticism, with claims that the council listened to experts instead of the people. But again, the council’s responsibility is to consider all sides and make decisions that will benefit the city. The lack of parking in uptown Sedona was a longstanding issue, and the parking structure was part of a broader effort to alleviate congestion and improve visitor experience. It’s important to understand that planning and development require vision and expertise. Yes, the project had cost overruns, but we must also consider the long-term benefits. A poorly managed parking system in uptown would have created even more chaos, negatively impacting residents and businesses.
A Delicate Balance Between Expertise and Public Opinion:
While DKC suggests that residents should have more influence on decisions like infrastructure projects, it’s essential to consider the practicality of such a request. Would DKC want locals to dictate the design of fire protection systems, traffic management plans, or healthcare solutions without consulting experts? It’s an unrealistic request. Local input is valuable, but more is needed to replace the specialized knowledge professionals bring. Just as we rely on doctors to make medical decisions and engineers to design infrastructure, we must rely on experts in city planning, architecture, and safety for large-scale projects.
The True Will of the People:
It’s easy to mistake social media feedback or vocal opponents for the actual “will of the people.” when in fact, it is just NIMBY’s self-serving view of Sedona. But let’s remember that the city council represents all citizens, not just those who are the loudest or most active on online forums. Public engagement is necessary but cannot be the sole determinant in decision-making. The council makes decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of all perspectives, balancing expert advice with community feedback. A single vocal minority or a loud Facebook group cannot dictate city policy.
It’s essential to approach these conversations with an understanding of the broader context. While costs and challenges can arise, the projects approved by the city council, such as Forest Road and the uptown parking structure, are designed for the long-term benefit of Sedona and its residents. The council must continue to listen to experts and consider public input. Still, ultimately, their decisions are based on a deeper understanding of what is best for the community.
DKC’s comments highlight a valid concern about public engagement. However, let’s not forget that these projects are intended to create safer, more accessible, and better-managed infrastructure for residents and visitors. Rather than pointing fingers at experts and city staff, let’s work together to understand the bigger picture and support projects that will help Sedona thrive.
Bear Howard, you are a breath of fresh Sedona air here!
Just to add a footnote. Yes they must hire outside experts as its the law if they will use Fed, State, or County money for any project. Also they are also bound by going with low bidder. Thats part of the reason things always end up coasting more.
I am not going to comment on Mr. Howard’s misguided rant that is designed to make people think he knows what he is talking about. We get people like this every couple years thinking they know something and all they do is repeat rumors and opinions of others. Reformatting garbage – and you still get garbage.
I am one of the people who spent 4 years dealing with SR179, and educational experience that I doubt anyone here would take the time and money to invest in, and proud of it. Reading this stuff is rather disgusting becasue people will actually think Mr. Howard knows what he is talking about and form opinions based on bogus facts.
This happened a couple years ago and some of the team members of Voice of Choice for SR179, those who are still alive, held a session at the library to address SR179 and why he did what we did. It was an eye opener for the public who attended. I still have the power points and marketing materials. But alas – for those who did not attend the Monday Morning quarterbacking still exists.
A BOOK was written on this project. How many times has that happened. Unfortunately the author has passed, and they are no longer available. I am in the process of scanning it and when done, I will post here with comment.
Every 3 or 4 years when we get people who think they know about this great road and how it got here start to spout off. So when I get the post completed, i will save it. So in the future when someone thinks they know what they are talking about, I will just repost the same thing so the newly uninformed will get to relive the history, instead of people grandstanding on misinformation and wanting to pass the ball to the “experts”.