Ironically, the nature of the funding source seems to have created the desire to make the project so complicated and expensive so as to exceed the funding.

I asked repeatedly early in the process why we couldn't focus on multiple, on-grade crossings -- either enhanced uncontrolled crossings, roundabouts, lights. All of these would have been cheaper, would have bypassed the problem with railroad interactions, and would have made for more direct crossings of Hwy 3. At the time, I was told the project had to involve grade separations because simply putting flashing lights and refuge islands wouldn't get anywhere close to the $1 million minimum for a TIGER grant. I particularly wondered what the point of building a new bike/ped bridge next to the existing wide Greenvale bridge was, and was told that too was to help keep the price tag high enough to be eligible for the grant.

A larger sense of the community dialogue at the time is from this Locally Grown discussion in 2011. To self-indulgently quote myself from this discussion:
> "If the City is willing to pitch $500k toward this problem now, hopefully they’d be willing to put the same amount toward cheaper crossing solutions, in absence of the grant."

Why can't the city put up their original, approved amount to create sensible, affordable solutions in lieu of the full trail?