Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement
The Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge is a piece of critical transportation infrastructure that must be replaced. The bridge connects the north and south communities by providing a safe overpass bridge above Minnesota Highway 62. It is a critical connection for pedestrians from northern Edina to safely access Rosland Park and its amenities, including the Edina Aquatic Center.
The current pedestrian bridge is owned and managed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). It was built in the 1960s. The bridge does not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and was substantially damaged when it was struck twice in 2022 by vehicles traveling on Minnesota Highway 62. The damage resulted in the closure of the bridge for most of 2022, until expensive temporary repairs were made in January 2023.
Project goals
- Improve safety and mobility for all users
- Create ADA compliant pedestrian and bike route
- Improve connectivity between the residential neighborhoods and Rosland Park
- Limit impacts on residential and park properties, trees, and road operations with an eye on long term operations and maintenance
Required Posting for Grant: MnDOT Agreement #1063322 / SAP No. 120-010-013, Local Road Improvement Program, Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement. Agency Leadership and Grant Manager: Chad Millner, Public Works Director / City Engineer, 952.826.0318, cmillner@edinamn.gov.
Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge Concepts Feeback
| Many of the city's projects use a new tool to incorporate the City’s core values of sustainability, equity, health in all policies and community engagement into decision-making. Values Viewfinder is a city staff team who developed a tool to help decision-makers understand, evaluate, and communicate the impact, opportunities and trade-offs of a given decision using the lens of community engagement, health in all policies, race & equity and sustainability. The purpose of using the Values Viewfinder tool for the Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge is to explore adjustments and asset investments to infrastructure in a way that considers community-wellbeing. |  |
The City wants to hear from you on 6 options being considered for a new pedestrian bridge at Rosland Park over Highway 62. Many of these options came from you. Staff has done a more in-depth constructability review. The options are described below.
- Do Nothing
- Option #1A: Switch back Ramps east
- Option #5B: Move Bridge West 470-ft with Straight Ramps
- Option #6A Elevator Buildings with Stairs
- Option #7: Move Bridge 470-ft east with a Helical Ramp near Aquatic Center
- Option #8: Move Bridge 470-ft east with a Switchback ramp near Aquatic Center
Click here for updated graphics and here for the replacement decision matrix. These documents can also be found in the documents section. 3D graphics are still in development and will be posted soon. Staff intends to ask council for a direction at the March 19, 2024 City Council Meeting. Public feedback will be taken until March 11.
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Email Signup
Sign Up for Emailed Project Updates
PRIVACY NOTICE: Under M.S. 13.356, your email address is private data. If you do not provide an email address you will not receive requested updates. Your email address will be available to anyone with a work assignment that reasonably require access.
Public Participation Level
Who's Listening
-
Phone 952-826-0318 Email cmillner@EdinaMN.gov
Please leave the Rosland Bridge in its current location. Moving its location further west on 62 will bring safety issues. Distraction of the bridge or activity on the bridge could lead to "driver's error".
The design with the long ramp is an eye sore. We can do better. The switch back ramp is better.
The now existing pedestrian path makes for a good flow to the enhance of the bridge. Changes would make it less efficient.
We need to commit to a pleasing and future focused design. Are we ready to decide now or maybe take a little more time for impact and reflection? We do have a good start.
Respectfully, J.T.
(Transcribed by Engineering Coordinator, Liz Moore)
Please leave the Rosland Bridge in its current location. Moving its location further west on 62 will bring safety issues. Distraction of the bridge or activity on the bridge could lead to "driver's error".
The design with the long ramp is an eye sore. We can do better. The switch back ramp is better.
The now existing pedestrian path makes for a good flow to the enhance of the bridge. Changes would make it less efficient.
We need to commit to a pleasing and future focused design. Are we ready to decide now or maybe take a little more time for impact and reflection? We do have a good start.
Respectfully, J.T.
(Transcribed by Engineering Coordinator, Liz Moore)
Please leave the Rosland Bridge in its current location. Moving its location further west on 62 will bring safety issues. Distraction of the bridge or activity on the bridge could lead to "driver's error".
The design with the long ramp is an eye sore. We can do better. The switch back ramp is better.
The now existing pedestrian path makes for a good flow to the enhance of the bridge. Changes would make it less efficient.
We need to commit to a pleasing and future focused design. Are we ready to decide now or maybe take a little more time for impact and reflection? We do have a good start.
Respectfully, J.T.
(Transcribed by Engineering Coordinator, Liz Moore)
Please leave the Rosland Bridge in its current location. Moving its location further west on 62 will bring safety issues. Distraction of the bridge or activity on the bridge could lead to "driver's error".
The design with the long ramp is an eye sore. We can do better. The switch back ramp is better.
The now existing pedestrian path makes for a good flow to the enhance of the bridge. Changes would make it less efficient.
We need to commit to a pleasing and future focused design. Are we ready to decide now or maybe take a little more time for impact and reflection? We do have a good start.
Respectfully, J.T.
(Transcribed by Engineering Coordinator, Liz Moore)
Please leave the Rosland Bridge in its current location. Moving its location further west on 62 will bring safety issues. Distraction of the bridge or activity on the bridge could lead to "driver's error".
The design with the long ramp is an eye sore. We can do better. The switch back ramp is better.
The now existing pedestrian path makes for a good flow to the enhance of the bridge. Changes would make it less efficient.
We need to commit to a pleasing and future focused design. Are we ready to decide now or maybe take a little more time for impact and reflection? We do have a good start.
Respectfully, J.T.
(Transcribed by Engineering Coordinator, Liz Moore)
Please leave the Rosland Bridge in its current location. Moving its location further west on 62 will bring safety issues. Distraction of the bridge or activity on the bridge could lead to "driver's error".
The design with the long ramp is an eye sore. We can do better. The switch back ramp is better.
The now existing pedestrian path makes for a good flow to the enhance of the bridge. Changes would make it less efficient.
We need to commit to a pleasing and future focused design. Are we ready to decide now or maybe take a little more time for impact and reflection? We do have a good start.
Respectfully, J.T.
(Transcribed by Engineering Coordinator, Liz Moore)
Option 1A is the best followed by 5B. The elevator is a no go as you can't guarantee it will always be in service and could lead to crime and vandalism.
Options 1A is still the best option.
I agree that the elevator is the best option for the many reasons given by the pervious comments. It has been helpful to view the graphics that were presented in an attractive way, but not realistic since the trees will be taken down for ramp construction. The elevator does not require them to be removed. It is safer and at a comparable cost (except for maintenance) to any ramp. As described in previous comments, there is a lot going on where the Wooddale walking path and 64th street converge. Cars and trucks go back and forth through there everyday. An elevator is a shorter distance. Walkers will not have to walk up a long ramp on both sides of the bridge to get across. With the option of an elevator, there will be stairs. There will not be an option of using stairs with the ramps. Privacy will be maintained for those people living near by. It’s just a good thing all around. As was also pointed out, the aesthetics of the area will be preserved with an elevator.
Since MNDOT will be in charge of when the sound wall gets built, it makes sense to wait until the wall construction has been confirmed so bridge construction can be coordinated.
I agree that the elevator is the best option for the many reasons given by the pervious comments. It has been helpful to view the graphics that were presented in an attractive way, but not realistic since the trees will be taken down for ramp construction. The elevator does not require them to be removed. It is safer and at a comparable cost (except for maintenance) to any ramp. As described in previous comments, there is a lot going on where the Wooddale walking path and 64th street converge. Cars and trucks go back and forth through there everyday. An elevator is a shorter distance. Walkers will not have to walk up a long ramp on both sides of the bridge to get across. With the option of an elevator, there will be stairs. There will not be an option of using stairs with the ramps. Privacy will be maintained for those people living near by. It’s just a good thing all around. As was also pointed out, the aesthetics of the area will be preserved with an elevator.
Since MNDOT will be in charge of when the sound wall gets built, it makes sense to wait until the wall construction has been confirmed so bridge construction can be coordinated.
One of the goals of this project is to limit impact to the residents. The park trees and people that live around here, also road operations.
I vote for the bridge to stay where it is at today. The flow from the path right to the bridge and the park.
I have talked to the people walking from the path right to the bridge and to the park and are walking down the street to go over the bridge. They want it to stay where it is. They don't want long ramps down to Miller Lane walk from the path doesn't make any sense.
People want it where it is. No elevator because if it breaks down.
Have it go to the east or north , no wall. Long ramps is not safe for kids by the streets. Elevator upkeep, people hanging around and city going to keep it up.
(Transcribed by Engineering Coordinator, Liz Moore)
In the Oct 2023 decision matrix, the construction cost for option 1A was "Mid-range" and 6A was listed as "Highest". But in the Fed 2024 decision matrix, the construction cost for both Option 1A and 6A is "Mid-range". It would be more useful to just have the construction estimates that you are using in order to make a valid comparison between 1A and 6A. And the annual Maintenance and Operations cost for 6A would be useful to have as well.
I do not support any design with long straight ramps. A switchback ramp has less visual impact on the neighborhood and is better looking.
The ramps are ALOT of concrete. To go with that option, it would be best to have a notable design—let it be a gateway to Edina. Otherwise it’s just ugly and utilitarian.in place of trees and ground cover … and admittedly weeds.
The elevator is seeming like a better idea. The light rail elevators are a key resource to watch and chance to talk to engineers and designers. They’ve had to consider vandalism, mechanics, winter snow and ice, etc. Access. An elevator is access. Period.
I can see the path becoming more crowded with that option (and I’ve liked it not so busy the last few years) but we need to consider future needs of the community.
Aesthetics matter too.
After reviewing the additional renderings of the possible designs for the Rosland Park Bridge, I am even more convinced that the elevator with stairs proposal, 6B, is the right design. As the additional renderings demonstrate, the footprint of the elevator is much smaller than any of the ramps, saving trees, maintaining privacy for the neighbors and with ample room for the northbound turning lane on Hwy 62 and the Sound Wall. In addition, the sleek modern look of the elevator dramatically raises the aesthetic of the Rosland Bridge project. I understood that the SW LRT project has a couple of elevators and that an attempt was going to be made to connect with that project manager on their elevators. What was the result of that discussion? Most importantly, the safety of pedestrians, people with disabilities and bikers will be best served by the elevator given the narrow intersection at 64th Street, Wooddale Path, and Rose Court.
Also, please ensure that the construction of the bridge and the improvements to Hwy 62 and the Sound Wall occur in a close sequence, not years apart. This should result in less construction costs or problems and more peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood.
Finally, given the fact that additional information has been added to BTE yesterday, March 4, and to date only one other person has provided comments on any of the additional information, which renderings were not provided until March 1, I suggest you extend the comment period to close of business, March 11. There would still be ample time to prepare for the Council Meeting on March 19.
Thank you for providing the information for comments. We live on Millers Lane and support option 1A with the switch backs to the east. This leaves the bridge in the current location with the least impact of the ramp options on houses in the area. The elevator option, while leaving the bridge in the current location, seems like it will require significant maintenance and may be unreliable due to periods when it is not working. We do not support moving the bridge to the west.
I like the option with the Elevator with no wall. As I stated in my previous comment it doesn't change the footprint like the other two options. Please leave the bridge as is.
Thank you for providing good project information for comment. We live on Millers Lane. We support option 1A with the bridge remaining in it's current location and switch back ramps on the east side. Other than the elevator option, Option 1A has the least impact on area houses. The elevator concept will require significant ongoing maintenance and may not be reliable. We do not support moving the bridge to the west. The ramps are too long and could invite some dangerous uses. The current location of the bridge is a natural extension of the Wooddale trail. The bridge offers critical access to the park and other amenities south of the Crosstown. We look forward to the new bridge.
Thanks for your work providing the information for the various options. We live on Millers Lane. We support option 1A which keeps the bridge in the current location with the switch-back ramps to the east. Other than the elevator concept, option 1A has the least impact on any of the properties located in the area. We do not support locating the bridge to the west. While the elevator concept keeps the bridge in the current location, maintenance of the elevator seems problematic.
I do not like Concept 2. A long ramp will be unsightly. A ramp with a switch back would look better.