Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement

Why not build a tunnel under Hwy 62? It would be less expensive and better than a bridge. Use Elon Musk’s The Boring Company to dig the tunnel.

Please remember that any ramp will be more than one football field long and EVERY person using the bridge MUST use the ramp, both to get to the bridge and to get off of it. An elevator would have steps in addition, so people using the bridge would have the choice of using the elevator or using the steps as they now can do.

Please include missile, or some other projectile based system, to stop vehicles from hitting bridge and putting it out of commission. If this is not feasible, could also make it taller. Open to either option.

Do not favor any spending to modify existing bridge. This is not a critical community need. Like my home budget, i can choose to do anything but not everything.
Ask the city council to stop this project as the public health needs of the Hwy 62 expansion and sound wall have too significant an impact to this project and exponentially benefit public safety.

I agree with the recommended option 1A. Makes total sense for providing the ADA solution. The distance to walk is part of the ADA world. If one is walking this route, what is a few more yards of walking. Another option would be to add stairs along with the ramps, which seems excessive and costly. Ramps are safe and just a sloped sidewalk. I am puzzled by people who are freaking out about them. They have been a staple of the ADA world for decades.
Also, I fail to understand that some people see this as driven by bike and snow concerns. People and bikes share a number of sidewalks and trails in the metro, with few or no issues. It isn't like this is a major highway for bikes. Yes, some bikers AND pedestrians aren't into sharing, but my experience is that most people in our community are respectful. Maybe add signage requesting bikers to walk their bikes when pedestrians are on the bridge?
Putting in elevator(s) is nuts, as it will be expensive in initial cost and with on-going maintenance. It may be a good solution for a very small number of people, but would be a headache for most users. It would mean no ADA solution when the elevator is broken, which will be often.
For most of the neighborhood, and this includes at least up to Golf Terrace (which is me), another bit of walking on the ramp is not a big deal. Hopefully, the beauty of an artistic solution will make the walk memorable.
Thanks for asking input and for the city's work on this.

I highly value the current bridge and use it around 2-4 times per week year round, typically for running, but sometimes for biking, and when my kids were younger, biking with them to the pool. To me personally, the value of a new bridge would be that it would remain operational and I would no longer feel that I had to scan 62 for tall trucks before crossing. Also, since any of the proposals would be at least as functional as the current structure, I would continue to use them.

Having said the above, as a resident of the city, I am strongly in favor of spending the time and money to make the bridge ADA compliant and think that it would also be nice if it were easier for people on bicycles (especially bikers on either end of the age spectrum, for whom carrying their bike up and down stairs is a challenge). It would not make sense to me to invest in alterations that do not meet ADA standards, and options 3 and 4 have already been deemed not feasible. I do not see a significant difference from the standpoint of those who use the bridge between a straight long ramp and a switchback or helix at the same grade, nor which direction the ramp is directed.

Since all of the other ramp options (which I think are functionally equivalent for the user) have significant downsides noted on the decision matrix, this seems to be a choice between three options:
1. No change, remain ADA non-compliant and wait for the next collision and repair.
2. Option 1A (switchback ramps east).
3. Option 6 (elevator/stair combination, or elevator/stair combination on one side and ramp on the other).

Though I would personally use the bridge equally regardless of which of the 3 were chosen, I think that replacing the current bridge with "Option 1A" is the best option. In addition to the much higher up-front and ongoing maintenance costs with an elevator option, elevators would be more difficult for those on bicycles than the ramps, I presume that anyone who is able to use the trails and bridge can also use the ramps, and times of elevator malfunction leave the bridge suddenly ADA non-compliant until the repair can be done.

Design 1a seems the best and most feasible to achieve the desired outcomes with minimized footprint and impact to the park, trees, etc. at a reasonable cost. Elevator options aren't really feasible and sustainable, especially for bikers The new bridge should be ADA compliant and allow for easier bike access across the bridge. Right now, the bridge can work for pedestrians, but is difficult for those trying to bring a bicycle across the bridge and prohibitive for those with disabilities that can not do stairs. Although a new bridge could provide better bicycle access, it would be important to note at the entrance to Rosland park that the trail around the Lake Cornelia is meant for walking, not biking. I can see a new more accessible bridge bringing additional people to Rosland Park and to the Wooddale/Valley view area restaurants, etc. It would also make it much easier for kids that want to bike to school to Southview or Our Lady of Grace to have easier bike access to those destinations for those that live south of Highway 62 and East of Hwy 100.

Please, please don’t do an elevator! Can you imagine trying to get a tandem bike into an elevator? Or if you had a group of bikers? It may satisfy ADA, but not serve the public.

Thank you for the extensive analysis of the available options. I fully support Option 1A. Some of the other options are acceptable, but none of the others addresses all of the issues as well.
I like to bike from my home in NW Edina to locations in SW Edina, an d currently I go out of my way to use the Nine Mile Creek trail since there is no more direct safe bike route across 62. I used to carry my bike up the stairs to the existing bridge, but I have a heavier bike now, and I'm older and not as strong, so can't do that any longer. The new bridge would enable me to get out of my car and bike more places, with positive impacts on my overall fitness and health.
Thanks again

If you remove the non-ADA-compliant/design standards options (which should be a non-starter) and the impractical elevator options (high cost, mechanical complexity, doesn't work for all styles of bikes/trikes/cargo bikes/group rides/etc...., single point of failure for ADA access), then the choice is obvious: Option 1A. It is equal to or better than all other remaining plans on all dimensions save for the very minor impact of needing to reroute a bit of the disc golf course.

There are two options for the new pedestrian bridge over Hwy 62: one has long ramps and the other has an elevator and steps. Both options are ADA compliant which is a primary reason for spending over $6 million to build a new bridge. I favor the elevator and steps over long, dangerous ramps.

Ramps would need to be a total of over 400 feet in length. A football field is 300 feet long. It could be a switchback design or straight, but it still totals more than a football field in length before getting to the beginning of the bridge. On the other side, it would be another football field in length from the end of the bridge to the ground. EVERY pedestrian, bike, child, baby carriage, wheelchair, scooter, skateboard, dog walker and person with walking difficulties will have to use the same very long ramp to access the bridge. The ramps will have a 4.95% slope to climb up and the same slope to go down at the other end. Does someone pushing a wheelchair or walking with difficulty want to climb up the long ramp and then down the long ramp on the other side? I don't think so. Imagine the difficulties of climbing up this long ramp and, even worse, going down the ramp you are sharing with speeding bikes, skateboards and scooters zooming past you. It is dangerous!!

The other option is an elevator AND steps. The elevator would be used by anyone not able or wanting to use the steps. The steps would be used by the overwhelming majority of the people wanting quick access to the bridge. Remember, with ramps, there are no steps available and EVERYONE must use the long, dangerous ramps. Elevators are used for other bridges and they do work. The consultant has not determined the cost of the elevator option, but the very long ramps are certainly expensive.

The Mayor, City Council and citizens want this bridge to be an attractive, safe, useable asset for Edina that will make all of us proud. The elevator/stair option does that. The long, dangerous ramps do not! I often use the bridge and have lived here for over 25 years. If the ramp option is selected, I will not feel safe on them and will not use them in the future. If all the residents who now use the bridge are informed and asked their opinion, I'm confident they will agree with me. Unfortunately, a very small minority of the residents and bridge users are aware of the ramp vs elevator discussion. Please don't rush the decision until they are fully informed. This is an important, expensive and lasting project. Let's do it right. Thank you for your consideration.
Denny S.

I live near the proposed Rosland Bridge. it seems to me that snow removal and bikes are driving the plans. If the bridge is covered, removal concerns may be reduced. An Edina covered bridge would certainly be an interesting community aesthetic contribution while alleviating the removal issue. A cover or roof could facilitate a narrower path, allowing more design, cost and location options - elevators as well.
I really prefer the sound wall be kept nearest to the highway (option B, I believe) keeping it further from our homes and allowing some room for vegetation. (with or without gap)
Thank you, Tracie Bell
PS: I note that some ped bridges have chain link side fencing that continues over the top - not beautiful to my eye. If a roof is installed, its cost must be compared with cost of snow removal equipment capable of doing the job during winter. If a narrower path is used, a smaller plow is appropriate.

I live in the neighborhood near the Rosland park bridge. I use the bridge frequently to access the park. I just watched the November 21 Council Meeting and am concerned about the proposed 1A switchback plan. The aesthetics, long ramp for walkers and possible speeding bikes are a major concern, as well as the loss of trees on both sides. Although there are concerns regarding an elevator, it would be aesthetically pleasing, convenient for wheelchair users and strollers as well as bikers. I often bike in the neighborhood and am not concerned about waiting for the elevator. In my observations there are more pedestrians who use the bridge than there are bikers. (yes, that's because it is hard to get bikes up the stairs) The confusing part for me in the discussion about the bridge is that it is so biker focused. Yet there are no bike trails in Rosland park. As Major Hovland stated, this bridge could be special and an attractive structure in Edina rather than just an uncreative bridge with a ramp. Snow removal is one of the reasons for not using an elevator because of the size of the equipment. Maybe a smaller snowblower could be used for this bridge? It seems as if snow is driving the design. I frequent Lifetime Fitness and they have an attractive elevator with stairs enclosed that works in all seasons. I appreciate the difficulty in making this decision with all the different factors and yet I feel it is a very important, visual structure that will impact the whole community. Thank you, Becky Thacher-Bell