Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement

You say "Click here for updated graphics and here for the replacement decision matrix" but when I do that I get the following:


AccessDenied
Request has expired
300
2024-02-21T20:27:19Z
2024-03-04T22:08:52Z
63J36SKBYDT972KB

LVK1gZIc1UUJ5X66kaflv8HecTP00pVC2KPigS0NK5AyyNIT2GePduDlF3EkfSae2P2oiTvce7E=

I think the elevator concept 3 would be the best option because it would leave the bridge as it is without changing the footprint and the trees would be left alone, however the cost of maintenance of the elevator may be an issue. I don't like concept 2 because it would have a larger footprint and the bridge would look ugly and intimidating in a quiet neighborhood. My 2nd choice would be concept 1 the two switchbacks going east I don't think it would look as intimating concept 2. I know there was discussion about maybe going a little further east and crossing over highway 62 at an angle by the swimming pool pond getting people closer to the pool and play area can we get a concept for that option or was it not feasible to do?

The Rosland Pedestrian Bridge project is a unique opportunity to create a safe and extraordinary landmark for Edina. I'm in favor of 6b - the elevator. An elevator provides a safe alternative to a long ramp, so bikes need to stop and slow down before entering the small intersection at 64th Street, the Wooddale Path and Rose Court. Contrary to the Design Matrix, which states this will have "no impact" on the nearby residential properties, Design IA with the switchback ramp - keep in mind that is two levels of ramp - is very close to a driveway and nearby windows of homes, resulting in a loss of privacy. The Design Matrix states the elevator is more expensive, but no actual or even estimated costs are provided to compare the elevator with a long ramp. The Mayor, Council and the public should be provided that cost information. If initial and ongoing costs are so significant, I wonder how it is the MOA has had elevators in its exterior ramps for the last 30 years or why Southdale put in an elevator to connect the lower level parking with the upper level parking near Lifetime Fitness. I have seen photos of what other communities have done with bridges and elevators - it would be easier to make an elevator building attractive than the proposed switchback ramp. With the addition of the planned permanent lane addition and sound wall on the north side of 62, there is simply not space on the north side to allow for a long ramp the length of a football field and still create safe connections for all pedestrians - the disabled, walkers, bikers and parents with strollers. Thank you for taking the time to ask for public comments. This is an important and long-lasting decision for the city and needs careful consideration.
Colleen

Before any decision can be made about which design option is the best to present to MnDot, our city council and residents should first have access to accurate drawings with elevations and 3D visuals to show the true impact between what staff believes is best and what residents would prefer. The line drawings are inadequate and the matrix does not provide enough information on important details such as comparative costs. Sure one design over another may logically and initially cost more, but it could be the best long-term decision to meet most of the project goals.

If, instead, this decision is based upon the current sketches and matrix, then Option 6B (elevator on north side with ramps on south side) is the best choice to accommodate the lack of building space on the north and respect privacy, reduce conflict points and improve safety. True, an elevator will require maintenance, but those costs should be accommodated in the long-term project budget. Many other bike-friendly cities have built pedestrian bridges over highways using elevators including Portland and the Denver-area. It can be done.

Making this critical and longstanding decision about the best option for a new ADA-compliant pedestrian bridge is more important than meeting MnDot's preferred deadline and will allow for an attractive landmark.

1. Prefer Design Option 1B with curved corners on the ramp. Square corners are more difficult to navigate. NO ELEVATOR, please--the City does not maintain what it already has, nor is there ever proper snow clearance on that bridge and the paths leading to it.
2. I have seen parents struggle to get their kids in strollers over the current bridge, especially those larger kids with physical challenges. I am extremely fit, but have struggled to get a bike up the steps myself. A new bridge that is ADA-compliant will make it easier for everyone. I would walk and bike over that bridge quite often.
3. A bridge is mostly utilitarian and should accommodate all, as in any good universal design. ''Welcoming'' and ''inclusive'' are irrelevant, faux terms.

Thank you for providing the study results – the graphics and various options are very helpful.
My recommendation is to use Option 2A:
“Spiral ramp” on the park side with reversing-ramp on the north side of the road.

I prefer the spiral ramp for two reasons Comfort and Safety:
Comfort: the simple reason that a pedestrian’s journey on the “reversing ramp” style requires that person to “walk away from the destination” before having to reverse course in order to get to the bridge. The “spiral ramp” reduces this “walk away” feeling.

Safety considerations:
The straight ramp on the north side of the road is required for limited space options. For the ramp on the park-side, however the spiral ramp system is recommended.
Straight ramps introduce exposure to a bike/skateboard safety issue. Either the long or with a single U-turn adds a safety issue, speed of descent can be a problem, unavoidable on the north side of 62.
On the park side, bike-riders will be less inclined to zoom down the hill with potential crashes at the U-turn or colliding with pedestrians going the opposite direction.

Mike W

I would opt for elevator if possible. Can you imaginge being in a wheelchair, pushing someone in a wheelchair, being someone who uses a walker or having a gaggle of children with little bikes traveling an extremely long ramp to get to the bridge? Thats not a great proposition. Also the covered bridge does make sense. During the winter especially. I know when I run in the winter that many times the HWY 100 walking bridge by the Community Center is not plowed or very icy. The covered bridge is a good idea. One last thought, Art. Make the bridge beautiful. Make it something that is attractive to look at.

I recommend against the designs with elevators. Anything mechanical is prone to problems and added maintenance and/or repair cost.

I also think designs with long straight ramps going East on the North side of Highway 100 with the new bridge to the East of the existing one should not be selected. This will minimize the likelihood that drivers merging onto Highway 100 West-bound from Valley View will be distracted by activity on the bridge. Because the are merging from below the elevation of Highway 100, not above it, those drivers have a shortened distance and time to calculate their merge because they can't see West-bound traffic as early as drivers on the 3 previous ramps onto West-bound Highway 100

Finally, as someone who was married to someone in a wheelchair, I strongly support installing a wheelchair-accessible ramp. Such a ramp will also make it much easier for bicycle riders to get their bicycles across Highway 100. While there are grooves on the side of the stairs of the existing bridge to help bicycle riders, they are inconvenient and difficult for children to use. Even children with tricycles could use any of the proposed designs.

I would like the pedestrian path to not cross the disc golf course. Looking at option 1A, the south ramp is extended east to tie into the existing path. For option 1A, I would instead rather see the bottom half of the ramp extended to the west. Then the path off the ramp would go between the oak and the tennis courts to rejoin the existing sidewalk. Hole #3 of the disc golf course could be moved slightly east as well.

Glad consulting and planning are underway. Pleased that great design is a top priority. I walk the adjacent path on the north side lmost days and cross the bridge regularly.

1. Bikers could use the elevator, right? Or continue to use the stairs with a channel for tires. Good point that Rosland Park doesn’t have any bike paths. Still, an important route to using city streets on either side.

2. The elevator could be a great asset and add to design quality. Mechanical reliability needs study. As does risk of possible ongoing vandalism. Can video monitoring be installed?

3. Neither residents nor the city staff and council can make a fair assessment without knowing relative costs. I want to know more about costs for ramp vs elevator and more about plans for maintenance and monitoring.

4. ADA compliance is critical and long past due.

5. How about a contest to name the bridge?

Mary

I'm excited to have a way to get safely by bike to Rosland park! This bridge is much better than the alternative of Valley View Road under 62, but the steps currently make it very challenging with a bike. Could the ramp option be combined with a stair option to address some of the concerns of pedestrians who don't want to walk a long ramp? The elevator option may be better for wheelchairs and pedestrians, but the size could be a limitation for bicycles and groups of people together - in addition to the added maintenance costs and expense of construction. I endorse the 1A option. Can the frontage road on Rosland Park be restripesd to more safely accommodate bikes? If so, the would be a better option for some than putting pedestrians and bikes on the narrow paths in the park. Some consideration would need to be made at the end of the ramp on the park side to make it easy to access the road and not just the paths.

Great work looking at these options!

Please make the new bridge ADA compliant. Please consider:
1. Can the City please solicit groups whose members identify as physically disabled so that we can include their voices in this discussion?
2. Would appreciate hearing from parents pushing strollers, too.
3. Our fear regarding elevators is when they break down, how will mobility challenged people get back across if stranded on the opposite side of home?
4. We’ve heard from bicyclists and pedestrians in this thread. How will the designs affect rollerbladers? Stairs have been a real barrier and would continue to necessitate tiptoeing or removal of the rollerblades. Blades in an elevator will work; better make ceiling tall! Maybe guardrail on the ramps so that bladers can go down slowly without wearing their brake wheel?

I like 2B, 4, and 6A. I am wondering if the Hwy could dip lower so that achieving the ADA slope would be easier? As a pedestrian in a climate like ours (both hot and cold), it is nice to get to your desitination faster instead of meandering. Some people do not have the option to drive, so a direct route is appreciated. I feel the ramps are really long in most of the drawings. The elevator would be a top choice but my guess is that it will be out of order often and then nolonger ADA compliant. An elevator plus ramp & stairs might be best. It would also be nice if the bridge itself would be wide with landscape opportunities. Another person suggested a tunnel which could work but please include tons of lighting and landscaping!

The most important factor for replacing the bridge would be to improve the bikeability of the bridge. Currently, you have to carry your bike up and down. Connecting a more convenient bike option across 62 would give people access to the water park and Southdale area instead of driving.

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.