Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement

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