Rosland Park Pedestrian Bridge Replacement

This is a test comment _ Yogi

Yogi test submission 2

Yogi Test Submission

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)

test test

test

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)

Options 7 and 8 may have had their origin in a suggestion I made to 1) provide a straight east ramp option to preserve some portion of the berm and trees between Rose Ct and Hwy 62, and 2) avoid taking kids out of their way, allowing their 4-5x longer trip across the highway to take them east and south toward their destinations. Either option 7 or 8 as shown could be simplified by ending the ramp on the higher elevation of the ridge that rises above (south-side) W 64th as it turns the corner. By ending the ramp on higher ground, less ramp (much less?) would be required to connect the 22’ bridge to the ground via a 5% slope. Would it be possible to raise the elevation of that ridge even further to allow for a shorter ramp? If the bridge were to land on a pier between the W 64th and the Hwy 62 exit at Valley View, the ramp down from the bridge could start losing elevation on a 5% slope as it crossed W64th to the SSW, while maintaining more than the required 15’6” clearance. Could either a shorter single switchback or a circular ramp provide enough elevation change to match the elevation of the ridge? If so, an on-grade path could connect the ramp to the parking lot, winding as necessary to keep the slope at the allowed ADA maximum.

Option 6A, elevator, would provide similar benefits and more: 1) preserve the berm and trees, and 2) avoid taking kids out of their way in the wrong direction.

(submitted by BP on behalf of BP)

Are there nearby alternative north-south routes across Hwy 62 (which might also benefit neighbors on Brookview and Valley View Rd)?
Could a path be added along the north side Hwy 62 fence to connect Wooddale extension to Rosland Park via Valley View Road? Currently, pedestrians would take the sidewalk on the east side of Valley View all the way to 66th St, before crossing Valley View Rd to Rosland park. Could a shorter path be created?

Will the Valley View underpass at Hwy 62 be improved sometime after MNDot’s 494 project is completed in 2026?
When the Valley View bridge is replaced, could 1) a sidewalk be added to the west side of Valley View under Hwy 62 (currently, sidewalk is on east side only), 2) a cross walk and traffic light be added for exiting traffic merging to Valley View (only stopping merging traffic when pedestrians are crossing) and 3) a very small at-grade pedestrian bridge be added to provide a short cut across the drainage ditch which separates Valley View from the pool parking lot, so pedestrians on Valley View Rd don’t have to walk all the way to the corner of Valley View Rd and 66th St to get to Rosland Park?

A grade-level crossing wouldn't require long ramps to a bridge at 22'.


(submitted for my mother)

Vast expanses of concrete would degrade both the neighborhood and the park to which the bridge is intended to provide access. A 5% ADA maximum slope means a minimum of 20 feet of ramp for every 1 foot of elevation. To reach a 22’ bridge deck requires a lot of ramp, a lot of concrete. At least 440’ up, 440’ down.

Never have we so appreciated the current bridge, simple though it is. A thin green strip of painted steel girder, topped by a comparatively transparent chain link fence. It sits lightly on the landscape, and intrudes minimally in the neighborhood. The z-layout of stairs and bridge move kids where they want to go: east, south, and east again, toward the swimming pool, playground, etc.

We like the bridge as it is, and are not opposed to delaying the replacement of the newly repaired bridge, especially if it opens up better options in the next few years.

Option 6A, elevator building with stairs, seems like the least objectionable choice. Avoids the need for vast expanses of concrete ramps. Fits best within existing footprint. Stairs preserve a short trip over the highway, and provide a heart-healthy rise in heart rate. As Colleen referenced, 2 SWLRT stations (West Lake, Penn) will have pedestrian bridges with elevators. We can’t imagine the troubles Minneapolis has had with their busiest transit stations used by thousands of people will be repeated here if Edina were to build elevators to enhance access to a park.

Option 1A would be a 2nd choice. The switchback layout would at least reduce the visual impact of vast amounts of concrete, and leave the bridge where it has always been.

Option 5B (long straight ramps to a bridge relocated 470’ west) is the most objectionable. 467’ of ramp on the north side. 590’ on the south. Include the bridge itself and that’s almost a quarter mile of concrete straight out our front window. Hundreds of feet of concrete to both the east and west. Hide it (partially) behind a yet-to-be-approved, might-someday-be-approved, opposed-by-many, 20’ high concrete wall and we’d lose our sunshine, especially when the Minnesota winter sun stays low in the southern sky. The north frontage road, W 64th, is almost a north-side extension of the amenity provided by the park. A lot of pedestrians enjoy walking a loop that includes W 64th, and the sunshine, breezes, wide open spaces and distant horizons of lakes and green trees provided by the view of Rosland Park to the south. No one will enjoy walking in the shadow of a wall. Or of a 467’ ramp.

A trip across this bridge would be ~5x as long as a trip over the current bridge, taking ~5 minutes rather than under 1.

Also, kids are heading for destinations to the east and south (pool, playground, pavilion, baseball diamond, fishing dock). Heading west is heading in the wrong direction.

(submitted for my mother)

Thank you for taking time to provide the updated graphics--much improved over just lines on a page. It is beyond obvious the best concept solution that meets most of your project goals is #6A/Concept3 (Elevators with stairs). Although none of the concepts are perfect, #6A/Concept 3 is ADA compliant; is the safest option; and is the least problematic for the property owners who live within feet of the new bridge.
None of the concepts protect the trees so the new renderings are deceiving in that regard. The drawings should have publicly depicted what engineering has stated: that all the trees on the north side will be removed. This factor makes the case even stronger for #6A/Concept 3 since any privacy currently afforded the north side will be eliminated. The proposed sound wall is years away and the budget yet to be approved.
Both of the ramp options only add more safety concerns with accidents waiting to happen: The switchback version does not take into account the third lane expansion on the north side of highway 62 and places the ramps dangerously close to the traffic lanes. As pedestrians enter the ramp, they are facing speeding cars. The long ramps are tempting and inviting raceways for skateboard and bike races.
Further, in previous public meetings when photos of comparison pedestrian bridges in the metro area were presented, none of those examples were located as close to single family homes or jammed into such a tight space as exists with this proposed bridge on the north side of highway 62. Option#6A/Concept 3 is the only solution that physically fits the space and meets the primary reason for this new bridge: by federal law, a new bridge must be ADA compliant. Yes, there will be maintenance issues, but knowing that now will allow the city to plan ahead.
If the council decides against the elevator option, then I would encourage choice "A" from above: Do Nothing.

Thank you for taking time to provide the updated graphics--much improved over just lines on a page. It is beyond obvious the best concept solution that meets most of your project goals is #6A/Concept3 (Elevators with stairs). Although none of the concepts are perfect, #6A/Concept 3 is ADA compliant; is the safest option; and is the least problematic for the property owners who live within feet of the new bridge.
None of the concepts protect the trees so the new renderings are deceiving in that regard. The drawings should have publicly depicted what engineering has stated: that all the trees on the north side will be removed. This factor makes the case even stronger for #6A/Concept 3 since any privacy currently afforded the north side will be eliminated. The proposed sound wall is years away and the budget yet to be approved.
Both of the ramp options only add more safety concerns with accidents waiting to happen: The switchback version does not take into account the third lane expansion on the north side of highway 62 and places the ramps dangerously close to the traffic lanes. As pedestrians enter the ramp, they are facing speeding cars. The long ramps are tempting and inviting raceways for skateboard and bike races.
Further, in previous public meetings when photos of comparison pedestrian bridges in the metro area were presented, none of those examples were located as close to single family homes or jammed into such a tight space as exists with this proposed bridge on the north side of highway 62. Option#6A/Concept 3 is the only solution that physically fits the space and meets the primary reason for this new bridge: by federal law, a new bridge must be ADA compliant. Yes, there will be maintenance issues, but knowing that now will allow the city to plan ahead.
If the council decides against the elevator option, then I would encourage choice "A" from above: Do Nothing.

A large factor to moving to the Concord neighborhood, on Millers Lane, was due to the existence of the bridge that made the park, courts, and lake accessible. Of the options being considered, my first preference would be Option 1A. While 6A is a close second. All other options would drastically alter the asthetics that currently make the neighborhood approachable and/or significantly reduce the ease to access the courts and trails.

The consideration of a noise wall could have an equally negative effect. If the wall was no more than 10 feet tall, I would consider it. If it were any higher, and taking into consideration the trees, the Independence Day fireworks show that we view from Millers Lane could no longer be visible. The anticipation, charm and spectacular family (and neighborhood) moment could not be replicated.

All said, the more change that occurs the more unattractive it would be to live here. Which could be detrimental to the resale evaluation of our homes, which could trigger a lot more public anger. Tread carefully.

A large factor to moving to the Concord neighborhood, on Millers Lane, was due to the existence of the bridge that made the park, courts, and lake accessible. Of the options being considered, my first preference would be Option 1A. While 6A is a close second. All other options would drastically alter the asthetics that currently make the neighborhood approachable and/or significantly reduce the ease to access the courts and trails.

The consideration of a noise wall could have an equally negative effect. If the wall was no more than 10 feet tall, I would consider it. If it were any higher, and taking into consideration the trees, the Independence Day fireworks show that we view from Millers Lane could no longer be visible. The anticipation, charm and spectacular family (and neighborhood) moment could not be replicated.

All said, the more change that occurs the more unattractive it would be to live here. Which could be detrimental to the resale evaluation of our homes, which could trigger a lot more public anger. Tread carefully.

A large factor to moving to the Concord neighborhood, on Millers Lane, was due to the existence of the bridge that made the park, courts, and lake accessible. Of the options being considered, my first preference would be Option 1A. While 6A is a close second. All other options would drastically alter the asthetics that currently make the neighborhood approachable and/or significantly reduce the ease to access the courts and trails.

The consideration of a noise wall could have an equally negative effect. If the wall was no more than 10 feet tall, I would consider it. If it were any higher, and taking into consideration the trees, the Independence Day fireworks show that we view from Millers Lane could no longer be visible. The anticipation, charm and spectacular family (and neighborhood) moment could not be replicated.

All said, the more change that occurs the more unattractive it would be to live here. Which could be detrimental to the resale evaluation of our homes, which could trigger a lot more public anger. Tread carefully.

A large factor to moving to the Concord neighborhood, on Millers Lane, was due to the existence of the bridge that made the park, courts, and lake accessible. Of the options being considered, my first preference would be Option 1A. While 6A is a close second. All other options would drastically alter the asthetics that currently make the neighborhood approachable and/or significantly reduce the ease to access the courts and trails.

The consideration of a noise wall could have an equally negative effect. If the wall was no more than 10 feet tall, I would consider it. If it were any higher, and taking into consideration the trees, the Independence Day fireworks show that we view from Millers Lane could no longer be visible. The anticipation, charm and spectacular family (and neighborhood) moment could not be replicated.

All said, the more change that occurs the more unattractive it would be to live here. Which could be detrimental to the resale evaluation of our homes, which could trigger a lot more public anger. Tread carefully.

I strongly prefer option 6a (elevator and stairs) or option 0 (do nothing) since they are the least change to the current bridge footprint, and to the neighborhood.

Option 1a - switch back ramps east is my second preference.

I really DO NOT want option 5B (bridge moved to the west). That would destroy the neighborhood, which is already being negatively impacted by the road reconstruction project (Concord B and C)).


JMP

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)