Hwy 63 - Spring Valley Reconstruction

Share Hwy 63 - Spring Valley Reconstruction on Facebook Share Hwy 63 - Spring Valley Reconstruction on Twitter Share Hwy 63 - Spring Valley Reconstruction on Linkedin Email Hwy 63 - Spring Valley Reconstruction link

View full-sized imageWe are planning to reconstruct portions of Hwy 16/Hwy 63 and make ADA improvements. Construction is anticipated to occur in 2030.

Improvements include:

Hwy 16/Hwy 63: Tracy Rd. to Griswold St. (Orange section)

  • Remove the road and replace it with new materials
  • Resolve drainage issues
  • Address safety concerns at several intersections
  • Replace sidewalks and make ADA updates
  • Improve pedestrian connections by constructing new sidewalks in locations where they do not currently exist

Hwy 63/Section Ave: Hwy 16/Hwy 63 intersection to Co. Rd. 12 (Blue section)

  • Pedestrian facility and ADA improvements
  • Sidewalk repairs
  • Improve drainage issues
  • Please note, at this time, this section will not receive changes to the roadway

Public meeting

Thank you to everyone who participated in the May 22nd meeting or online design review. A summary of what we heard from the community is available for review.

View full-sized imageWe are planning to reconstruct portions of Hwy 16/Hwy 63 and make ADA improvements. Construction is anticipated to occur in 2030.

Improvements include:

Hwy 16/Hwy 63: Tracy Rd. to Griswold St. (Orange section)

  • Remove the road and replace it with new materials
  • Resolve drainage issues
  • Address safety concerns at several intersections
  • Replace sidewalks and make ADA updates
  • Improve pedestrian connections by constructing new sidewalks in locations where they do not currently exist

Hwy 63/Section Ave: Hwy 16/Hwy 63 intersection to Co. Rd. 12 (Blue section)

  • Pedestrian facility and ADA improvements
  • Sidewalk repairs
  • Improve drainage issues
  • Please note, at this time, this section will not receive changes to the roadway

Public meeting

Thank you to everyone who participated in the May 22nd meeting or online design review. A summary of what we heard from the community is available for review.

  • Summary: May 2024, Design review

    Share Summary: May 2024, Design review on Facebook Share Summary: May 2024, Design review on Twitter Share Summary: May 2024, Design review on Linkedin Email Summary: May 2024, Design review link

    In May, we asked the community to review the first draft design. Thank you to everyone who participated and provided feedback. This will help inform and advance the design process. We will notify the community when we have another review opportunity.

    Here is a summary of what we heard:


    Tracy Rd. to Grant St.

    Themes that emerged from community feedback:

    • Some are worried about the removal of on-street parking. They argue that parking is essential for local businesses, deliveries, and garbage pickup.
    • Neighbors expressed a desire to narrow the roadway as it would have less impact on their personal property. [Link to information about segment choice.]
    • Several comments highlight concerns about the potential impact on traffic flow, especially for large vehicles, semis, and agricultural vehicles. Others approved the change and expressed concerns about the current speeds of vehicles.
    • Many comments support the idea of improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Suggestions include adding an additional crosswalk.

    Examples of comments provided by community members:

    • "The highway seems dangerous with speeding vehicles. It’s also hard to see pedestrians on the highway."
    • "Smaller roads are annoying to travel and make turns. This is a busy street and making it narrower will slow traffic."
    • "Slowing traffic is a good priority along with safety for foot traffic."


    Broadway Ave. Intersection

    View full-sized image


    Themes that emerged from community feedback:

    • Some commenters believe the proposed design will enhance safety and reduce confusion, especially for out-of-town motorists.
    • Others requested a right turn lane and voiced concerns about right turning vehicles disrupting traffic flow. (Please note, that it is unclear if those who voiced this concern were aware of the right-turn lane that is already included in the design.)
    • Some appreciate potential aesthetic enhancements, such as new grassy areas for city signage and the maintenance of a flag and flower garden to welcome visitors.

    Examples of comments provided by community members:

    • "I love the slip lane. Semis will be forced to slow down or possible stop for slow right-hand turners. I used the slip lane 1000’s of times and would hate to see it go."
    • "Would be much less confusing for out-of-town motorist. A lot nicer for pedestrians."
    • "This should take the confusion out of this intersection. It would allow the city to maintain a flag and flower garden to welcome to Spring Valley. "


    Section Ave. Intersection

    View full-sized imageThemes that emerged from community feedback:

    • Opinions on the effectiveness of roundabouts were divided. Some believe that roundabouts can help improve traffic flow and reduce crashes, while others think they are confusing and would lead to more accidents.
    • Several expressed concern about the ability of elderly drivers, semi-trucks, and farm equipment to navigate the roundabout without issues.
    • Some expressed doubts about the safety of roundabouts, particularly for pedestrians. They mentioned concerns for kids/students and others needing to cross the intersection.

    Examples of comments provided by community members:

    • "As a traveler who either passes through this intersection on a longer trip or who stops at the Kwik Trip on the southeast corner of the intersection, I think it would more easily facilitate access and travel through the area.”
    • “Roundabouts are not safer for pedestrians. A stoplight would be safer.”
    • “As a pedestrian, I much prefer the roundabout. Only concern would be that it can handle the truck traffic?”
    • “As a local fireman this would reduce crashes, hopefully.”
    • These are excessively expensive. Just put cross walks on all 4 sides. Make them very wide. Our signs up to warn drivers that there is a 4 way stop ahead. Way cheaper.”
    • “We do not need something that stupid in our town. Put up stop lights if you feel there is a problem.”
    • “Now that I'm used to roundabouts, I like them. And this intersection would be better if traffic kept flowing and hopefully less accidents.”


    Griswold St./Center Ave.

    View full-sized image

    Themes that emerged from community feedback:


    • Many comments suggest that the proposed changes will help simplify the intersection, solve existing problems and make the roads safer.
    • The new design is seen as simpler and more convenient, addressing the difficulty of seeing in all directions at the current intersection.

    Examples of comments provided by community members:

    • “Seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars for more walking paths when it’s not an absolute necessity.”
    • “It is another one of those confusing intersections for out-of-town motorists. The proposed design is much simpler.”
    • “This intersection is tough to look over your shoulder.”


    ADA section

    From Hwy 16/63 intersection to just south of E. Market St.

    View full-sized image

    From just south of E. Market St. to W. Freemont St.

    From W. Freemont St. to just north of S. Broadway Ave.

    From just north of S. Broadway Ave. to Co. Rd. 12/Sample Rd.

    Themes that emerged from community feedback:
    • Many comments express approval of making the sidewalks ADA compliant, highlighting the importance of accessibility for all community members, including pedestrians and cyclists.
    • Several comments question the necessity of the proposed changes, viewing them as potentially wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

    Examples of comments provided by community members:

    • “Again, spending taxpayer dollars on something not absolutely necessary.”
    • Intersection of W. Main and Hwy 63 needs a better pedestrian crossing. Not very good access to the bike path park east side of town. It needs at minimum a flashing light crosswalk.”
    • “As a walker any improvements to the addition or improvements to the sidewalks is a good thing!”
  • Public meeting: May 22, 2024

    Share Public meeting: May 22, 2024 on Facebook Share Public meeting: May 22, 2024 on Twitter Share Public meeting: May 22, 2024 on Linkedin Email Public meeting: May 22, 2024 link

    Join us Wednesday, May 22nd to learn more about this project.

    Date: Wednesday, May 22nd

    Time: 4:30-6:30 p.m.

    Location: Spring Valley Ambulance Service Building, 100 Emergency Drive, Spring Valley

    The meeting is drop-in style, so no formal presentation is planned. People may visit and leave at their convenience. Those who are unable to attend are encouraged to review the information and provide their feedback.

  • Crashes at Hwy 16/63 and Section Ave. intersection

    Share Crashes at Hwy 16/63 and Section Ave. intersection on Facebook Share Crashes at Hwy 16/63 and Section Ave. intersection on Twitter Share Crashes at Hwy 16/63 and Section Ave. intersection on Linkedin Email Crashes at Hwy 16/63 and Section Ave. intersection link

    MnDOT and the City of Spring Valley have closely monitored crashes at the Hwy 16/63 and Section Ave. intersection.

    From Jan. 1, 2018 to Dec. 31, 2022, there were 23 reported crashes.

    23 total crashes

    Crash type:

    • Angle (15)
    • Left turn (1)
    • Rear end (3)
    • Head on (0)
    • Sideswipe (0)
    • Other (4)

    Severity:

    • Fatal (0)
    • Incapacitating injury (0)
    • Non-incapacitating injury (2)
    • Possible injury (3)
    • Property damage only (18)
  • Summary: Hwy 16/63 resident opinions, Dec. 2023

    Share Summary: Hwy 16/63 resident opinions, Dec. 2023 on Facebook Share Summary: Hwy 16/63 resident opinions, Dec. 2023 on Twitter Share Summary: Hwy 16/63 resident opinions, Dec. 2023 on Linkedin Email Summary: Hwy 16/63 resident opinions, Dec. 2023 link

    During the July 2023 community survey, we heard concern about impacts to residents and property owners between Tracy Rd. and Griswold St. We began an effort to directly contact residents and property owners to inform them and gather their thoughts.

    Two letters were sent to each resident and/or property owner. Information about the project was provided. People were asked to attend a Dec. 7, 2023, meeting. The letter also provided instructions on how to share their input if they were not able to make the meeting. We know that not everyone received the letters or participated. Individuals who missed this opportunity are encouraged to contact Cindy Morgan at Cindy.Morgan@state.mn.us or 507-951-6593.

    During the Dec. 7, meeting we provided a presentation on the proposed improvements, schedule, and design options under consideration. Below is a summary of the feedback we received.

    Design options:

    Residents/property owners were asked to provide feedback on their preferred design and rank the importance of corridor issues. Option D was the most preferred. Option A was the least preferred.

    Most preferred: Option D
    View larger image
    • No parking on either side or the road
    • A wide shoulder for bicyclists on both sides of the road
      • This would also benefit wider vehicles such as agriculture equipment
    • Sidewalks on both sides of the road
    • The narrowing of the road will naturally signal to drivers to slow down
    • This option has minor impacts to property
      • To allow for these roadway features and correct drainage issues, the construction limits (yellow line) would remain close to the right of way (red dashed line) on both sides of the road. This decreases the likelihood that property owners would experience impacts to their property

    2nd preferred: Option C


    View larger image
    • Parking on one side of the road and a wide shoulder for bicyclists on the other
      • This would also benefit wider vehicles such as agriculture equipment
    • Sidewalks on both sides of the road
    • A slightly narrower road would naturally indicate to drivers to slow down
    • This option has some impacts to property
      • To allow for these roadway features and correct drainage issues, the construction limits (yellow line) would extend beyond the right of way (red dashed line) on one side of the road. The construction limits would be closer to the right of way on the other side. This increases the likelihood that property owners would experience impacts to their property, but only on one side of the highway


    3rd preferred: Option B
    View larger image
    • Parking on one side of the road
    • A sidewalk one side and a multi-use trail on the other
    • A slightly narrower road would naturally indicate to drivers to slow down
    • This option has some impacts to property
      • To allow for these roadway features and correct drainage issues, the construction limits (yellow line) would extend beyond the right of way (red dashed line) on one side of the road. The construction limits would be closer to the right of way on the other side. This increases the likelihood that property owners would experience impacts to their property, but only on one side of the highway

    Least preferred: Option A
    View larger image
    • Parking available on both sides of road
    • Sidewalk available on both sides of road
    • Maintains the current width of the road. Number of speeding vehicles would likely not change
    • This option would have significant impacts to property
      • To allow for these roadway features and correct drainage issues, the construction limits (yellow line) would extend beyond the right of way (red dashed line). This increases the likelihood that property owners would experience impacts to their property on both sides of the highway

    Corridor issues:

    Ranked by feedback from most important to least important

    1. Pedestrian/sidewalk improvements
    2. Traffic calming/reducing speeds
    3. Freight/agricultural traffic
    4. On-street parking - one or both sides
    5. Minimize impacts to property and/or vegetation
    6. Bicyclists/bike facilities

    Comments:

    Please note, this is not a full list of all comments received.

    • Some expressed that there are no existing bike facilities to connect to on the ends of the corridor. They suggest ensuring those issues are also addressed if bike facilities are installed with this project
    • Bike facilities would not be used on such a busy road
    • Concerns about safety, especially large truck traffic, improper lane use, and winter maintenance
    • Some noted a need for parking for emergency, garbage and delivery vehicles
    • Others noted that parking is not needed and/or is not safe on this highway
    • Request for new/better street lighting
    • Suggestion to add turn lanes
    • Acknowledgement of issues at major intersections and support for a change
  • Summary: Community survey, July 2023

    Share Summary: Community survey, July 2023 on Facebook Share Summary: Community survey, July 2023 on Twitter Share Summary: Community survey, July 2023 on Linkedin Email Summary: Community survey, July 2023 link

    Thank you to everyone who participated in the community survey. The online survey was open from June - August 2023, and over 130 surveys were completed. Project staff also collected feedback from community members at a Wednesdays on Broadway event. Corridor maps and design options were available for review and comment.

    Roadway design

    Participants reviewed four different roadway design options and were asked to rate their satisfaction with each. The options showed different roadway elements (e.g., lane widths, parking and wide vs. narrow shoulders) and pedestrian/bicycle elements (e.g., sidewalks, shared use path, and bikeable shoulders). Option D was the preferred design.

    Option D features included:

    • No parking on either side or the road
    • A wide shoulder for bicyclists on both sides of the road
    • Sidewalks on both sides of the road
    • The narrowing of the road will naturally signal to drivers to slow down
    • This option has minor impacts to property
      • To allow for these roadway features and correct drainage issues, the construction limits (yellow line) would remain close to the right of way (red dashed line) on both sides of the road. This decreases the likelihood that property owners would experience impacts to their property


    View full-sized image

    Survey results and summary of comments

    • Most respondents use the corridor daily for commuting purposes or to visit a local business
    • Comments relating to current and future safety conditions were made throughout the survey
    • 80% of participants agree the sidewalks need to be improved
    • 23% of people feel a bike lane/bikeable shoulder is necessary
    • Parking along Highway 16/63 does not appear to be a priority to the community and could be removed or reduced to one side of the roadway
    • Turn lanes should be considered as traffic is often traveling too fast through the corridor and turning traffic or parked cars create conflict
    • Wider shoulders would also be helpful as farm equipment periodically uses the corridor, but would need to be balanced against impacts on traffic speeds
    • There is a strong consensus that trees and landscaping need to be preserved or replaced with future roadway improvements. Comments noted the existing, mature trees make the roadway beautiful and provide shade and aesthetic benefits.

    Comments on current conditions

    • A majority of participants did not see a need for parking. Limited on-street parking was suggested
    • Existing sidewalks need to be replaced. Closing gaps in the sidewalk system will increase safety
    • Several respondents support bike trails, but feel it would be safer to have a multi-use trail separated from the street
    • Existing trees should be preserved, if possible, or replaced. Impact to property owners should be minimized
    • Controlling traffic speed is a priority due to pedestrians, bicyclists, turning traffic and farm vehicles
    • Children walk along or cross this section of roadway. Current conditions are not safe

    Community priorities

    Community members identifies these as the most important corridor issues:

    1. Pedestrian/sidewalk improvements
    2. Freight/agriculture traffic
    3. Reducing the speed of vehicles

    Community members identified these as the most important design features:

    1. Sidewalk and trails
    2. Wide shoulders
    3. Landscape boulevard, trees and/or green space

    Thank you again to everyone who participated. The project team will take this feedback and use it to help guide the design of the corridor.

    If you missed the deadline and would like to submit a comment, please reach out to Cindy Morgan at Cindy.Morgan@state.mn.us or 507-951-6593.


  • Project goal: Improve sidewalks, drainage

    Share Project goal: Improve sidewalks, drainage on Facebook Share Project goal: Improve sidewalks, drainage on Twitter Share Project goal: Improve sidewalks, drainage on Linkedin Email Project goal: Improve sidewalks, drainage link

    This project will remove the entire road and replace it with new materials. MnDOT will also construct new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.

    Improving the sidewalks and the drainage of the roadway is also a vital goal of the project.

    Existing roadway

    The image below shows and example cross section of the current roadway. The steep slopes in portions of the corridor create drainage issues. Some pedestrians find them difficult to navigate. Also, the sidewalks are not ADA compliant.

    Flattening the corridor will fix drainage issues. The sidewalks will also become ADA compliant.


    View larger-image

    Design Standards


    The team is designing the road to meet these standards:

    Roadways

    • The slope across the driving lane should not exceed 2.5%.
    • The slope across the parking lane should not exceed 5.0%.

    Sidewalks and crosswalks:

    • The slopes of sidewalks in the direction of travel cannot be more than 5.0%. (0.6 inch of rise for every foot of travel)
    • The slope across a sidewalk cannot be more than 2.0%. (0.24 inch of rise for every foot across)

    Curb ramps:

    • The slope of the curb ramps in the direction of travel cannot be more than 8.3%. (1.0 inch of rise for every foot of travel)
    • The slope across the curb ramp cannot be more than 2.0%. (0.24 inch of rise for every foot across)
    View larger-image

    Construction impact

    Regrading is needed to achieve these goals. If the footprint of the current roadway is kept, the grading will be extensive. It will also have the most impact people's property. If the footprint of the future roadway is reduced, then the grading will be less extensive. There would be less impact to people's property.


Page last updated: 29 Aug 2024, 11:56 AM