Hwy 63 - Spring Valley Reconstruction

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.

View full-sized image

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.

View full-sized image

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

View full-sized image

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

View full-sized image

• 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!”

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.

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)

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

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

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