Bridge over troubled waters: Downtown river crossing option raises concerns

A new Highway 41 Minnesota River crossing may still be decades away, but what if the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) chose the central option? What would happen to downtown Chaska? How would it look? How would it feel? How would it sound?

Those are just some of the questions residents are pondering as MnDOT appears to be narrowing its choices for a new crossing. The structure would connect new Highway 212 to Highway 169 and alleviate pressure on existing Highway 41.

Earlier this month, it emerged that MnDOT had identified the central option, C-2, which would connect at new Highway 212 near County Road 147, go through the planned Heights of Chaska, over Athletic Park, down the levee, across Highway 41 to connect with Highway 169 in the south, as its proposed preferred alternative.

Stakeholders learned the news in January and responded with “serious resistance,” said MnDOT project engineer Diane Langenbach. Since that time, MnDOT has been meeting with the affected cities, counties and agencies to try to work toward a consensus.

Chaska Mayor Gary Van Eyll said that a consensus hasn’t happened yet. When the stakeholders group met last week, none of the six options for a new river crossing were eliminated.

Van Eyll expressed his frustration at the process. “They’ve met with everyone individually and then we get together in a group and say the same things,” he said.

Langenbach said that it’s important for stakeholders to come to some sort of agreement for the crossing to be successful. But if that doesn’t happen, at some point MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will have to make a decision.

“We want to get out of the intermediary role,” explained Langenbach.

Red flags

The central option threw up red flags for the Chaska City Council for its potential effects on the city’s historic downtown. At the point it would cross Highway 212 and head over Athletic Park, the bridge would sit 65 feet in the air. That’s two-fifths the height of the Guardian Angels Catholic Church 162-foot steeple.

As it crosses the Minnesota River, the bridge would be 59-feet high, decreasing to 40-feet high south of the river.

Chaska City Administrator David Pokorney said that in their talks with MnDOT, the bridge could possibly be lowered 10 feet, but would still be well above the tree line.

“Alternative C-2 would be highly visible throughout the study area,” MnDOT’s environmental impact statement (EIS) concluded.

President of the Chaska Historical Society Board of Directors Tracy Swanson predicted that the crossing would be a “disaster” for downtown and would impact the most people of any of the crossings. “The real impact would be to those living and working in the downtown area,” she said.

Dennis Gimmestad, with the State Historic Preservation Office, has also looked at the options for a new river crossing. He said that from a historic perspective the central option raises “serious concerns.”

Gimmestad said that the visual effects of the roadway on vistas, as well as the impact on Athletic Park, were both issues for his office.

“There are a lot less concerns on the eastern options,” he noted.

As currently designed, the central option could likely mean that Athletic Park would be torn down. The route was designed to go over Athletic Park to minimize the impact on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land just to the west of the park.

“Alternative C-2 is the only alternative that will directly impact an historic property that is listed or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,” the EIS stated.

It was a notion that irritated Swanson.

“We are as sensitive to wildlife as any group,” she said. “But (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have hundreds of miles of protected land.

“Historic resources have to be considered,” said Gimmestad. “You can’t take a historic property (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) unless there is no other choice.”

Athletic Park wouldn’t be the only structure facing the wrecking ball, though. Jackson Heights Mobile Home Park south of the river would lose 18 of its 64 units. According to the EIS, Jackson Heights is home to a largely Hispanic population (over 60 percent). The median household income in the park is $40,625 and 14 percent of residents live below the poverty level, the EIS stated.

With the bridge passing within a quarter-mile of downtown Chaska, noise will also be a factor. MnDOT Historian Kristen Zschomler concluded that the central option would not be any noisier than it is now in the Walnut Street Historic District, but would rise on the western side of downtown by two to three decibel levels.

Along the river, decibel levels would raise from 58 to 64 dBA (the sound of a busy street). In addition, the EIS notes that the bridge would be visible from the river, the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area, the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Trail, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Athletic, Winkel and Hickory parks. As designed, it would go over the top of existing Highway 41 just one-eighth of a mile south of the existing bridge.

Langenbach noted that none of the river crossing routes are final designs, however.

“It will be a 300-foot corridor,” she said.

Within that corridor, there is room for play. Once MnDOT has a crossing chosen, it will work with those stakeholders to hopefully come up with a workable design, she said.

-Mollee Francisco, staff writer

TELL US: What do you think of the river crossing options?