Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Washington Avenue Bridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University and Hennepin County Seek Funding for Washington Avenue Bridge Suicide Barriers
Summary
University of Minnesota and Hennepin County described a multi‑jurisdictional need to install permanent suicide‑prevention barriers and lighting on the Washington Avenue Bridge; lawmakers debated whether to use Hennepin County active‑transportation funds, Metropolitan Council active‑transportation shares, or other state funding sources.
The University of Minnesota and Hennepin County urged the conference committee to provide state funding for permanent suicide‑deterrent barriers, higher railings and integrated lighting on the Washington Avenue Bridge in Minneapolis, citing recent deaths and daily pedestrian volumes.
The bridge, a double‑deck structure that carries light rail and vehicles below and an upper deck used by pedestrians and cyclists, sees about 20,000 pedestrians and 7,000 cyclists each day, Alice Roberts Davis, vice president for university services at the University of Minnesota, told the committee. The university said it has spent about $78,000 on temporary fencing and signed a $25,000 contract to keep fencing for another 12 months while it seeks a permanent design. The university estimated full design and construction of permanent railings, lighting, surveillance and related site work at about $8,000,000.
Why this matters: the bridge connects the university’s East and West Bank campuses, carries high foot and bicycle traffic, and has been the site of recent mental‑health crises including two deaths last fall. Lawmakers and local agencies told the committee the question before them is not whether to install permanent barriers but which funding source is appropriate and how to avoid jeopardizing other local projects.
Hennepin County’s public‑works representative, Lisa Cerny, told the committee that Hennepin County engineers support the project technically but oppose using $9,000,000 from the county’s active‑transportation allocation as proposed in the House bill. That pot of money, she said, is already committed in the county’s five‑year capital improvement program for pedestrian ramps, accessible signals and other mobility projects in Minneapolis and surrounding cities; using the funds for Washington Avenue would “significantly delay and potentially cancel” other projects and could jeopardize previously awarded federal matching funds. County staff estimated federal match jeopardy of roughly $4,000,000 to $7,000,000 per affected project, depending on the project.
Senate counsel and fiscal staff explained the Senate approach would direct funds from the Metropolitan Council’s share of the regional transportation sales tax — specifically the portion dedicated to active transportation — rather than Hennepin County’s share. Committee members and witnesses noted the Metropolitan Council funds would come from the regional sales tax reserves or active‑transportation pass‑through and that the council’s reserves are primarily regional sales‑tax revenue.
County and university witnesses described engineering constraints for interim fixes. Roberts Davis said the university has designs for railings that would attach to the existing railing to increase height and reduce climbability, but the university must secure Hennepin County approvals because county engineers control the structure. Cerny said county engineers have not approved attaching additional railings to the existing structure because of structural and safety standards and cautioned that some attachments could create new hazards. Both parties said they have worked with suicide‑prevention advocates and that signage and on‑site diversion resources are part of at least one bill draft.
Committee members discussed several practical points: whether the University could secure the funding through HEAPR (the university’s capital preservation pot) — the university said the bridge is not a university asset and HEAPR eligibility is unclear without an MMB waiver — whether Hennepin County could accelerate its own funds without legislative direction (county officials said they can, but the county has other commitments), and whether a bonding line item would be preferable. Several lawmakers signaled support for moving funding this year and disagreed over which pot would least disrupt other projects.
What’s next: conference committee negotiators said they will weigh the House and Senate drafting options (House: using Hennepin County active‑transportation allocation; Senate: using Metropolitan Council active‑transportation shares or other state sources), incorporate requirements for lighting and railings together, and consider statutory language on on‑site suicide‑diversion information. No formal action or vote was taken during the hearing.
