Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Pedestrian Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lindstrom weighs crosswalks and flashing beacons for Highway 8 after safety concerns; budget numbers questioned
Summary
City staff proposed adding three crosswalks and four rapid-flashing beacons on Highway 8 and increasing parking in the downtown core; staff said MnDOT supports the crosswalks but the upgrade will raise engineer estimates and council asked staff to clarify inconsistent cost figures before proceeding.
The Lindstrom City Council discussed proposed downtown safety and parking upgrades that would add three new crosswalks across Highway 8, install rapid-flashing beacons at multiple approaches and add a handful of parking stalls near the Empire Insurance building.
Brian Bachmeier, the engineer presenting the plan (speaker 8), said the council’s requested additions include two crosswalks at Linden Street and one at Elm Street and that MnDOT is receptive to the locations but will require approvals and some minor design changes that could eliminate three to four parking stalls on the north side of eastbound Highway 8. He said the design also reclaims four additional parking stalls west of Elm Street along the south curb near the insurance office.
Why it matters: Council members said the corridor has a history of pedestrian danger and one fatality was mentioned during discussion. Several members said crosswalks and flashing beacons would improve accessibility and slow traffic, while others warned losing parking stalls could affect downtown businesses.
Cost and schedule: Bachmeier told the council that adding the crosswalks, concrete ramps, painting and the rapid-flashing beacons would increase the project cost “by about $140,000.” He also cited a revised engineer estimate that appears in the meeting packet but contains conflicting figures; the packet lists an original capital improvement budget of $315,000 and a later estimate that the presenter read aloud as $353,150,000, and the presenter simultaneously described the project as roughly $35,000 over the CIP. Council members asked staff to reconcile those numbers and provide a corrected estimate before authorizing the upgrades.
Council direction: Staff asked whether the council wanted the additional crosswalk improvements included in the RFP now so bids could be advertised quickly or deferred to a special meeting (the presenter suggested March 4). Several council members urged staff to solicit business feedback on which specific stalls would be removed and to provide “blow-up” plan views so merchants can see the impacts. Others said the public safety benefits likely outweigh the loss of three to four stalls, especially given nearby underused city parking.
Next steps: The council agreed to direct staff to reach out to affected businesses, clarify the cost figures and return with a revised estimate and plan options at the March work session or a special March 4 meeting for final direction. No formal vote to award or adopt the revised plan occurred at the meeting.
