Jordan Independent - Do you think the proposed road-widening project at the intersection of highways 21 and 282 would be done in your best interest? - Comments

The widening of 282/21 is on

swansonmej — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:34:22 -0600

The widening of 282/21 is on the agenda for the City Council tonight. Many who are opposed to the project will be in attendance, including me. It should be an interesting evening!

I don't believe that the

PattyMN45 — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:09:20 -0600

I don't believe that the turn lane is necessary. There are more important places where they could use the money such as a four-way stop on 282 by Valley Bank. That intersection is a hazard and is very hard to make a turn onto 282 during busy mornings and rush hour after work. I also believe that St. John's Church and school could be affected by the road work in many negative ways and unfortunately if the church would be in danger from the construction, the damage would already be done and may be too late to change it.

Take [if there is no money

Kyle Thill — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:38:29 -0600

Take [if there is no money involved when eminent domain is used] doesn't amount to much of an impact, the money was minor relative to the overall impact of those of us on the corners.

Regarding the precedent being set in Jordan, the larger picture is eminent domain is a tool in use now, and not just in Jordan.

I'll say again I really feel the vibration issue will be less of a problem once they remove the Piazza, a part of this project, nothing like an empty grain hauler going by now to wake the dead.

I think the only thing I want to disagree with is the promise that it will relieve congestion. That promise is old and tired, traffic is like water and seeks the path of least resistance, we'll see traffic increase if not due to further growth to our south, then simply because it appears to the motorist to be a good alternative route to other highways. My real concern is that the next step will be four lanes through town, and then only after that some by-pass after all the sacrifices have been made.

I am against the widening

swansonmej — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:13:50 -0600

I am against the widening because it means
that the city will TAKE the land from the church via eminent domain. How would anyone feel if the land was taken from them just because the government thought it was best?

Do we want to set this precedent in Jordan? I certainly don't want this to happen.

The church came to the city and asked for variances when they were building the new school. If the city had said no, the church would have needed to come up with another solution.

The city made an offer to buy the land from the church. The church said no because of the concerns for the structure of the church. What does the city do? They don't come up with another solution. They put in motion a plan to TAKE the land from the church.

I have not seen or heard anything regarding proper studies being done that ensure that the church structure will not be impacted. Instead of making sure, the city council wants to forcefully push things through.

The widening doesn't have to happen right now. Why not take the time to do things right and do it in a such a way that there is agreement between the city and the church.

I do not currently live within the city limits so I can not exercise my displeasure via the election voting booth. I am a member of St. Johns. I pray that the city council will do the right thing for EVERYONE.

Mary Swanson

The church's situation is a

TresaKnox — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:00:05 -0500

The church's situation is a bit different than the school's situation because the church is not in danger of being demolished, it is an issue of impact because of encrouchment. Lacking the designation as a property on the National Register of Historic Places, or Jordan having an Heritage Preservation Commission, there are not any agencies standing in a position to protest on the church's behalf that I am aware of.
The best course of action would be citizen's petition for an "Environmental Assessment Worksheet" which would determine the need for an "Environmental Impact Statement." If this is not already being done, information on the EAW process can be found at http://www.gda.state.mn.us/pdf/2000/eqb/eawrules.pdf
As for solutions to the intersection, I've seen many communities where the left lane is the left turn lane, and the right lane is a combination through-right turn lane. Maybe this option, along with a left turn signal, would ease flow through this intersection, or at least allow a study of the change on traffic flow, while the impact on the church building is accessed.
By the way, the nomination to the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota's 10 Most Endangered Historic Properties list is soley a vehicle to raise awareness that a historic property is in danger of being destroyed, and hopefully bring in a preservation minded investor/developer in to create a reuse for the building.
Just thought I'd respond, since you were wondering where I was at.

I do wish they would allow

Ray Sandey — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:31:55 -0500

I do wish they would allow left turn signals.

I also think that this will make right turns alot easier for trucks and larger vehicles.

Turning South from eastbound 282 onto 21 will be the most noticable I think.

But we can't just do one corner.

I have to disagree with you

herder66 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:37:19 -0500

I have to disagree with you Ray, since when is it funded anyway?? You seem to think if we finish the 282/21 Road project it will improve
conditions at that intersection, I don't know how, when there will be no arrow for left turns, so people will still have to wait there turn. I myself hope this project at the intersection does not go through.
Where are the people who were so worried the old Catholic School was going to be torn down, they had it put on an indangered historic building list, St. John's Church is older and more historic, 120 plus years.

Thanks, Eileen Hoy

This is done not in the best

Kyle Thill — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:01:26 -0500

This is done not in the best interest of Jordan, as a highway project it's done to expedite people passing through Jordan.

Will it make things more dangerous, I suspect not at the intersection but rather north and south of it where more traffic will have to be negotiated at non-controlled intersections by pedestrians and autos alike.

Will it harm the church, I can't see it shaking the foundation any more than our invisible piazza has for all these years. Someone from the church needs to stay a night towards the rear of the church and appreciate the shaking it gets today. I venture to guess the construction [with the removal of the concrete mistake] will likely lesson the vibrations felt today.

Like Ray, I also hope left turn signals will be a part of this project. Currently I'm impressed with the queuing done there, but trying to cross against traffic is bad now, and with the increase to be seen it will become very difficult.

As maybe the ultimate authority on what happens in that intersection I might implore our police chief to expend some resources there from time to time to try to mitigate the diminishing responsibility that both pedestrians and autos seems to have at intersections. Traffic is going to increase, the chances of accidents will only go along with that, some enforcement of pedestrian laws during peak hours [say after school and church lets out] may go a ways towards lessoning the chances of what will become more inevitable.

The wider turn lanes would

Ray Sandey — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:49:42 -0500

The wider turn lanes would be very noticable in a couple of the directions now.

Could it wait, sure... It took the Bloomington Ferry Bridge 30 years, this CAN wait, But why should it.

The project is funded. 282 will be undercontruction anyway. Let's do it all at once and be done with it.

Wouldn't it be nice to finally have a road project done before the conditions are really terrible.

On delaying the highway

Mathias Baden — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:30:38 -0500

On delaying the highway project, that's what Jeremy Goebel's motion was all about. On the night of the protest at city hall, Goebel's position was that the road does not need to be widened just yet, so let's delay it.

Ray, your position seems to be different: Let's do it now, because it's needed. It'll improve the intersection.

Jason, your position seems to be different: Let's do it now, because we'll need it later. We'll be ahead of the curve.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

I would also agree with Ray.

Jason Allen — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:18:39 -0500

I would also agree with Ray. We may not need that project done right this day, however 5 years from now it will have to be done.

I believe that the project

Ray Sandey — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:20:07 -0500

I believe that the project should be done as planned. It will smooth some of the traffic issues at that intersection. Hopefully trucks will be able to turn the corner with hitting the lights.

I do hope that left turn signals will be part of the project as that will really make it a nice intersection.

I think since the engineering is done and the funding is in place this project should get done ASAP. The 282 reconstruction project is going to close that road for quite awhile and cause a large inconvenience for many and financial hard ship for some. By completing this portion of the project with the rest it allows the disruption in lives once instead of twice. This project will need to be done eventually, Lets get it done now and reduce the burden in the future.

Do I think the church will suffer large irrepairable damage with the construction next to it? No, It didn't seem to mind the large addition connected to it a couple years back and the construction associated with it.

Do I think that children crossing the road during the day will be more endangered? No, I also remember when the new education center was being planned an important reason was so the kids wouldn't have to cross the street for lunch and church. Now the they are crossing the street for recess or phy ed. May be the teachers should park in the old school and cross the street and free up space for the kids to use the parking lot for phyed or recess.

I think the council was gracious when they gave the Church many variances when the Education Center was built. I think this embarrasing spectacle with picketers at city hall and on the 10 O clock news was a slap in the face to this town and the city council that has been very supportive of the Churchs' recent projects.

I am a member at St. Johns. I do not live in City limits. I am very active in the community. I am sorry I can't side with the church on this one.

I think this is a good project and should be done soon. An improved intersection will be safer for the for all involved.

Do you think the proposed road-widening project at the intersection of highways 21 and 282 would be done in your best interest?

Mathias Baden — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:47:20 -0500

* yes * no