Agree with Betty on many things, but she's dead wrong on this issue.

Some ideas:

The Stillwater bridge is in need of removal and upgrade to a freeway crossing of the St. Croix.

Why don't we construct a replica of the Golden Gate over the St. Croix with NO footings in the river.

Once complete completely remove the old lift bridge and return the riverbed to it's pre bridge condition.

Then to complete the project build some cable cars on the steep hills of Stillwater.

The net result would be a much improved river vally. The rusty hulk of a lift bridge that reminds me of Cleveland Ohio would be removed. The riverbed would be restored and all bridge footings would be removed. The river valley would be a beautiful site with people traveling from all over to view the area and ride the cable cars a stop along the route to shop.

BTW, if all stoplights and stopsigns were removed from highway 36 and the river crossing a 2 lane bridge should be adaquate. IMHO, all stoplights on highway 36 should be converted to overpasses prior to building any bridge over the St Croix. The best approach would to build a 3 lane bridge with the third lane being reversed during rush hour as needed.

I agree with Betty McCollum! I am a former long-term resident of Oak Park Heights, and now a Wisconsin resident and can see no legitimate reason to spend a colossal amount of money on a mega bridge that serves only 2 purposes: relieves traffic congestion on the historic lift bridge in downtown Stillwater, and gives Wisconsin residents a freeway style of commuting to the Twin Cities. It would also create a real estate boom for Houlton and probably Somerset and New Richmond. No such thing in Minnesota.

The Federal Wild & Scenic Rivers Act is there for a good reason and allowing an exemption sets a dangerous precedent for hundreds to possibly thousands of projects across the country.

The Minnesota-Wisconsin crossing has been in the works since I was a teenager in the 50s and should have been built decades ago. But this extravagant proposal violates fiscal responsibility especially during a time of budget deficits.

Bob McDaniel

To date, the most expensive bridge in Minnesota was the the 35W bridge. It cost $250 million dollars, and carries 140,000 cars daily. This proposed St. Croix River crossing project will cost nearly three times the prices ($690 million), and carry just one-eighth the number of cars daily (18,000). This is a huge price tag, for such a small population. How many other bridges could be repaired in Minnesota and Wisconsin if we scaled this project down, and applied the balance of the funds elsewhere?

I thought the country was broke? How can we find money in the huge amounts to build a bridge to serve western Wisconsin? I live in Wisconsin. It just does not make sense. The one banker from New Richmond is so conservative with other spending by the Federal and State governments, yet he can't seem to spend taxpayer money fast enough for a bridge that will make him money. If our country is broke and virtaully bankrupt why do we keep spending money we simply don't have? If we are bankrupt then we are bankrupt. No bridge with my tax dollars!!

Stillwater is home - Luv our WI cabin

"The St. Croix River Crossing Coalition poll found that 86 percent of area residents support a four-lane bridge to replace the 80-year-old Stillwater lift bridge." Really? What poll?..no one asked my family or myself. We live in Stillwater, we have a cabin in WI and our children live in WI. We aren’t anxious to spoil the beauty of the St Croix River Valley with this expensive bridge for our traveling convenience. Build a smaller bridge to WI for those who cross the river. Once you spoil the scenic river valley a new generation will wonder what all the fuss was about to build such a large and expensive bridge.

Oh, maybe the new bridge will be quaint, unique and have old world charm, just like our little town!

Bob is spot on. The fiscal irresponsibility of the mega bridge is stunning. As any truthful US congressperson could tell you, there are several particualr projects that are simply waiting for the legal precedent Amy's legislation will establish to give them a legal template for moving forward with bridges and development in designated rivers in the WSRA. To imperil all designated rivers for the singular purposes of relieving a small portion of Wisconsin commuter's driving time and easing congestion in Stillwater is tragic. Especially since an alternative can be negotiated that will NOT need an exemption and WON'T take another ten years to approve. A bridge is needed but it must conform to the restrictions placed on bridges by the WSRA. I personally believe that the Interior Department and the Park Service will reject the in-your-face arrogance of the megabridge design precisely because it will destroy the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and because less objectionable alternatives exist. The WSRA has served Stillwater and the St. Croix Valley for over 4 decades. Diminishing its protections will be destructive of the area's natural history that has survived with the help of the WSRA. Thank you Betty for injecting honest facts into what has been a one-way river of misinformation from superbridge advocates.

The arguments have been made for an environmentally, scenic friendly, fiscally responsible, size appropriate bridge FOR YEARS!  

The country going broke and we don't have enough money for all of our bridges to be fixed, are just some of the latest excuses being floated out there as "good" reasons not to build this bridge.   Most people using these excuses have opposed the bridge for years, they just had different reasons in the past.  

All I can say is it sure would be nice to get our downtown of years past back.  You remember the one without the bumper to bumper traffic idling, especially on Friday & Saturday evenings.  Many of you that have opinions on a smaller bridge, or no bridge at all, were not around when we were able to walk around downtown and enjoy it without traffic noise and exhaust in the air.  In fact many opposers are not from the area, and probably add little economic benefit to the area at all, but we should listen to them.  

I for one am looking forward to Sept 10, 2012 when the bridge is closed for 4-months worth of repairs, too bad they're not starting the repairs in June or July.   The last time the bridge closed for extensive repairs it was great, even the business community enjoyed it and saw no fall off in business.  

That's why we need the bridge, enough of the opposition from those that don't live here or support the community. 

I live three blocks from Main Street and am very aware of the traffic back-ups. Back-ups that happen predominantly during the summer months, and it is because the lift bridge is lifted so frequently. There are times on Saturday and Sundays when that bridge can lift more than a dozen times each day....many times every half hour. This schedule is what causes the majority of the back-ups. Why aren't our lawmakers working to change the lift bridge schedule? This would immediately alleviate the congestion, and cost almost nothing.

Last time when I looked at the pristine river valley, I looked at the pristine views of the power plant and the Anderson factory. Quite a pristine vista that is!

And yes, it is a great idea to close the lift bridge for 4 months. We just cause the traffic to move through down town Hudson, who cares, as long as it does not bother Stillwater!

Martin
This whole bridge fiasco is ridiculous . It seems we have but one representitive in Minnesota government (Betty McCollum) that has stepped back and seen the madness of a $700,000,000.00 dollar freeway-style bridge, placed in an area between two small cities that will mainly serve the sparse population of Wisconsin. As others have said, this bridge is three to four times more expensive than it has to be. Its main purpose will be to make it easier and faster for Wisconsin commuters to get to their jobs at Andersen windows and points beyond. It dosn't make sense to me to build a very expensive bridge for the sake of these Wisconsin commuters. If it were it on an even keel with commuters from Minnesota and Wisconsin going both ways it would be a different story. But...it isn't, and we know it. Add the bridge cost and the highway 36 costs together and you are looking at nearly $400,000,000.00 dollars. Klocubar, Bachmann and Franken should be ashamed of themselves, pushing this on us Minnesotans at a time when the state is so broke...or that's what we hear anyway...broke enough to not give property tax refunds this year, and in essence raising most peoples property taxes $500 to $700 per year. Who do they really work for? Wisconsin? Please keep up the great work Congresswoman McCollum!

@Hudsoner

I feel your pain, Hudson today is what Stillwater was 30 years ago, but I'm wondering why its okay for the traffic to go through Stillwater and not Hudson?

The big campaign years ago was "Escape to Wisconsin" and a lot of people did, taking their money across the river too.  So it appears to be okay to get the tax base and revenue but not the traffic.  

We've put up with the thru traffic going through Stillwater and across the river to spend money earned in Minnesota for years, so I believe if they're driving through Hudson they live over there somewhere??

So let's take down those ugly power lines crossing the river into Wisconsin, and let's turn Andersen Windows (which started in Hudson)  into a pretty park, and put all those residents over in Wisconsin out of work.  That will help the traffic levels a few times a day....

I'm sick and tired of bridge opponents twisting the facts by mischaracterizing the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act and using phrases like "national park" and "scenic waterway."
The St. Croix valley is not a national park nor is the river designated a scenic waterway by the WSRA, which does not offer blanket protection against all development on all designated rivers.

Read Section 2 of the WSRA (http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/pdf/wsra.pdf).

Rivers are "classified, designated and administered" as 1) wild or 2) scenic or 3) recreational. The St. Croix is clearly a recreational river -- not wild and not scenic.

Criticize the cost if you like, but the truth is that the WSRA is the prime culprit in the ridiculously escalated price tag of any bridge that gets built. This incongruous act, which never should have been applied to a river in a growing metropolitan area, has been the rationale of one delaying lawsuit after another by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, which don't give a endangered rat's behind about the quality of life in Stillwater.

In addition to the delays, the cost of a replacement for the aging Lift Bridge has also been inflated beyond reason by the mitigation necessary to satisfy the requirements of the WSRA as interpreted by the current crop of liberals at the Interior Department and the National Park Service who, like Rep. McCollum, don't really care how long it takes to solve this quality of life issue for Stillwater residents.

Bob, wrong again. MNDOT is the prime culprit in this bridge fiasco. The law is the law and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is the primary reason the supersized, in-your-face bridge cannot be built. If MNDOT had taken the right approach instead of shoehorning the largest possible bridge that could fit across the vallley in direct opposition of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act the bridge would be done. Their insistance in challenging the existing law and designing an unnecessarily large and expensive megabridge nowhere near the existing bridge created the controversy we have today. MNDOT is the culprit, not the people or the civil law in place long before they embarked on a nonconforming design. Supporters of the bridge can demonize those against it all they want but there are plenty of people in Stillwater who think it is a tragic waste of money. This "quality of life" issue shouldn't be solved by exemption legislation or a bridge to huge. In fact I guarantee you the quality of life in both our business districts will degrade if this bridge is built. Tell me, if a shop owner hangs a "sale" sign on their door and they get 18000 cars a day passing it, how does it benefit them to route all those cars as far away from their store as possible? Tell me how the bridge will increase Johnny's TV business? How does a coffe shop downtown get more business after wiping out the 18000 cars a day, especially those in the morning? This isn't about lberals or conservatives.

I am curious - at this point, should blame really be the issue? Shouldn't the debate be about the extremely large price tag, for a relatively small population, when there are so many other projects needing attention?

Let's use this example: If your car needed new tires and a new battery, would you buy the most expensive, flashy tires you can find, and ignore the battery, or would you get the less expensive (fully functional) tires, that leave enough money to replace your battery as well? This really needs to be about common sense.

Well stated, Susan. The parties do need to stop living in the past and realize the mega bridge project is no longer financially viable or feasible. Not sure if you were referring to me, Bob, but I never suggested the St. Croix River Valley was a national park, only that if developers and others of their ilk are allowed to trample federal laws designed to protect areas that are worth protecting that it will affect other areas that should also be preserved. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I moved to Stillwater it wasn't because I felt it was "a growing metropolitan area". If you want to live in Woodbury I'm sure there are plenty of foreclosed houses in empty developments to serve your interests. Preserving Stillwater's charm and non-suburban feel should be our highest priority and I'm not sure why so many are working to destroy it.

Hi Bob, sorry to jump in, but I have a couple comments. First, there are nine to ten thousand cars daily, going across the bridge twice - MNDOT puts the current figure at about 18,000 cars on the bridge daily. Second, I don't think anyone wants to keep things as they are - there are alternatives. The Sensible Stillwater Bridge group (they have a website, are on Facebook, and Twitter too), are offering up a much less expensive bridge design that also bypasses downtown. Currently MNDOT is opposed to this design, but they haven't really explained why.

I completely agree with you about the traffic and noise, being as I also live in historic (close to downtown) Stillwater, but I believe there are less expensive alternatives (stated above) than this $690,000,000 project.

Hmmm, well, I am not a part of that group so I can't comment on their past dealings, nor do I really care. What I care about is Minnesota (and Wisconsin) spending their funds in a fiscally responsible manner - a manner that respects, and benefits as many of the state's residents as possible.

If this group has a less expensive alternative, it should be vetted, along with any other reasonable alternative.

I firmly believe there are far more people that support a lesser expensive bridge option than no bridge at all, D. Knutson. As for the rest, I believe if they are being honest they would agree that $700 million is outrageous for a bridge that serves so few people but are so tired of this on going saga that they will support anything just to have it settled, no matter how non-sensical the project is considering today's costs. The easy solution is to devise a more sensible plan that serves both interests and the 99.9 percent of taxpayers who don't deserve to have their hard earned money spent so foolishly. End of story.

Try dealing with reality, D, and stop living in the past. Environmental groups are not going to be charged for the difference and it's the cost of doing business in a democratic society. It sounds like you want to build the bridge out of spite and to pretend that the circumstances haven't changed with the costs doubling is the least responsible thing our public officials can do. It costs what it costs and your lamenting how we got to this point doesn't change the indisputable fact that the current bridge proposal is completely irresponsible to those who will be paying for it.

The Star Tribune editorial of 12/29/11 sums it up best:

U.S. Reps. Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, both Democrats, oppose the proposed project and are echoing much of the rhetoric of a group pushing an alternative three-lane bridge. The group claims that its bridge would cost millions less and be better suited to the area.

Not true, according to MnDOT, which has issued repeated assessments of the group's plan and did so again last month. Not only does the group underestimate costs, its project would also cause greater harm to the environment.

"The impacts are greater on historical properties, bluff areas, floodplains, wetlands, commercial properties and endangered mussel habitat," MnDOT stated in the latest report.

In our view, the diagonal bridge would create a visual eyesore across a huge swath of the landscape -- whereas the preferred four-lane project is a direct blufftop-to-blufftop route.

Enough is enough. McCollum and Ellison should stop throwing up roadblocks on a project that isn't even in their districts. If they succeed in killing the St. Croix River Crossing project, the process for a selecting a new bridge must start all over again, causing years of delay that can only drive up costs.

The four-lane bridge has been thoroughly vetted over the course of three decades. This is the plan that citizens and other stakeholders chose to best meet the traffic needs of the 21st century while causing the least environmental harm.

Hmmmmmmm......how did it happen that a current legislator in Wisconsin was a die-hard Libertarian prior to his election and claimed on his pre-election blog that he was against Big Government spending. Throw out those big-spending rascals he said. Now that he is elected he can't wait to spend our money on a $600 million, $700 million (take your choice) bridge!! Where did that conservative, watch-dog, Libertarian go to? Might be the power of greed? Might also be termed the "Madison Power Grab" and the lowly tax payer be damned.

Anyone care to bet that when all is said and done that the over-engineered St. Croix River bridge will cost $1 billion? I am personally embarassed that we will saddle future generations with that type of debt. We can't afford new schools, we can't afford Social Security increases and we are cutting Medicare. We are told the country is on the verge of bankruptcy!! Yet, we can saddle future generations with a $1 billion bridge that is not necessary.

D Knutson, you are way off the mark. The extradosed bridge over the St. Croix in Stillwater will litterally dwarf the 94 bridges. The piers for the mega bridge are 3 times larger and much taller than the 94 bridge. In fact there is nothing to compare it to in Minnesota. The problem, D Knutson is that the design is entirely inappropriate for this crossing. Too big, too expensive for such a small corridor. and of course the worst part is that it has the potential to destroy the efficacy of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. If you and others want to have a debate to delist the St. Croix River, go right ahead. But the fact remains that the proposed span is illegal in its design and the culprits that have caused this rediculous delay to get a bridge are the forces in MNDOT that decided this monument to "huge" was so necessary they needed to violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to do it. In reality you are having a debate to delist all rivers in the WSRA. Just understand that without it the St. Croix River around Stillwater would not look anything like it does today. It would be cluttered with homes and development right down to the river, degrading the natural environment and history of the valley and certainly the water and recreational desirability of the entire lower river. Ironically he Interior Department is willing to negotiate a comprimise design thatt would not need exempting legislation and will expedite approval for a fiscally responsible solution.

One other item for you fiscal conservatives out there. The local municipality costs of this bridge are not figured in the 700 million dollar price tag. In fact, the upgrades needed to prevent the bottlenecks on the 36 corridor are estimated to cost in the 200 million dollar plus range. The impacts will be felt all the way to Roseville and drive the the true cost of the bridge over a billion dollars. It doesn't stop there. All that road building needs maintenance, the most expensive type of transportation maintenance ever created. In addition the environmental costs of smog in the valley, many more drainage ponds collecting silt and heavy metals with mounting disposal costs will further burden tax payers. No this bridge will not alleviate traffic and automobile emissions in the valley. It will exacerbate them in a way that is destructive of our quality of life and our business vitality while further increasing our property taxes (4-500 bucks/home on average in Oak Park Hts.). Add the municipal subsidy of extending utility services to sprawl development and you really have a financial disaster for communities in the East Metro. This bridge contradicts everything we know about transportation costs, future transportation trends, efficient use of transportation funds and MNDOT's own stated transportation objectives. Go figure.

Changing the lift bridge schedule is not ludicrous! It is a very simple concept to understand that we don't have the back-ups here, other than mild rush hour back-ups, which any small city will have, during the winter. This fact alone should tell you that it is the lift bridge that is causing most of the traffic back-up.

And BTW, my suggestion is not an alternative to a new bridge, it just gives an option that will immediately help ease congestion, and cost almost nothing. Why is it that this won't happen? Because those that have riverboats on this stretch of river, and marinas and boats on the north side of the bridge have too much say in what happens in this town....apparently a few hundred people can not be inconvenienced by an hour or two, in order to ease the traffic back-ups for 10,000 commuters, and improve the "quality of life" for thousands of other residents in this town.

Opponents, do you people honestly think there is some magical “sensible” alternative waiting to be designed if only those silly, greedy, polluting, lying mega-bridge backers would be more reasonable. The requirements of the bridge have been debated for decades thanks to the Sierra club. The three lane bridge was debated in direct comparison to the four lane option and was found to be worse aesthetically and worse for the environment. The only reason that the 3-lane version is being revived now is to cause delay.

It turns out that big bridges cost big $$, and we can’t use a smaller bridge. Ask yourself: would three lanes really cost less than four? Would it be ¾ the cost because it’s ¾ the lanes? No. The cost is not proportional to the lanes. Most of the cost is not for the lanes but for adjacent items and environmental requirements that would cost the same whether the bride is 2, 3, 4, or 10 lanes.

As for saving the pristine river valley, you can’t be serious. Drive your Prius (if you are good enough to want to save our earth -- gas guzzling truck or SUV like mine if you choose to disregard the dangers of CO2) north out of Bayport past the prison, train yard, window plant, gigantic electric transmission lines, gigantic smokestack, trucks and loading docks, power transformers, parking lots, and many other commercial buildings. View the pristine shoreline you are fighting so hard to protect. Then consider the concept of credibility.

McCollum and Taxpayers for Common Sense President Ryan Alexander shared a byline in this piece that ran in Roll Call today. What do you think? http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_91/betty_mccollum_ryan_alexander_proposed_bridge_monument_waste-212143-1.html

McCollum paints a grim picture. But if it's such a bad idea why did the senate pass the bill unanimously? Why is public opinion largely in favor of the plan? And why are WI and MN senators, governors, and representatives from both parties largely in favor of the bridge? Is she that much smarter than everyone else?

Bob and Joe: The cost of the bridge not counting highway 36 upgrades has been estimated to be in the $700,000,000 range, and the redoing of Highway 36 is estimated at $200,000,000. I think your estimate of a little less than $300,000,000 is a pipe dream. The Senate also passed the Bridge to nowhere in Alaska because not enough people opposed it. Thank God we have Congresswoman McCollum stepping in for us, and yes, I think she is smarter than Bachmann, Franken Klocubar all put together! I think this huge bridge would be a great idea for those Wisconsin commuters to have a faster easier way to get over to Minnesota a take our jobs don't you? And it will get worse! If the bridge is built it will be kinda like BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME..I would rather see them drive 5 miles south and go across at 94.

As per your own source, Bob, the total project is estimated to cost over $600 million, and if we are honest, this will run over budget - the work that will have to be done on Hwy 36 for this project, and to upgrade to handle the additional traffic that MNDOT expects this bridge to bring, will be much higher than they have estimated here. It does not matter what the "span" of the bridge costs, the total cost of the project is exceedingly high, for the number of people it will serve.

Joe and Bob...perhaps you should've read my first post. I never said that the total cost of the bridge $700,000,000 plus would be paid by Minnesota alone. Please read my first post above from yesterday. And Joe you don't sound too smart either. Read the first line of your last post. You both sound like Wisconsin commuters...hahahaha..

I understand your point, but shouldn't the fact that this bridge project is nearly three times the cost of any other bridge the state has ever built, be a good indication that it may be out of scale?

I don't love the diagonal bridge either, but in a spend-wisely economy, this MNDOT proposed bridge IS a luxury item.

One more point: It has taken 80 years for the number of commuters using this bridge to grow to 9 or 10,000 daily. Do you really think that the population of one corner, of one county in Wisconsin is going to grow so much that it will justify needing a four-lane, freeway-speed bridge? I mean, where does 64 go on the other side of New Richmond?

Joe: I agree with Susan...she sounds smarter than you and Bob put together.

Joe: I would be willing to bet that you and Bob are cheese heads....hahahaha...

You guys are too funny! One thing is clear, those that have done their research, and have made up their mind, are not going to be swayed by anything said here. I think we can all agree that $700 million dollars is a lot of money, and justifying it, for a relatively small number of people, is a hard thing to do.

For the record Bob, I was not trying to obfuscate anything, suspend any critical thinking, or get anyone riled up. On the contrary, I would hope that my thoughts on the subject would get people seeing the other side of the debate, or consider things they hadn't before considered. Not everyone has a maligning agenda.

I am a staunch Democrat, but I can't back her on this. If redistricting puts me in the position of having to vote for her I don't know what I'll do.

Okay Susan, Randy, Martin, Bill and other bridge opponents. Do you agree with McCollum and "common sense" tax guy Alexander that a new bridge across the St. Croix is needed to replace the aging and deficient lift bridge?

If you do, there are certain costs that will apply to any new bridge. Right of way: $31.4 million. Mitigation: $26.2 million. Contingency/risk: $110 million. Engineering: $55 million. Minnesota approach: $65 million. Wisconsin approach: $38.4 million. Hwy. 36 at Oakgreen/Greeley intersection: $15.3 million. (MNDOT and WSDOT estimates)

So, without even adding the cost of any kind of bridge, we're already at $341.3 million. Even when you add the wildly underestimated initial cost of the Sensible Stillwater Bridge Partnership Alternative of $283 million, that brings the total cost to $624.3 million, conservatively. MNDOT said additional environmental review for the "sensible" bridge could add $10 - $15 million. But let's stick with $624.3 million.

Compare that to the estimated project total for the four-lane river crossing: $633.4 million. Does a mere $9.1 million difference make the current proposal less ridiculous? Or does it make the "sensible" alternative more ridiculous?

If you agree that we need a new bridge, then you have to face the reality that building a new 3,000-foot bridge -- three lanes or four -- over a river protected by miles of bureaucratic red tape is an expensive proposition.

Any argument that argues for a new bridge, like Hudsonser's, is in total agreement with those arguing for a smaller bridge. We do not disagree with the need for a new bridge. Hudsoner has been coming to Stillwater for years and he still sits in traffic for a half hour waiting to get into town. What's wrong with that picture or with Hudsoner's creative thinking. Hudsoner, you can run through the South Hill and reach Stillwater in just a minute or two longer than it takes on 95 and 36 from Bayport to Stillwater. It is like the city attorney lamenting is half hour commute to get from the city buildings to the South Hill. He's been living here for decades and he doesn't know enough to avoid the traffic bottlenecks? Disingenuous, folks. Besides, those reasons don't justify the 700 million dollar price tag or the enormity of this bridge or the necessity to imperil the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. There is no possible way the megabridge piers (that litterally dwarf the 94 bridge in size, footprint and riverbed impact) can be considered attractive in the St. Croix Valley. Of course, the MNDOT siimulation is skilled in skewing perspective, so you can't understand it that way. Bob, you're right. This bridge will be an expensive proposition. But MNDOT needs to rethink it's priorities with regard to the bridge landings. They are the ones that have driven up sensible alternatives. They have chosen confrontation with their design, not the other way around!

I don't understand this demonization of MNDOT. They have been tasked with building a river crossing to replace an aging lift bridge that costs more and more to repair and maintain. What possible motivation do they have for building the most expensive bridge possible?

Is that how they approach every bridge, roadway and interchange project? Or is this project different because they've had to deal with the WSRA and challenges from environmental groups that would prefer to see no bridges touching the bluffs or the riverbed?

Maybe MNDOT's motivation for building a bridge that is structurally sound with sufficient piers is that the 35W bridge collapse is still fresh in our memory. Poor design and cutting corners on that bridge caused the 1900-foot span to fall after only 42 years of use.

Maybe MNDOT's motivation is not hubris, but simply a desire to build a safe river crossing that will serve the transportation needs of the area into the next century.

The builders of the Tacoma suspension bridge, Bechtel, indicate the Tacoma bridge cost about $1,500 per square foot. Given that number a suspension bridge over the narrows of the St Croix north of Stillwater would cost about $180,000,000 OR one hundred and eighty million dollars, 60 foot wide deck (4 traffic lanes and 10 feet for bikes and pedestrians), 2,000 feet long.

An additional 100 million for work on Manning and 96 and 95 and the solution comes in at $280,000,000 OR $420,000,000 less than the proposed bridge.

I'm 100% with McColumn on this. Bachman, Ellison and Klobachar are making a BIG mistake supporting a huge very expensive white elephant, bridge to nowhere.

Government, Don't make this BIG mistake, creating a huge eyesore on the lower St Croix, instead construct a work of art of a suspension bridge to be treasured by photographers and artists alike just north of Stillwater.

Do this RIGHT!