patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

St. Croix River Crossing Bill Passes U.S. House Vote; Local Leaders Ask for Obama's Prompt Signature

"All we need to do is get the president to sign and we're on our way," says Stillwater Council Member Mike Polehna.

 

The St. Croix River Crossing passed through the House of Representatives this morning. The vote passed with a 339-80 vote.

The bill's passage means the legislation now needs to be signed by President Barack Obama.

In a phone interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann this afternoon, she said she "just got of the phone with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and he assured me the President of the United States would be signing the bill, which means we will have a new bridge over Stillwater."

Just this afternoon, delegates signed a letter asking Obama to promptly sign the bill.

On the state level, the city of Oak Park Heights has yet to sign a municipal agreement with MnDOT for the project. The two governmental bodies also have to work out the cost of utility relocation costs.

"What a wonderful day for Stillwater," Council Member Mike Polehna said. "All we need to do is get the president to sign and we're on our way. It's long overdue."

The Minnesota and Wisconsin delegates are "true champions," he said.

The Daily Grind Espresso Cafe was packed with the usual morning crowd, but today everyone was talking about the bridge.

At least a dozen patrons of the coffee shop had their laptops open watching the vote as it happened live online. As the five-minute clock ran out, cheers filled the downtown shop.

"This is one of those where-were-you moments in Stillwater," Tim Palm of the Daily Grind said.

This is an exciting time for downtown Stillwater, but it also means a lot of change, Megan Palm said.

"Don't get me wrong I am all for it, but such a big change is scary," she said. "It's sort of a double-edged sword. You don't know what will happen. It's scary to direct traffic away from downtown Stillwater, but hopefully it will draw the locals back downtown. We'll have to see, but that's what we're hoping for."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar's bipartisan legislation was the vehicle to move the project forward. She offered the following statement:

"After 30 years of debate and delay, we finally got it done. Today is a victory for the residents and businesses along the St. Croix River Valley who have waited long enough for a safe, new bridge. This effort is an example of what can get done when people put politics aside and do what is best for our state. I appreciate the work of my colleagues in the House and Senate as well as Governor Dayton who helped get this project over the finish line."

Stillwater resident and Washington County Commissioner Gary Kriesel who supported the project gave this statement:

"This is a momentous milestone for the St. Croix Valley, with the last barrier to a new river crossing removed today with the vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, which will allow a new bridge to be built across the St. Croix River. Residents of the valley have hoped and planned and worked toward this for years, and the day has finally arrived. It will be a great gift to the communities and all of the state of Minnesota and Wisconsin to have a new crossing. 

I want to thank those who have helped make this possible, especially Rep. Michele Bachmann who has worked diligently to provide the legislative backing for this exemption, as well as her colleagues in the Senate, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, including Governors Dayton and Walker and the congressional delegation from Wisconsin. And I want to thank all the community members who believed in the project for decades, and have worked to plan and fund the bridge, while preserving the natural and historical assets of the valley. 

I see a bright future for us ahead, as we reap the economic benefits that this new river crossing will provide. In the short term, we will be able to put hundreds of construction workers back to work on the building project. But more importantly, the free flow of transportation for people, goods and services is vital to a healthy economy in the valley, and the bridge will provide that. In addition, the reduction of congestion and traffic jams in downtown Stillwater will allow those businesses to provide friendly, down-home service to valley residents who want to visit their own downtown."

Stillwater City Council Member Micky Cook, who was the lone city representative to oppose the project said the following this afternoon:

"The exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a devastating legacy to leave for future generations. 

I want to thank Representative McCollum for her valiant efforts to do the right thing, especially in the face of relentless opposition from her colleagues, except Representative Ellison who also spoke against this action. 

This has been politics at its worst - winning at any cost.  And in this case the cost is 700 million taxpayer dollars and the future of all pristine river ways throughout the entire United States of America. The tactics were brutal and should be a warning to all that apparently the 'end does justify the means' and 'it does matter if you win or lose, not how you play the game.’

On a local level it included reckless spending, with the State Auditor finding against the city of Stillwater for its use of public money to fund the Bridge Coalition. 

On the national level, procedures and laws were ignored or circumvented by making an exemption, using earmarks, putting it on Consent Agenda or a Suspension calendar.  

All in the name of winning, never finding a compromise. 

Opponents of the river crossing can be proud of their efforts to preserve the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and protect taxpayer dollars. Your motives and intentions were for the good of everyone, not just a few. 

I will continue to press for solutions to the congestion in Stillwater. MNDOT proved good on their promise to meet with me. I will pursue any and all options to creatively and effectively deal with the real problem facing Stillwater - as I promised."

Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki and John Soderberg, co-chairs of the Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing, issued the following joint statement:

"Today’s action by the United States House of Representatives is a huge victory for Minnesota and Wisconsin. This vote is the national recognition of decades of meetings, planning sessions, and compromise to find the right solution that benefits the entire region. Today’s vote assures that the St. Croix River Crossing will move forward.

"We are fortunate to see our region’s elected officials working together across party lines to fight for the needs of their constituents.  We are especially thankful to Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Representatives Michele Bachmann, Ron Kind, and Sean Duffy for their hard work on behalf of the St. Croix River Valley.  Governors Mark Dayton and Scott Walker have our deepest appreciation for their direct involvement with Congressional leaders.

"People in the St. Croix River Valley overwhelmingly support this project, and that support has become even more apparent in the last few days as people across the region called and e-mailed their representatives to urge them to pass this legislation.  The people have been heard by Congress.

"We are excited and energized by today’s vote, but we won’t stop working until construction workers start building."

A statement by Stillwater resident Roger Tomten released by the Sensible Stillwater Bridge Partnership in opposition to the project reads:

We all agree that the two-lane Historic Lift Bridge has outlived its usefulness and can not support the estimated 17,000 vehicles that use the bridge nearly every day. We all agree that rush hour and weekend congestion in downtown Stillwater primarily caused by vehicles crossing the Lift Bridge needs to be remedied.

But we are troubled by the reams of misinformation spread by Rep. Bachmann’s allies and parroted by members of Congress as if they were fact. The latest being that the $690 million St. Croix River Crossing is a shovel-ready project. Or that “about half” of the project cost is for environmental mitigation. Or that a defeat of this bill means no bridge will be built. Unbelievable. These wildly exaggerated claims underscore the win-at-all-costs attitude of the Boondoggle Bridge champions.

In the coming weeks, we hope the Minnesota Legislature recognizes the fiscal and environmental irresponsibility of the St. Croix River Crossing and weighs the disproportionate impact its cost will have on other urgent transportation projects throughout our state. It’s too much bridge for too much money.

We firmly believe a Stillwater Bridge replacement can be built in the next three to four years at a cost far less than $690 million, with savings going to other bridge repair projects. Let’s hope Minnesota common sense prevails.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) released the following statement following the vote:

“This is it! After decades of bureaucratic holdups and frivolous lawsuits from radical environmentalists, the people of the St. Croix River Valley will finally have their bridge. I represent the most patient people in the nation and I could not be more thrilled about the outcome of today’s vote.

“One year ago today, I introduced St. Croix River Crossing legislation in the House and now this project has come full circle. From hearings in both chambers to debate in the House last evening, I am pleased we have a successful resolution through today’s passage.

“The St. Croix River Crossing Project is an incredible project that has incredible, bipartisan support. It is not very often that we get all four senators from Minnesota and Wisconsin, the governors from Minnesota and Wisconsin, and a diverse group of representatives on board with the same issue. I give my heartfelt thanks to the supporters of this project. I also thank House leadership for recognizing the urgency of the issue and bringing this vote to the floor.

“I now look forward to this bill receiving the President’s signature so that construction can begin on this much-needed project.”

U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), an opponent of the bill, issued the following statement:

“Every policy debate has two sides and I worked hard to reflect the voices of Minnesotans in the 4th District, as well as those Stillwater and Oak Park Heights residents who are deeply concerned about this mega-bridge project.

“Congress’ passage of this $700 million bridge bill doesn’t diminish its excessive cost, size, negative effect on Highway 36 traffic congestion, or its adverse impact on the St. Croix River.

“Supporters of this legislation, including Senators Klobuchar and Franken, and Gov. Dayton, assume responsibility for protecting communities along Highway 36 from crippling traffic congestion and the families and businesses of Oak Park Heights from property tax increases – the direct consequences of the project they so strongly championed. 

“I want to thank my friend and Minnesota colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison (MN-05) for his eloquence on the floor of the House in opposition to S. 1134.  I share Congressman Ellison’s concern that replacing one bridge at a cost of $700 million to the exclusion of more than 1,100 other structurally deficient bridges in Minnesota places too many communities and motorists at risk.  I am committed to working with Rep. Ellison, Gov. Dayton and all Minnesota members of Congress and state legislators to repair or replace these substandard bridges.”

The Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce posted the following status update on Facebook:

Today is a historic day for the entire St. Croix Valley Region. We owe a huge amount of gratitude and thanks to Governors Mark Dayton, Scott Walker, and to Senator Amy Klobuchar for all their support; and to Representatives Michele Bachmann, Ron Kind and Sean Duffy who did an outstanding job on the house floor last night; and to the St. Croix River Crossing Coalition consulting team, board members and supporters who worked tirelessly to reach today’s vote; and finally, we owe a special think you to Stillwater mayor, Ken Harycki, for his unyielding leadership over the many years that led to this historic moment. Thank you to all!!

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) issued the following statement:

“The passage of this bill means that we’ll finally be able to meet the growing transportation needs of the St. Croix River Valley and support continued economic development in the region.

“Thank you and congratulations to the local stakeholders; federal, state and local agencies; and private entities in the community that have worked so hard on this project. This bridge not only addresses the critical safety concerns of the region but also maintains the scenic and recreational value of the St. Croix Riverway. I’m proud to have supported the project for the last 16 years and am thrilled that we will be able to build the bridge that the citizens and communities need and deserve.”

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) released the following statement after voting against S.1134, the St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act:

“I have consistently supported replacing the Stillwater Lift Bridge. However, the design the House of Representatives authorized today is both oversized and overpriced.Many bridges in our state need repair. Limited transportation funds should be used responsibly for projects throughout the state. For  example, the Interstate 35W Bridge, which tragically fell into the Mississippi River four years ago, cost $234 million to rebuild in its entirety and carries 140,000 vehicles daily. By contrast, the St. Croix Bridge is expected to cost $700 million and carry 18,000 vehicles a day.

“Minnesota has 1,400 neglected bridges statewide that need repair, including in the Fifth Congressional District. A right-sized St. Croix bridge would allow other communities to repair the bridges they need, creating good Minnesota jobs and preserving our state’s scenic river areas. By exempting the bridge from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Congress is also setting a precedent that would justify building bridges over any of the country’s Wild and Scenic Rivers. I join Former Vice President Walter Mondale, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and local and national environmental organizations in opposing this bill.

“I will continue to work for smart investments in Minnesota’s roads and bridges that create good jobs for our state.”

U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) issued the following statement:

“I commend my colleagues on both ends of the political spectrum for coming together to get this important bill through the House. There is much that divides us, but on this issue it was incredibly refreshing to work with Democrats and Republicans alike toward a common goal for both our region and our local economy. It’s unfortunate that this bridge required congressional action in the first place, but I’m thrilled to see that decades of work has not gone to waste.

“Rep. Kind and Rep. Baldwin both deserve immense amounts of credit for the work they put in on the Democrat side and I also must thank Senator Klobuchar for her tireless efforts in the Senate along with Senator Ron Johnson and all their colleagues who pushed for this bill to move. My colleagues on the Republican side have done so much to help, too and I thank Rep. Bachmann for her efforts to see this bill through to passage.”

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) issued the following statement:

“I’m gratified that the House of Representatives has given final approval to the St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act. After having passed the Senate with unanimous support, I am very hopeful that the President will sign this important legislation into law.

“This bill authorizes no additional federal funding. The state governments will take the lead in financing this initiative. The only question at this point is whether Washington will continue to prevent the states from acting to address this longstanding problem. I’m pleased that a broad majority of both the House and the Senate agree: it is time for the federal government to get out of the way.

"This legislation would not have passed without the leadership of Senator Amy Klobuchar and the help of Senators Al Franken and Herb Kohl. I’m also gratified that so many of my Wisconsin delegation colleagues in the House, led by Congressman Sean Duffy, supported this initiative."

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) issued the following statement:

“I commend the U.S. House of Representatives for voting in favor of the St. Croix River Project today.  After decades of work, this bill is now going to the president’s desk.  This legislation was a top federal priority for my administration and is a great example of bipartisanship teamwork that will create thousands of jobs.  The construction of this safer, better bridge will bring a welcome economic boost to the region.  I thank Congressmen Sean Duffy and Ron Kind, as well as Senators Ron Johnson and Herb Kohl, along with the many others who worked on this legislation in Wisconsin and Minnesota including Governor Mark Dayton, for their diligence and persistence in bringing this legislation across the finish line.”   

Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN) also issued this statement to Minnesota Public Radio:

"I am delighted to see this important project move forward; this new bridge is urgently needed. The project will put thousands of people in the construction industry to work. "I am very grateful to the House Leadership for expediting the bill. Thank you to Congresswoman Bachmann, Senator Klobuchar, Governor Walker of Wisconsin Stillwater Mayor Harycki, and all of our partners on this project."

Wisconsin State Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls) issued the following statement:

"I am thrilled that the United States House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to approve the legislation allowing a new St. Croix River Crossing.  The efforts of the broad, bipartisan work on this legislation among elected officials of the two states has been vindicated by the unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and the 339-80 vote today in the U.S. House.  I commend U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for leading the effort, as well as both states’ U.S. Senators and members of Congress that worked to advance this bill.

"If this legislation is signed into law by President Obama, Wisconsin and Minnesota can finally begin construction on this vital transportation link.  The residents of our region have waited decades to see this bridge project proceed to improve the safety of motorists, relieve traffic congestion, and ensure timely delivery of emergency services.  I am pleased that another step has been taken towards authorizing the St. Croix River Crossing and am hopeful that the President will approve this legislation quickly."

Wisconsin State Assembly Rep. Dean Knudson (R-Hudson) issued the following statement: 

"I'm delighted!  I applaud the bipartisan spirit displayed in both the U.S. Senate and the House to move this project forward.  Western Wisconsin desperately needs a modern crossing over the St. Croix River to replace the antiquated Stillwater Bridge.  No other bridge project in the history of our nation has had a more thorough review.  The construction jobs will be just a small portion of the economic benefit that will result in the creation thousands of jobs in coming years for our region.  During my time as mayor of Hudson I dealt first hand with the traffic congestion, delays, and safety issues caused by the frequent closures of this outdated bridge. Since joining the Wisconsin legislature as state Representative for St. Croix County, this project has been a top priority. I couldn't be happier for the people of the St. Croix River valley, one of Wisconsin's most economically dynamic regions."

Daryl Standafer, chair of the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors issued the following statement:

After nearly 50 years of anticipation, the citizens of the St. Croix Valley are finally able to look forward to a New River Bridge across the St. Croix River to replace the historic but obsolete lift bridge between St. Croix County Wisconsin and Washington County Minnesota.  Today, the United States House of Representatives approved the necessary Congressional exception to allow the bridge project to proceed. 

This action follows unanimous approval in January by the United States Senate.  On behalf of the citizens of St. Croix County, I express our thanks and appreciation not only to the primary author of the legislation, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, but also to her Senate colleagues, Sen. Franken, Sen.Kohl and Sen. Johnson.  We are especially grateful to the leadership demonstrated in the House of Representatives by Rep. Ron Kind, Rep. Sean Duffy and Rep. Michele Bachmann.

In addition, we are very appreciative of the continuing support from the hundreds of concerned citizens who worked on this project.  This is truly a milestone for our area, and a testament to the hard work of many people who had the vision and persistence to run the race to the end.  Together, we can accomplish great things.

Bill Rubin, executive director of the St. Croix Economic Development Corporation issued the following statement:

“The vote in the House affirms St. Croix County’s important position within the 13-county metro area. Bridge supporters have said from the beginning that the proposed river crossing was a regional transportation project for the eastern portion of the Twin Cities and west central Wisconsin. The 2003-2006 environmental streamlining process recommended the most appropriate corridor for the crossing. Even though it was arduous at times, the streamlining process and stakeholders came together and produced a solution. The U.S. Senate and House followed suit.”

Alan Burchill, mayor of the city of Hudson, issued the following statement:

"The passage of the St. Croix River Crossing bill is giant plus for the City of Hudson and western Wisconsin.  It will enable people to get to their destinations in a safe and timely manner.  It also will save our downtown from uncontrolled congestion and loss of business.  Thank you all of the people and organizations who worked to make this happen in a bipartisan manner."

Kim Heinemann, president of the Hudson Area Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau issued the following statement:

"Today's action by the United States House of Representatives is a huge victory for Wisconsin and Minnesota.  This vote is the national recognition of decades of meetings, planning sessions, and compromise to find the right solution that benefits the entire region.  Today's vote assures that the St. Croix River Crossing will move forward.

"We are fortunate to see our region's elected officials working together across party lines to fight for the needs of their constituents.  We are especially thankful to Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Representatives Michele Bachmann, Ron Kind, and Sean Duffy for their hard work on behalf of the St. Croix River Valley.  Governors Mark Dayton and Scott Walker have our deepest appreciation for their direct involvement with Congressional leaders.

"People in the St. Croix River Valley overwhelmingly support this project, and that support has become even more apparent in the last few days as people across the region called and e-mailed their representatives to urge them to pass this legislation.  The people have been heard by Congress.

"We are excited and energized by today's vote, but we won't stop working until construction workers start building."

Editor's Note: This post is being updated as new reactions and statements are being gathered.

----

UPDATED From 4:23 a.m.

The fate of the St. Croix River Crossing Project will be decided by a suspension vote today in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The proposed legislation granting the first-ever exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act needs a two-thirds majority vote to pass.

If that happens, MnDOT has said construction for the $690 million river crossing project could start in late 2013 or early 2014.

If the legislation is defeated, the bill could still come to a full House vote next week; or it could die, and it would be back to the drawing board.

The Usual Suspects

Last night’s debate brought forth the same arguments residents of the St. Croix River Valley have heard for years.

While everyone agrees the Stillwater Lift Bridge needs to be replaced, this proposal pits Representatives Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Gov. Mark Dayton, Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.), as well as Gov. Scott Walker and members of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation.

Bachmann urged her colleagues to support a bill that would allow the construction of “one of the longest, if not the longest, unfinished bridge projects in the history of the United States.”

“If Representative McCollum gets her way, she will kill building the bridge over the St. Croix River,” Bachmann said. And if that happens, McCollum would be acting against the wishes of 86 percent of the people that live and reside in the St. Croix River Valley, she said.

“The responsibility for the increased costs of building this bridge rests squarely on the shoulders of Representative McCollum and on her compatriots who have fought for decades to kill the building of this bridge.”

But McCollum didn’t back down from her stance that S. 1134 is a controversial piece of legislation that shouldn’t be on the suspension calendar in the first place. The bill represents “wasteful government spending, bad transportation policy and bad environmental policy,” she said.

“The aging Stillwater Lift Bridge needs to be replaced – everyone agrees on that – but I support a more affordable and more appropriately-scaled replacement bridge,” McCollum said.

But she also argues that the bill is an earmark, violates the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and will result in a tax increase for the residents and business owners in Oak Park Heights.

A scaled-down bridge would allow other transportation projects across the state to move forward," McCollum said.

Ellison agreed.

“Suspension is supposed to be noncontroversial,” he said. “We’re supposed to be here passing post offices, but we’re here dealing with, what is, absolutely a controversial piece of legislation on the suspension calendar with no chance to amend.”

Ellison urged his colleagues to vote against the bill because it would “soak up resources” that other people need.

“I am incredibly sensitive to the need to fix the state’s bridges, our nation’s bridges, which is why I’m against this project,” Ellison said. “This bridge is important. I feel for the folks and want them to have their bridge. I would support a sane, sensible bridge.”

Ellison said he hopes this bill is defeated on suspension and sent back through the committee process so “some sensible amendments” may be offered up.

“This is not a good use of taxpayer money,” he said

The bridge would have cost $80 million to complete in 1992 if McCollum’s “compatriots” wouldn't have tied this bridge project up for decades in the federal courts; “in nuisance lawsuits,” Bachmann said.

“Representative McCollum is suggesting that we should be building a two or a three-lane bridge,” Bachmann said. “Why would you build a bridge that would be obsolete the day that it's opened? You would build a commonsense four-lane bridge to connect two four-lane highways.”

Wisconsin Delegates Unite

While Minnesota’s congressional delegation sparred, the Wisconsin’s representatives showed a strong, bipartisan front in support of the project.

“I have been living and breathing this issue for the last 16 years, and Mr. Speaker, it is time to build the bridge,” Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) said. “It’s unfortunate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is being used to bludgeon a major infrastructure project that will create jobs in this region when we need them the most.”

After visiting the bridge last year and “listening to all sides of the argument,” Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said the legislation is necessary, reasonable and time-sensitive.

Rep. Rush Holt D-New Jersey) countered that is was a “bridge gone too far.” Should Congress exempt the project from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, “it’s hard to imagine any future bridge that won’t receive a Congressional waiver like this.”

There’s very little that’s wild or scenic about the location, Kind said. That’s why the location was chosen.

Rep. Sean Duffy backed his Wisconsin counterparts while taking issue with McCollum’s claim that the river crossing is a bridge to nowhere.

“Houlton, Wisconsin may not have a stop sign,” McCollum said, “but today Congress could give it a $700 million bridge.”

If this is a project serving 380 people in Houlton, explain how 18,000 people cross that bridge every day, Duffy said.

“You are dealing with the largest growing county in Wisconsin and the 13th largest metropolitan area in the country,” Duffy said. “That’s what this bridge connects.”

The project has been talked about for decades, it is “shovel-ready,” and will create thousands of jobs, Duffy said.

“You have Vikings and Packers supporting this bill. This is a remarkable day,” he said. “We can’t find bipartisan support in the 15 months I’ve been here, but its here tonight on the House floor. This is a great bill. It gets the job done.” 

‘Get it Done’

When asked how he was feeling the day before the project comes to a House vote, Stillwater Council Member Mike Polehna said he’s optimistic, and will be relieved one way or the other to have resolve.

“This has been debated for 60 years. Sixty years,” Polehna said. “Get it done already. This is a divisive issue in Stillwater and people are tired of it. Get it done, and let’s move on.”

Council Member Doug Menikheim said he’s an optimist; and he believes this project will move forward after all these years.

“We’ve done as much as we could,” he said. “We’ve worked hard and I will be comfortable with whatever the outcome might be

Mayor Ken Harycki said he's excited.

The governor’s deadline really got the ball rolling, he said. Bachmann and Klobuchar are “burning the midnight oil” and the laborers have really “been coming through for us” down the stretch.

This is a full-court press, Harycki said. Everyone is working really hard.

“This is what the people of Stillwater want,” Harycki said. “But they have bridge fatigue. They just want to get it done.

“I can’t wait for the vote to come out.”

Related Topics: Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Michele Bachmann, Ron Kind, Sean Duffy, St Croix River Crossing, and Stillwater

Brian Hybicki

10:16 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012

I haven't been living in the St.Croix valley for very long and even I'm tired of hearing about it. When you cannot even use the current bridge during spring thaw you know there's issues. JUST BUILD IT!!

Reply

Jim

9:52 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

What a disaster!!

MnDOT built the Wacota bridge which cracked and is being held together with cables. The same design pedestrian bridge over LRT failed with broken cables. The I35W bridge took a digger.

And MnDOT is allowed to design and construct a bridge of the same design over the middle of the senic Lake St Croix for $700,000,000 to serve 9,000 commuters a day.

This sucker has already EARNED the title "Bridge To Nowhere" and it hasn't even been constructed.

I'm afraid I will live to witness another bridge failure in Minnesota. Being a Conservative who don't normally support Betty M. I have to swallow my leanings on this one and support Betty, there is no way this should be built! Many options are available: move the Andersen plant to Wisconsin, relocate Andersen workers to Minnesota with incentives, build a 2 lane suspension bridge north of Stillwater. There are many bridges over the St Croix including the High Bridge for railroad.

A very sad day for Lake St Croix, Minnesota residents, St Croix boaters etc.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Susan

10:30 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012

I agree Jim. It is very worrisome to put this extradosed bridge in MNDOT's hands. The design is new, and MNDOT does not have any experience. I am surprised that this wasn't part of the debate.

Comment_arrow

Alex Mundy

1:19 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Give it up, Jim and Susan. Common sense has prevailed. Maybe you can take comfort in the fact that MnDOT personnel don't actually design, build or inspect any of the bridges. They hire other people to do that. And I think this bridge will be under a lot of scrutiny during construction.

Look at it this way. You'll live to witness a more peaceful, pedestrian-friendly Stillwater with a beautiful bridge in the distance whisking people efficiently from one state to another. And what better view will you get of Lake St. Croix than from 200 feet above it?

Comment_arrow

Susan

1:28 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

I concede Bob....doesn't change my opinion though.

Wasn't 35W under MNDOT's supervision when it fell? Even if it was a different company that inspected, wasn't it MNDOT's job to oversee it?

I can not wait for people to see the size of this thing when it is built. Twenty stories high, as wide as BOTH the I94 bridges, and twice as tall...for 1/3 the traffic. Yes, I am sure those in Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo will enjoy the sound and view of the whisking cars and trucks all day and night.

Susan

10:24 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Interesting to see the breakdown of the votes. Well, I guess it's one (important) signature from reality. It went through the process and passed, so be it.

Reply

Frazzle

10:45 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012

So when does it get to the desk of the president?

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Micheal Foley

11:47 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012

LONG ANSWER: Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution says, "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

SHORT ANSWER: No longer than two weeks.

Charles Buehler

10:51 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Congraulations on finally writing a unbiased article. Well done, keep up this kind of reporting. Thank you

Reply

kk

12:17 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

and with fuel nearing 4.00 a gallon how many crossings will be a value. no possible mass rail, the cheapest none water transpotaion, for this area or country. if raygun had not allowed the destruction of the rail system we would not have many of the issue today. interstates would still be drivable minimal road traffic in the metro. sad day that forward thinking has been replaced by backward reactive failure.

Reply

Ja Stoddart

12:29 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Still has to go to the state for authorization where it may or may not be approved given the needs in other parts of the state and how this will bankrupt the funds.

Reply

roger

12:47 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

"Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were roaring drunk on petroleum. Love, 2006 A.D. -Kurt Vonnegut"

Reply

Frazzle

1:46 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

I believe the funds have all ready been set aside by both states. With both governors on board I doubt it will fail at a state level

Reply

Jim

4:33 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

This IS a stupid arse bridge. There is NO NEED for a 4 lane 65 MPH 5,000 foot long behemoth bridge over the middle of Lake St Croix to provide a quick ride home for Andersen Windows employees. Those employees could very quickly move to Minnesota OR the Andersen plant could move to Wisconsin.

Especially when Government can't upgrade highway 36 through Oakdale which carries 40,000 vehicles a day. The highway 36/120 intersection is the 15th most dangerous intersection in Minnesota. YET we are wasting $700,000,000 (SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS) on a bridge 10 miles farther east from the Twin Cities.

Government is CLEARLY broken!

Further comments on the "Bridge To Nowhere" are a waste of time.

Reply

Amy

5:26 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

I live in Houlton and travel across the Stillwater bridge daily. It is frightening to do knowing how bad of shape it is in. It is also a hassle with the amount of traffic and the lift going up all the time in the summer. WE NEED THE NEW BRIDGE!!!! Unless you live right here and are affected daily by this...you don't really see the whole picture. It is NOT a waste of money, but a saving grace for those of us affected by it. Do us all a favor and quit complaining about something that won't hurt you yet helps many!!!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Susan

5:38 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Another Wisconsin resident wanting Minnesota to pay half the tab so she can get to work easier - paying more hurts everyone. Yes, we all want a new bridge, but the size and price of this mega bridge makes it the wrong bridge. So many other bridges (in both states) could have been repaired if a smaller, less expensive bridge were built here. BTW, I live right here...two blocks from Main Street.

Comment_arrow

Jim

6:07 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Amy, when was someone killed in a traffic wreck on the bridge?

In Oakdale at 120 and 36 2 pedestrians have been killed in 2 years and yet MnDOT won't construct a bridge for a mere $9 million.

You know Amy there are thousands of houses in Minnesota "For Sale".

Nowhere is there a statement in law providing for a $700,000,000 bridge so you aren't hassled. Was the lift bridge in place before you moved to Wisconsin and took a job in Minnesota?

Anyone of average IQ would see this bridge is a waste of money!!

Comment_arrow

Ja Stoddart

6:27 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

it would be cheaper to by you a new house on the right side of the river than subsidize your commute on that mega monstrosity. If you charged a buck a trip across it it would take over a hundred to pay it off.

Comment_arrow

Becky Kirkpatrick

3:58 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012

Yes, another Wisconsin resident that works in MN and PAYS TAXES IN MN!

Comment_arrow

Susan

4:32 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012

I always chuckle when I hear the Wisconsin commuters scream that they pay taxes, and spend money in Minnesota. The truth is, only a tiny fraction of one percent of all the money spent here comes across that bridge. How much do you think those 9000 commuters have paid over the years in taxes? $1 million dollars? $10 million dollars? $100 million? And how much is this bridge?

Comment_arrow

Becky Kirkpatrick

4:48 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012

Well, of course we scream about paying taxes in MN, that's the whole point. Those taxes we pay are supposed cover the infrastructure and services we use.

Comment_arrow

Susan

5:25 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012

With the important part of your statement being "supposed" to cover. I understand your point, but sadly in this case, your funds fall far short. Hopefully this thing will stand for eighty years and be used by millions.

Susan

5:35 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Harycki says: "We are excited and energized by today’s vote, but we won’t stop working until construction workers start building."
Translation: We will continue to spend huge amounts of tax payer dollars on lobbyists.

Bachmann says: It is not very often that we get all four senators from Minnesota and Wisconsin, the governors from Minnesota and Wisconsin, and a diverse group of representatives on board with the same issue.
Translation: I guess Governor Dayton wasn't crazy after all. His deadline is what got this thing done.

Reply

Minnesota

8:31 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

Thank you Jim and Susan for sharing the opinions of others!!!

Reply

Jim

9:48 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

There needs to be an investigation of MnDOT and why the decision was made to build the bridge AND why build a bridge at all AND why use the designs proposed?

The Wacota bridge failed right after it was built and is now held together with bailing wire, cable. The cable fills the inspection tunnel so it can't be properly inspected.

We all know what happened to the I35W bridge.

Recently the pedestrian bridge over the LRT failed, not a MnDOT bridge but designed by a MnDOT contractor.

Note: the proposed St Croix bridge resembles the Hiawatha pedestrian bridge that failed. The Hiawatha pedestrian bridge and the St Croix bridge are both a held up with cables. The Hiawatha bridge is 5 years old and inspected 6 months ago and cables BROKE. And now after further inspections MORE fractures were found in metal parts.

MnDOTs track record on bridges is pathetic at best. It's time to investigate MnDOTs entire operation with emphasis on bridge needs analysis, project prioritizations, design, contracting, maintenance/construction supervision, inspections, upgrade decisions.

MnDOT is in desparate need of a complete audit.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Old Mort

12:20 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012

MNDOT isn,t the only ones in need of an audit. In my opinion Bachmann, Dayton, Frankin and Klobuchar (I voted for most of these people) have shown their inexperience for making the big decisions. In my opinion Bachmann has done really nothing in her career except to help push this bridge to nowhere through. She touted the fact she was an Iowan. I hope the voters in her new district remember that. Franken... I can't come up with much of anything hes done either. Klobuchar isn't a bad congress-woman, but in my opinion I don't think she was thinking very well on this fiasco. Dayton...He argued with the republicans about cutting the budget because Minneota was nearly broke and the State even closed down for awhile, What did it get us? Everybody got screwed especially the people who were barely getting by and the retired people because he made a deal with the republicans to take away our property tax and renters credit refunds. Now all of a sudden we hear...well I guess we aren't so broke after all...Hey we found some extra cash! Let's build a monster bridge ($350,000,000 + is our share) between Holton and Oakpark Hts to make it easier for the 9000 commuters from Wisconsin to take our Minnesota jobs! Let's build a new football stadium ($398,000,000 our share) to have the Vikings play 8 games in per season. That is what Dayton is doing with the property tax refunds. None of these people will get my vote come re-election time. I just hope a lot of other people feel this way.

Comment_arrow

country boy

11:24 am on Monday, March 5, 2012

Jim, After reading some of your previous posts you seem to have conflicting opinions concerning bridge construction. You have been tooting your horn for the north corridor(read: DEAD) with a SUSPENSION bridge. What is a suspension bridge held up with? Twine? Now you are pointing out the new design incorporates cables for construction and is not a viable option in your opinion, due to the recent problems with other cable failures recently surfacing. Please explain the difference between your choice and what is on the table for the new bridge construction. Your posting credibility is at stake now due to flip flopping on structural components usage.

HHF34

11:23 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

The important thing to remember is that the bulk majority of the $700M tab is not the actual construction of the bridge but to pay back all of the litigation that surrounded it as was pointed out my Rep. Duffy..

Reply
Comment_arrow

Ja Stoddart

11:38 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012

I'm not sure that is the facts, but I'd like to see the source of that statement.
At any rate I'm sure there will be more litigation after things get signed off and it becomes a legal reality. As of now it's not.

Comment_arrow

Susan

7:35 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/pdfs/status/CHAP%20152TotalProjCostEstimateFeb2011.pdf
Project cost estimate:
1. Hwy 36, intersections Oakgreen and Greeley: $15.3 million
2. Minnesota approach: $ $65 million
3. River bridge: $ 292 million
4. Wisconsin approach: $ 38.4 million
5. Right of way: $ 31.4 million
6. Mitigation estimate: $ 26.2 million
7. Contingency/Risk: $110 million
8. Engineering: $ 55 million
----------------MNDOT's potential total cost: $574 - $690 million
MN potential cost: $ 320-$380 million
WI potential cost: $ 250-310 million

Keep in mind: MNDOT has admitted that they are unfamiliar with this design, and there could be cost overruns.

Comment_arrow

D. Knutson

4:23 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012

@ Susan. you forgot one.....

9. The Look on all the bridge opposers faces when they learned the bill passed..... PRICELESS

Comment_arrow

Susan

4:35 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012

That's kinda funny, but I think most expected it -there's been too much money thrown at this thing.

ralph larson

7:27 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

Ralph Larson
I have contacted demographers in both states and found that there never was a study of growth potential in St.Croix County to justify the monster bridge. I did an analysis for the Patch which showed that the current bridge style could effectively handle traffic well into the future if it were located south of Stillwater with no traffic lights and a straight shot from Hw.36.
There's some politics here someplace , and I'll leave it to someone else to guess at the conspiracy .

Reply
Comment_arrow

Ja Stoddart

7:44 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

Ralph, the sad thing is I'm not sure it's a conspiracy as much as it is a feedback loop of incompetence. No matter what you look at the data doesn't support this thing.

Comment_arrow

Susan

7:47 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

Center for Community & Economic Development
University of Wisconsin‐Extension: http://stcroix.uwex.edu/files/2011/03/state_of_western_wi1.pdf

Percent Change in Population: 2010 Estimates to 2030 Projections: 57.7%

57.7% is for the entire county, which is by in large serviced by I94, but even if you use the 57% number, the number of daily commuters on the new bridge will be approximately 14,000 daily commuters, or 28,000 cars by 2030. As far as anything beyond that, one can only guess, but I don't believe this bridge will reach capacity before it needs to be replaced.

Comment_arrow

D. Knutson

8:01 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

I'm surprised it took this many posts for the word "conspiracy" to be used.  That's right out of the liberal playbook, just like the diversionary tactics of "the bridge will fall into the river" theories; the 494 bridge in South St Paul, the 35w bridge, the bridge over the $700 million light (as in lightly used) rail cited as reasons.  If we all took that type of advice and wasted more time, the Lift Bridge would be added to the list, and you'd be blaming MNDOT for not building the sensible bridge or any new bridge fast enough. 

Now that we are getting a new bridge, I think all the opposers should reach into their big fat bank accounts and pony up the difference in the $80 million cost 20 years ago and the $700 million today.  But I'm sure if they paid up, we'd need to put a windmill and solar panels on the bridge, and only drive hybrid or electric cars across it.  

What a great day for Stillwater and the St Croix Valley!!!

Comment_arrow

Susan

8:11 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

D., do you not hold MNDOT at all responsible. They chose a design they are unfamiliar with, that violated the law, and stuck to it for all these years. I am sorry, but because of all their failures, I do not trust their judgement - not on the safety of the lift bridge, not on the supervision, and oversight when 35W failed, and not on their decision on this design, or ability to build it without problems.

Comment_arrow

STW

8:56 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

D.Knutson, And some us is surprise it took you this long to figure out a way to post "liberal playbook". You always write the funniest stuff.

Carl

8:32 am on Friday, March 2, 2012

Wow. I just noticed the trail system and connections.

When partnered with the Brown's Creek project, we will have trail from Bayport/OPH with access well into the West Metro.

This is pretty exciting.

Reply

Mike Hammer

7:30 am on Saturday, March 3, 2012

I know that the winners in this game are exceeding happy with the victory. Geez people, I didn't know that this was like a football game; I would have put some money on the point spread. Or as developers have said, "By some land across the river, you'll be millionaires some day." I think the winners should go to Stokes Jewelry and have rings made with a little twenty story bridge on it. That takes a great deal of gold but apparently we have it...

Reply

William Pappas

5:13 am on Monday, March 5, 2012

In reading these posts I'm not too surprised that even some legislators are still revising history. To blame those opposed to such an unpredecented costly and huge bridge with the huge cost of it is really demagogeury and misinformation at it's best. Any legislator or council member that is still engaging in that rehtoric should apologize. Look no further than MNDOT and their insistance in designing a bridge that ignored every premise of the WSRA and made a mockery of fiscal responsibility. That was the problem from the get-go and every step they took from that point was directed toward a necessary narrative to get the exemptions and obscene cost approved. Shame on opponents for continuing to blame those interested in alternatives to destroying our river protections or looking for lower cost altelrnatives.

Reply

William Pappas

5:32 am on Monday, March 5, 2012

Tim and Megan Palm should be apprehensive. Do they really think removing 18000 cars a day will be replaced by local residents that have been driven away by the traffic. Does Johnny's TV actually think more Wisconsin residents will do business with them when they have to drive all the way across the South Hill and downtown to get to the store? Or do they plan on moving into a new mall sprawl just over the Wisconsin bluff? Do HW 36 businesses think more Wisconsin residents will stop at their stores when a freeway makes it more convenient to do their shopping closer to home? Do the Palms think that US taxpayers, and taxpayers from anywhere in Wisconsin and Minnesota (other than Stillwater and the tiny commuting area in Wisconsin that will use this bridge) should foot the bill and delay their own bridge problems for this "signature" bridge that could have been made smaller and with more fiscal restraint? Does future overdevelopment of the St. Croix river and assured smog that will accompany the three fold traffic increase in and out of the valley make business better for the coffee shop? Are the Palms proud that the every single river in the Wild and Scenic River system has been sacrificed for the interests of a very few local businesses and Wisconsin commuters when other alternatives were actually available to accomlish their goals? The very sad part is that the discussion was so directed by supporters, any other view was branded as obstructionist and selfish.

Reply
Comment_arrow

D. Knutson

7:49 am on Monday, March 5, 2012

Nothing like misrepresenting the truth.  
Wait until this fall when the bridge is closed for repairs, most local people that love going downtown remember the last time is was shut down for repairs.  They were the people that visited the businesses more often than normal because the traffic was down. Businesses did very well then, a sign of the future with the bridge 
Drive through the South Hill to get to Johnnies TV and other downtown businesses?   Do you think the Downtown business owners and council would be supporting this project if there were no exit and entrance ramps to Hwy 95?  
Not only will people from Wisconsin continue to shop at the businesses alone Hwy 36, the amount of shopping will probably increase from those people from across the river.  Why?  Simple.  The cost of buying most products here are lower due to higher sales and fuel taxes.    There are people that don't come across the river now to shop because it takes too long to get through Stillwater. 
And the cost thing?  The cost was never an issue back in 1992 when the opposers blocked the project, and the minority opposition is what was a huge factor in driving the design of the bridge and costs where they are today.   

Comment_arrow

Alex Mundy

10:19 am on Monday, March 5, 2012

I'm sure if there is "mall sprawl" just over the Wisconsin bluff, Bill, your company will be the first in line with the bulldozers to rip up Mother Earth and plop down another 350,000-square-foot HOM Furniture store with a 16-acre parking lot. At least you'll be able to work closer to home. What a hypocrite!

country boy

11:32 am on Monday, March 5, 2012

William, Your analysis is getting old. The old bridge is gonna plop into the river some day. Then what? I will be pointing toward all the obstructionists that have plinked their 2 cents in to the debate with lawsuits, and other tactics that have delayed this project for 3 plus decades. The whining I am looking forward to is the sounds of the new bridge being built. When the POTUS signs the bill, your arguments become mute!

Reply
Comment_arrow

joe

11:45 am on Monday, March 5, 2012

Has anyone seen any information on when POTUS will sign the bill? I don't see anything in the news and I won't believe it until it's signed.

The whining by the opposers is rather entertaining and reveals their root concern from the start, which is not cost but the resultant development of Wisconsin and the river. It's about time that the public pushes back against the radical environmental quasi-religious green-at-all-costs agenda. Being green isn't free, as is demonstrated by the cost of this bridge.
I wonder on what grounds the Sierra Club will file its lawsuit.

Comment_arrow

Susan

12:00 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

"Quasi-religious"? That's hilarious!

Comment_arrow

D. Knutson

12:17 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

I guess worshiping "Mother Earth" or hugging and loving on a bunch of trees, claiming global cooling, then global warming, or the current climate change verbiage is not quasi-religious?
Unlike the enviro whack-jobs, the Earth is not my Mother......
Give me a leather coat with fur lining, a big thick steak on a charcoal grill, a fast car with big V-8 and a 4-barrel carb burning high test gasoline to drive across the bridge into the beautiful Wisconsin countryside, that'll make the hemp clothes people take the bridge for another reason.....

Comment_arrow

William Pappas

7:23 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Country Boy, I don't follow your logic. More bridges in worse shape than the Stillwater Bridge will now have to wait for replacement because of the obscene cost of this St. Croix Crossing. More people have been put at risk due to the fiscal irresponsibility of this infrastructure hog.

Susan

12:24 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

I hate to break it to you two, but, although the Sierra Club typically works for green issues, they fought this bridge because it violated the WSRA. It had nothing to do with pushing a religious agenda (no matter how you want to define that), or because it wasn't green enough. How exactly would you build a religion-promoting, green bridge?

Reply

joe

12:32 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Yes. It's quasi-religious because its beliefs are taken on faith not fact. It goes beyond a healthy and necessary respect for the environment and is a WORSHIP of our mother earth. In concept there may be no downside, but in application by staunch environmentalists it works against the interests of humans, including our financial interests. That's a different debate, except that the quasi-religion of environmentalism is the main reason that the bridge has not yet been built, and ultimately will cost more than necessary.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Susan

12:39 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

What a reach! Unless you can show me that the Sierra Club fought THIS BRIDGE on the basis that it didn't meet the standard of the organizations "faith", then this argument is just plain ridiculous. I don't argue that the delay cost more money, but it was based on the violation of the WSRA, NOT on religion, or because it wasn't green enough.

joe

12:44 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Their quasi-religious agenda is that we worship Mother Earth. Earth is their god to be worshiped. To promote the religion of environmentalism one would prevent bridge from being built. Their entitled to their opinion, even if its based on faith not fact or reason and even if it is expensive and damaging to humans.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Susan

1:03 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

What you are saying is that you believe The Sierra Club bases it projects on, what you perceive to be, their religious convictions and/or the promotion of those convictions. I am saying that this is not the case here, and if it were the case, wouldn't they fight so strongly against any bridge? Or any construction at all? Why the disdain for The Sierra Club's opposition causing delays, yet not the NPS, or MNDOT?

Comment_arrow

Ja Stoddart

1:27 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Have you missed the irony that it is the supporters of this mega bridge that operate on "faith"? The only facts or reason come from the people who think this is overkill.

The downtown biz owners have faith this will help them, and that the biz on 36 will do better. Still Oak Park has opposed this partly because the mitigation will bulldoze the small business along 36 leaving only the corp giants left.

Fact and reason do not support a mega bridge, it is only by faith that it's supporters do.

joe

1:26 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

I'm saying that staunch environmentalists, some being members of the Sierra Club, base their environmental efforts on quasi-religious convictions. Those are not based on one of the conventional "religions" that worship Christ, allah or Zeus, but are instead a worship of the earth as the deity placing the earth's needs ahead of human need. As I said, I'm in favor of a healthy respect for the earth and environment. But I don't put those ahead of human interests the way a quasi-religious environmentalist does.
By the way, they did fight "so strongly against ANY bridge." Their false support for the "sensible" alternative was baloney. They would have agreed to debate that alternative to prolong the delay and simultaneously looked for any way to eventually file a lawsuit against it or take away their support to add more delay.
Also, I'm not aware of NPS or MNDOT being responsible for delay similar to the Sierra club. Both NPS and MNDOT are necessary participants and have not filed lawsuits to cause delay. The Sierra Club has injected itself into the project to cause delay and prevent the bridge by litigation.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Susan

1:47 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

You are missing my point. Why doesn't The Sierra Club fight every (or any) bridge anywhere if what you say is true, and they pick projects based on their love of Mother Earth? This bridge costs so much because of delays, as a result of the violation of the WSRA, period.

The NPS told MNDOT no to this design in 1996...and here we are, almost sixteen years later....MNDOT never tried to come up with an alternative, and the NPS, although they tried, was not able to prove that this bridge did not violate the WSRA. Why aren't you railing against The Act itself?

There is so much blame to go around, that trash-talking one group shows your bias.

Comment_arrow

joe

2:10 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

I'll admit my bias. I'm biased against groups that prevent economic progress by filing lawsuits in the name of environmentalism. I'm not in favor of the Act either. It's a terrible law, especially when it's used to prevent economic progress, which was not it's original purpose. It's more generally a bad law because it's another example of Washington DC arrogantly micro-managing state affairs.
Why doesn't the Sierra Club fight every bridge anywhere? Probably because it has limited resources and because this particular bridge came with an easy opening to a lawsuit, the WSRA. If all bridges were under the WSRA they may well fight all bridges, to the extent that they could afford to do so.
Look again at the cost accountings in recent newspaper (online) articles. It doesn't seem to me that this bridge project, with all of its appurtenant non-bridge-span requirements, has an excessive cost. It's a high cost but it appears to me to be in line with the scope of the total project. Based on that, can't see how opponents can genuinely base their opposition on the cost.
I'm sure MNDOT shares part of the blame too. I don't know why it did not find an alternative. My guess is that even if it had, the Sierra Club would have filed its lawsuit, so maybe MNDOT thought its plan was the right one. At one time it was approved.

joe

1:43 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

It's ironic that ja proclaims facts and reason come only from people who think the bridge is "overkill," and then she or he provides not a single supportive fact. I didn't miss that irony. On what facts is it overkill to build a bridge sized to service traffic needs for many decades into the future?
100 senators, well over 2/3 of US representatives, and both MN and WI Governors support the bill. Maybe not ironic but perhaps indicative of certain facts and reasoning.

Reply

Ja Stoddart

2:05 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Come on Joe are you saying it isn't a fact that the plan calls for eliminating business along the frontage roads? By you logic a 15 lane bridge wouldn't be overkill cuz it will carry all the cars it needs to. Just because a bunch of politicians voted for it, doesn't mean they followed facts and reasoning. I guess you could claim that if you believe that every thing politicians do is right. It would be a stretch to believe that.

Reply
Comment_arrow

joe

2:14 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Which business?
15 lanes would be overkill and would not have received 100 senate votes and 2/3 of representatives. No not all of what politicians do is right but in this case the voting indicates that a 4 lane bridge is not overkill.

Susan

2:22 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Didn't the WSRA need a majority in Congress to pass? Didnt those Congressmen and women have good reasoning and judgement?

Reply
Comment_arrow

joe

2:42 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

No they didn't have good judgement at the time. It's a bad law. Look at the result. It took decades to build a bridge that will now cost multiples of what it could have cost, not to mention the lost opportunity cost of delayed economic growth. The law is an intrusion by arrogant Washington DC politicians into state affairs. There's no reason bureaucrats 2000 miles away from Stillwater should have ever been granted any influence over the building of this bridge. Why would they know better we do whether we should have a bridge?
And just to avoid your next question, which will be about the use of federal money to build the bridge, we should use any federal money to build the bridge. It should be a state-funded project based on the state's design and choice of building or not building a bridge. Keep the feds in DC and out of Stillwater.

Comment_arrow

Susan

2:56 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Actually, my next question was going to be, why is this Congress majority good, yet the WSRA majority vote bad? But you already answered it...because of your personal political beliefs. My question now ( and neither of us has the answer), is why didnt MNDOT take WSRA into consideration when designing this bridge, or at a minimum, start working on the process of getting support, to get this thing an exemption decades ago?

My point in all of this, is that it is not just The Sierra Club's fault (and therefore "radical environmentalists"), this bridge has been delayed for decades, and is so costly!

Comment_arrow

D. Knutson

3:06 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

The WSRA was not enacted to prevent bridges from being built, it was established so there was a process to go through, and so that it took congressional approval for a bridge to be built.  Fact is that it wasn't a bridge prevention bill, nor a law to prevent anything like economic growth, it was just to establish the process to go through for approval.  This was established after the NSP plant was built to control, but not limit what was built, and require congressional approval for projects along the river like the bridge just received.  

There were a couple pretty good size bridges in Hudson that were built after the WRSA was pushed through by Mondale back in the 60's.  Those bridges are a lot bigger than the proposed one in Stillwater but the whack jobs didn't fight them because they knew it would be a waste of time and money, so they picked fights elsewhere in the world.
Why didn't they take the WRSA into account? They did as much as they could, but the bottom line is the whack jobs were fighting the bridge in general, so there wasn't anyone to discuss the matter with until after the design and court rulings. It was only then that the whack jobs wanted a kinder gentler bridge design...

Comment_arrow

Susan

3:17 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Ignoring all the childish name-calling, let's move back to why didn't anyone, (MNDOT, NPS, the state of Minnesota, the state of Wisconsin, etc.) think to get an exemption decades ago? That would have hindered the lawsuits, if not completely avoided them. There was no reason to wait...get an exemption, and it's a done deal, right? The I94 bridges were basically built in the same footprint, which is why there was nothing to fight.

Comment_arrow

joe

3:26 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

I don't know what MNDOT did or why, but I know they did not file a lawsuit as did the Sierra Club. Could MNDOT in the past have designed a bridge that would have "complied" with the Act, and that would have avoided a Sierra Club lawsuit? I'm skeptical of that. Would it have been two lanes wide and bluff-to-bluff (to avoid erosion)? If so maybe MNDOT didn't think that such a "compliant" bridge would also be sufficient for future traffic needs. Maybe they didn't want to waste money on a two-lane bridge that would be outdated. Or maybe they thought that whatever the proposed design the Sierra Club would have filed a lawsuit in any event (that's my suspicion).
I don't mind blaming MNDOT if they could have done things better. I wish they had thought of getting an exemption earlier, but maybe that was a very insightful idea that they just didn't identify.
I do know that the Sierra Club lawsuit did in fact intentionally delay the construction by years or decades, and did add tens or hundreds of millions to the cost.

Comment_arrow

Susan

3:35 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

I guess what I am asking, or saying, is that if some agency, or municipality had thought to get an exemption early on, would the lawsuits have happened at all, or if they did, they possibly could have been thrown out, because there was already an exemption. It is my understanding, that a bridge (to avoid an exemption), has to have the same footprint, so why wasn't an exemption part of the early process? I don't know, I guess I am asking too much of our leaders and/or government agencies to apply some common sense when needed.

And as for the earlier "whining" comments. If this thing gets signed, OPH gets their funding, and Stillwater stops spending like they have unlimited funds, why should anyone whine any longer?

Comment_arrow

Zaba Zoom

3:39 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

"Those bridges are a lot bigger than the proposed one in Stillwater" Again facts don't find that a true statement. The I94 bridges are 80' and 68' wide, while the monster bridge is 106'-7" wide center of tower to center of tower. The I94 bridges are 68' above the water line, while the monster is 111' to the road deck and with the towers it ends up 219'. Maybe I'm just wacked but that doesn't sound like the I94 bridges are so much bigger.

Comment_arrow

joe

3:44 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Yes I wish that someone would have thought of the exemption 20 years ago if that would have helped. Hindsight is 20-20.

Ja Stoddart

2:31 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Look at the plans from about Napa to Carbones and look where the frontage road ends up.

Reply
Comment_arrow

joe

2:56 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

I found articles that say the businesses on the south side of 36 will have reduced access? Is this what you meant by: the "plan calls for eliminating business along the frontage roads"? If you are saying that business will be "eliminated" by the plans, give a link. I couldn't find any information that a frontage road will go into the space of any of the adjacent businesses.

William Pappas

7:02 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

What has happened to this discussion?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Susan

7:07 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

What do you mean? People are sharing ideas, discussing different issues involving the bridge, and debating differences of opinion. Isn't that what this forum is for?

William Pappas

7:36 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

D Knutson, never before have so many people ponied up for a project that they have absolutely no interest in or will derive zero benefit. All over American Wisconsin and Minnesota, taxpayers will be paying for the most expensive bridge in Minnesota history by a factor of nearly 3 and all they will get for it is a bigger tax bill. And by the way, Bob, my company will most likely end up building something across the river. The fact that I know this and still opposed it, choosing instead fiscal responsibility and environmental protection rather than self enrichment and development growth at any cost to taxpayers indicates I applied a small amount of principal to this issue.

Reply
Comment_arrow

D. Knutson

7:54 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

William, you said "never before have so many people ponied up for a project that they have absolutely no interest in or will derive zero benefit," so apparently you have not heard of the light rail transit system in Minneapolis & St Paul that are large trains to nowhere at the tune of $1.75 Billion, and although the 11.9 mile segment on Hwy 55 has yet to cover operating costs they are building it bigger, so as taxpayers we can lose more money over a longer period of time.
The reason the trains went away years ago is that most people around here prefer to drive, so maybe that $1.75 billion could be used on more bridges and roads....

Randy Marsh

8:05 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

So from your perspective, the government has wasted money on light rail, which you view as a misuse of tax dollars, so MnDOT and other massive bridge supporters don't need to feel bad about throwing away more hundreds of millions of dollars. My 6-year-old has tried that argument and it doesn't fly in our household either.

Reply
Comment_arrow

D. Knutson

8:21 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

No Randy, that's you and your 6-year-old thought process, twist it as much as you can. Let me point out what the response was towards because you can't follow along.. "never before have so many people ponied up for a project that they have absolutely no interest in or will derive zero benefit." So in remedial fashion I'll explain, most people don't have any interest or derive any benefit from the light rail, but we have to pay taxes on it, and it's excessive in my book. Would I want a bridge at a lesser cost, of course. I'd also want it built in 1992 before the enviro-whacko's stopped it with their frivolous lawsuits... I'd also like the world with a fence around it too in order to keep the nuts out. Following along to this point, or do we need to do some more explaining? Just wondering.....

Comment_arrow

Susan

8:26 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

OR, built in 1992 if MNDOT (or someone else benefiting from this bridge), had pulled their head out of their backside, and worked to get the exemption before the lawsuits became an issue.

Comment_arrow

Randy Marsh

9:43 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

So, DK, you are grouping yourself with supporters of light rail. That I can understand. You don't like paying for light rail that you will never use and yet are insisting that 99.9 percent of Minnesotans are stuck paying for a obscenely priced bridge that will be used by a tiny percentage of those who are footing the bill. How are you any different than light rail supporters? Maybe I will ask my youngster to explain it to me.

Zaba Zoom

9:33 pm on Monday, March 5, 2012

Guess we know what side of the fence the Dicks are on, or do you need me to explain it?

Reply

William Pappas

6:59 am on Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Susan, MNDOT started looking for cover for this bridge decades ago. They knew they were designing the most objectionable bridge that could possibly be fit in the Valley under the WSRA. The criteria they came up with for any bridge insured a freeway, incompatible structure that needed lots of propoganda, misinformation and tons of political cover just to get it off the drawing board. This process culminated in the Stakeholders meetings that offered the most cover by showing local support for these behemouth crossings. Anyone who cares to be objective knows the stakeholders process was a sham cover and never allowed any change in criteria to allow more conforming structures to be considered. It is a sad history of outdated design that never fit the smaller needs of the St. Croix Valley. One very unfortunate tactic is that MNDOT never offered to partner with Interior to come up with a design that could be negotiated to fall in the same footprint. Right up to the last vote Interior was willing to accept smaller bridges to the south landing near the Wisconsin location of the current bridge as compliant. MNDOT wins this battle by convincing politicians that any other bridge will take decades for approval and not meet any of their unrealistic and outdated huge projections for growth as well as denying any other smaller span could possibly be compliant. All of it great misinformation promoted by Stillwater taxpayer supported bridge lobbyists.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Susan

7:26 am on Tuesday, March 6, 2012

William, I agree with you. If you look back through the comments above, you will see that I blame MNDOT (and possibly some others), for the great delays, causing the huge price tag. I am trying to get others to see that this huge price tag is not because of the Sierra Club's lawsuits, but because MNDOT did not comply with the WSRA, nor did they try to get the obviously needed exemption. As I have said over, and over, MNDOT and their lack of judgement is to blame here, and yet, even with that obvious lack of judgement, sadly so many are trusting them when they say that this 20 story, super-sized bridge is the only feasible design for this location.

I hate to say it, but it looks like we may be stuck with this monstrosity, so arguing big bridge vs. small bridge won't help anymore.

Leave a comment