Susan, you are smart.

Government always has a motive to what they do. With the cost of fuel to make this bridge having at least doubled in the past year there is no way this bridge could be constructed for the original price. Also if you are aware of the cost of construction materials needed for this bridge you know those prices have doubled as well.

This project is predicated on a BIG LIE!! It isn't being constructed over a river but a lake. When will the Government start calling it what it is, a bridge over Lake Saint Croix?

Futhermore the following negatives apply to the proposed bridge:

It WILL create navigation hazards in the middle of Lake Saint Croix.

It WILL exacerbate traffic hazard in an already high crash traffic zone in OPH.

It WILL visually pollute the view of Lake Saint Croix from Stillwater with a huge ugly bridge.

It WILL disturb the bottem of Lake Saint Croix an endangered spieces.

It WILL remove valuable realstate from usage in OPH. The bridge area could be developed.

It IS a mile long over a Lake and it could be 1/4 mile long if constructed over the RIVER north of Stillwater. The cost of a 1/4 mile long suspension bridge would be 1/3 the cost of the proposed bridge. AND a suspension bridge would be attractive AND a suspension bridge could be constructed without penetrating the river bottem.

The proposed "Bachmann Fanken Kobachar Obama - Bridge To Nowhere" is and illconcieved waste of a lot of money.

Jim, let's say I agreed to meet you on the north shore or the south shore of Lake St. Croix. Where would I stand?

Bob K.

The North Shore wuld OBVIOUSLY be in Stillwater and the South Shore would OBVIOUSLY be in Prescott.

By definition from the MnDNR Lake Saint Croix starts in Stillwater and Prescott.

You know that and are just playing.

Jim, I've asked you before what you hope to accomplish with this continued rant about the excessive cost of the bridge, and the fact that this stretch of water is a lake, not a river. Your response was "I'll just throw out facts and see what happens." It seems that the only thing that happens is that you get ridiculed.

Do you believe you are reaching anyone new, and persuading their opinion? Do you think MNDNOT, the State of Minneosta, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States Congress are going to change their minds?

I did not want this bridge, but it is going to happen....it is a reality, and people need to accept it. As someone else recently said, you are only hurting your own credibility by continuing with this ineffective rhetoric.

I'll stop when there is no response/damage control to what I post.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

There can be no spirited exchange with only one party contributing. It takes 2 to tango. Not many people key responses to what they themselves post, there are some that do that but not I.

Plus, this Lake Saint Croix bridge being called a river crossing is such a bold faced lie I have a difficult time ignoring it. Getting an act of Congress with the presidents signature to boot for a bridge that doesn't even cross a Wild and Scenic River.

I just love it when Government is so damn stupid.

Well, it is certainly your right to do so, I just wondered if you knew how it made you look.

I guess the fact that this is a riverine lake, meaning a lake "in" a river, is enough of an explanation for me. If the exemption covers the river, it then covers everything within the river...IMO.

Susan,

I don't consider what I post to be a rant but facts, no-one disputes the facts posted. All people do is post that it's a done deal, a northern route is dead etc etc.

Let's remember, though, that Wisconsin legally defines this stretch of water as a river, so only the Minnesota half of the bridge crosses Jim's mythical Lake St. Croix. Which begs the philosophical question, is the river half lake or is the lake half river?

If you read the Wild and Scenic rivers act, it defines what is covered in the act. Lakes are NOT included in the act by definition.

In other words the act is very clear in defining ONLY small lakes can be included in the act.

Therefore the entire act of Congress with Obama's signature didn't even apply to this bridge. Yet this project is marching on as thou it were approved by Congress. Of course I understand that means this bridge could have been constructed without the act of Congress because it is over a lake. BUT does building a bridge over a lake had different rules?

Maybe the rules are different because many lake bottems are loaded with MUCK.

Jim, do you really believe that this bridge may be stopped, and that a suspension bridge north of Stillwater might happen? If you answer yes to either of these, it is pretty clear why your credibility is in question. Honestly, if these were viable, I believe Rep. McCullum would have run with them. Your interpretation of the WSRA is arguable, but will never go anywhere - ask a lawyer, see what they say.

I do believe others have posted credible facts in response to your ideas, but maybe you don't want to see them.

Jim, I've disputed your "facts" every step of the way. Let's use one of your more recent "facts" as an example. Yesterday you said the cost of fuel and the cost of materials to build the bridge has "at least doubled in the past year." What's the source of your facts there?

Bob K,

Your last contention was a feeble question as to where would the north and south shore of Lake Saint Croix would be.

As far as fuel prices, take a look at your local gas station. Furthermore, when My President Obama is reelected he is COMMITED to raising fuel prices to $6/gal.

Jim, I did better than look at my local gas station. I checked gas prices online at http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Guess what? A year ago, regular unleaded in Minnesota was about $3.96 a gallon. Today, it's around $3.79.

Any other undisputed "facts" you want to throw out there?

Jim, please provide your source, with a quote, or written document from anyone in the White House saying that President Obama is "COMMITED to raising gas prices to $6/gal". And I don't want to see the rhetoric from Fox News, I want to see where you get this "fact".

CB you need to stay in the country. A suspension bridge has no thick concrete deck like the MnDOT proposed bridge over Lake Saint Croix. A suspension bridge is made with a much thinner deck and supported by overhead cables and NOT pileings stuck in a recreational Lake.

Remember a short time ago a MnDOT contractor designed bridge over the Hiawatha LRT had a number of support cables snap shutting down the LRT line, the bridge is 5 years old.

Then consider the Wakota bridge developed cracks in the concrete when it was brand new. MnDOT fixed it by installing cable in the inspection tunnel, no more inspections on that bridge.

Do I need to mention the I35W failure? Or mention all the other bridges that have been or are in the process of being replaced following REAL INSPECTIONS? Hastings, St Cloud, Layfatte, 4th street, etc etc...

If you arn't concerned about bridge quality, you really should stay in the country.