St. Croix River Crossing: Dayton 'Corrects' McCollum, Says 'Compromise' is Out
Gov. Mark Dayton wrote a letter to Rep. Betty McCollum stating "compromise" is out of the question when it comes to the deadline to replace the Stillwater Lift Bridge. The only two options, the governor says, are build the proposed $690 million bridge, or
Gov. Mark Dayton and Sen. Ted Lillie speak during a press conference last April with the Stillwater Lift Bridge in the background.
Photos (1)
Photos
Pdfs (2)
Pdfs
Gov. Mark Dayton’s office has been busy writing two of Minnesota’s congressional officials letters this week—first putting a March 15 deadline on the river crossing bill to pass, and most recently, saying “compromise” is out of the question at this stage of the game.
On Tuesday, Dayton sent Rep. Michele Bachmann a letter stating the St. Croix River Crossing bill must get exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by March 15 or he was going to reallocate the funds to other Minnesota projects.
Bachmann responded two days later calling Dayton’s deadline “crazy,” and saying it puts the project in jeopardy.
“To put an artificial deadline out like March 15 is absolute madness because we can get this done,” Bachmann told WCCO. “We shouldn’t kowtow to these radical environmental groups.”
Rep. Betty McCollum responded to the letter with a statement, that in part, reads:
“The Governor’s letter is a signal that it is time to take Transportation Secretary LaHood up on his offer of a working group and come to the table to reach a compromise.”
On Friday the Governor took issue with that sentence, and sent his second warning letter of the week to a Minnesota representative.
Dayton said he needed to correct the statement attributed to the Fourth District representative about the March 15 deadline.
“It needs to be very clear to everyone that, according to MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel and his department, any redesign of the bridge, through your proposed working group’s ‘compromise’ or anything else, will cause significant delays,” Dayton wrote to McCollum. “As I stated in my February 21 letter to Representative Bachmann: “Furthermore, if new bridge designs or routings are to be considered, the project will have to return to the beginning of the process, with new state and federal environmental impact assessments, new design and engineering studies, etc. Such a restart would most likely consign any new bridge to another decade of debate with no assurance of a better outcome at the end.”
MnDOT and the stakeholder groups completed the design for the bridge proposal before the governor took office.
“While I would personally favor certain modifications, it was made very clear to me from the outset that the only two real-world options were to either proceed with the bridge as currently proposed, or go back to the drawing boards and the starting point where the project existed when I went to the U.S. Senate 11 years ago. Those still remain the only two options.”
McCollum's Office Responds
When McCollum spoke at Episcopal Church of the Ascension last month, she said the argument that building a less expensive alternative to the current bridge would take at least 10 years is “poppycock.”
“Another big myth,” McCollum said, is that if the current proposal doesn’t pass, the federal government will lose the money and the project will go away.
“That is absolutely not true,” she said. “The money is there. It could be put toward other projects if we reduce the size and the scope of this bridge.”
McCollum’s Chief of Staff Bill Harper said on Friday night that the congresswoman has not changed her stance on the river crossing project in light of Dayton’s letter.
The congresswoman agrees there’s a need for a river crossing, Harper said. Her belief that the chance of this replacement getting exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by the deadline of March 15 is “minimal.”
“Whether the governor reprograms the money or not, we will continue to work for a replacement for the Stillwater Lift Bridge—and that too will take an exemption,” Harper said. “The Governor’s letter today can be interpreted that he is saying there will be no replacement bridge—that if it doesn’t meet the deadline, he’s walking away. That’s not our view.”
This isn’t something the congresswoman is making up, Harper said. “Secretary LaHood’s offer to compromise has been on the table since November. The supporters of the mega-bridge have just ignored it.”
The congresswoman remains committed to an opportunity to work on a compromise on an exemption, Harper said.
“Ray LaHood effectively proposed the idea to try and pass the river crossing legislation as is, but at the same time work on a parallel track,” he said. “If everyone is on board—and it’s seen as a non-controversial issue—it will pass the House and Senate. That’s obviously not the case here. This probably won’t even come to a House vote before the deadline.”
Even if this legislation doesn’t come to a House vote and get signed into law by the president by March 15, the river crossing is an important issue to be addressed in the future, Harper said.
“That’s what we’re positioning for,” he said.
What do you think of Gov. Mark Dayton's stance on the St. Croix River Crossing Project?
Tell us in the comments.
C
8:34 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Build the bridge now. There are miles of wild and scenic St. Croix to the north of Stillwater for people to enjoy. A new bridge will bring jobs and economic development. The taxes from that development will help pay for the state parks we already have.
Susan
9:44 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
In April 2011, MNDOT repeatedly made claims that the lift bridge is safe. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/pdfs/ConditionSummaryApril2011.pdf
So if you don't believe MNDOT when they say the lift bridge is safe, are you believing them when they claim that it will take a decade to get a new design approved?
MNDOT is not to be taken at their word. They give out conflicting information, have their own agenda (a 65 mph corridor), and refused to start reevaluating in 1996 when the NPS told them that this freeway mega bridge was in violation of the law.
Jim
10:12 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
MnDOT said the I35W bridge was safe, and then it fell killing 13 RIP injuring many.
Oh you say MnDOT never said the I35W bridge was safe. I beg to differ with you, IF the I35W bridge was NOT safe why was it being used the day it fell?
MnDOT is clueless with regards to bridge safty. AND they won't even install throwable flotation devices on the Lift Bridge so a life might be saved when the Lift Bridge falls into the St Croix, which it surely will.
And to propose a $700,000,000 behemoth replacement bridge across the middle of Lake St Croix is stupid!!! All for 9,000 commters a day. They can move to Minnesota.
Jim
10:16 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Futhermore to waste $700,000,000 on a bridge serving 9,000 commuters when a $5,000,000 bridge cannot be constructed at highway 36 and 120 in Oakdale which be the way is used by 40,000 commuters each day is rediculas.
MnDOT is NOT serving Minnesota residents instead wanting to build a bridge to nowhere for $700,000,000, clearly rediculas!!
Susan
10:19 am on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Jim, I agree with you, and do not believe MNDOT....the lift bridge is not safe, and it does not need to take a decade to get a new designed approved.
I am hoping more people will come to the same conclusion that you helped me come to - MNDOT cannot be taken at their word when they say that the freeway mega bridge is the only feasible design, and that it will take a decade to get a new design approved.
William Welbes
1:37 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
One of my companies does environmental impact statements, the problem is the alternative bridge puts pilings and footings in the water. That will add at least five years of additional study to the project and likely it will take longer. Any pier or pile requires a river bottom wildlife study and there are protected species in the area. Also the river currents need to modeled and measured using all the variable flow variations to evaluate the scour changes that will occur on the bottom and banks do to the obstructions. You also have to do a river bottom geotechnical survery and evaluate the bedrock to which the bridge is anchored. You create a series of new reviews by the army corp.. All of these studies will dictate what type of a design you can actually build. So yes the DOT is right in estimateing another 10 years. That is why the bank to bank design was originally chosen it eliminates years of additional studies and millions in cost.
Jim
6:10 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
William, explain why a suspension bridge across the narrows north of Stillwater won't work?
A properly designed suspension bridge would not require footings in the riverbed which would eliminate the need for riverbed study.
Mary
6:48 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Jim,
This is not the week to push for a suspension bridge after the Sabo bridge broke after 5 years.
You don't get it. Any changes will delay the bridge. The environmentalist have created this problem. At every turn they have fought the bridge causing more delays and driving up the cost. The time to study is over. Every study has been done. Ever compromise has been tried. The narrows of Stillwater won't work because it has already been litigated due to attempts by the environmentalists who didn't want it there to stop the bridge. The bluff to bluff option was the result. Homes were vacated and moved 20 years ago. This is the best and only option. Lets get it done!
Jim
3:19 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Mary, the "suspension bridge" in Mpls is NOT a steel suspension bridge. It has a heavy deck and cables that are more decorative than functional. Fact it 1/2 the cables broke and the bridge didn't fall, you have a better failure than that?
How old is the Golden Gate, a real suspension bridge?
MnDOT insists on building these behemouths out of concrete. The new Wacota developed cracks and is being held togeather with bailing wire. Is this a MnDOT you want to build/maintain your bridges?
I agree with Betty M., if built this will be Minnesota's "Bridge to Nowhere".
What a waste of money!
Mary
1:51 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
This bridge is not safe. We need to build a new one now or shut this one down before people die. MNDOT does its best to keep bridges safe but cannot predict the future; look at the Sabo suspension bridge that was just built 5 years ago. We know this bridge has structural issues that have resulted in large trucks to be banned because the supports cant take it. We are tempting fate when we say that it is strong enough for the current traffic load. The nonsensical bridge is not an option, its a stall tactic by Betty McCullum and the Sierra Club. Any changes will stop the process and they know that. Environmental studies would need to be done driving up the cost of this project. We'd lose landmarks like the Oasis Cafe on Hwy 95 and many homes on the bluff. The bridge would completely block the river view in Stillwater and wouldn't alleviate traffic problems or pollution. Get this bridge legislation passed and lets stop stalling.
Shawn Hogendorf
2:22 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
On the "stalling" issue, I had a conversation this week with a business owner who was curious to find out how many bills, if any, had been debated as long as this project. I wish I knew how to find the answer to that. Either way, I think that's an interesting part of this conversation, too.
Peter, Hudson, Wis.
5:43 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
More information on the urgency of the deadlines would help clear the discussion.
Mary
6:57 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
I agree Shawn. I think that there are quite a few politicians who want the money diverted to their district and their projects, including the 2 fighting this project. The deadline seems pretty arbitrary. I think people outside of this area think this whole thing is stupid. We need a bridge...we should build it! That we can't put a bridge next to a power plant and sewage treatment plant is ridiculous.
Randy Marsh
10:41 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
How can you be so clueless as to suggest the deadline is arbitrary? This deadline has already been extended for several months on the promise from Bachmann and others that this would figured out in early January. There is a legitimate reason there was a deadline put in place last fall and that was because the state needs to plan for the allocation of its dollars for many potential projects. You're either uninformed or have tunnel vision, neither of which is particularly helpful to this discussion.
Susan
8:03 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Sure, build a twenty-story, billion dollar bridge....because that IS what it's going to cost once MNDOT has to upgrade 36 so it can handle the traffic, and build overpasses at all the stoplights. Let's build that, and spend that, so 9,000 people can get to work and back a little quicker!
We all know there are other options to ease congestion in downtown, but for some reason (because it would weaken their argument for the mega bridge) the local officials refuse to consider those options.
So, if this legislation does not get passed, and signed by the president in the eight days The House has to vote on it (btw, the schedule for four of those days is already full), what will we do then? If this doesn't pass, we will have to study other options - or are you saying that MNDOT will dig it's heel's in further, and refuse to consider other options for another fifteen years?
Mary
8:27 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Susan, I feel for your concerns on the amount of money involved. First, the money will be diverted to other projects and not returned to the tax payers and secondly the cost are driven up every time we go back to ground zero. This would have been a much cheaper bridge 20-30 years ago but here we are. All the options have been considered and studied. For 3 years people met to compromise. All stakeholders came to agreement, except the Sierra Club! If people die because this current bridge fails who should we blame? I'll blame those that kept fighting the only logical solution available today.
Susan
8:44 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
I am not worried, or thinking about the money going back to taxpayers. I (living in Stillwater) want to see as many bridges repaired and replaced as possible in Minnesota. Seeing so much money go to one bridge project, to benefit so few, is fiscally irresponsible.
Yes, MNDOT has said they have studied all options, but none of the environmental studies have been done for other options, which is what they claim will take so much time for a new design. If this delay is anyone's fault, it is MNDOTs fault. Yes, the Sierra Club, along with the NPS stopped and delayed this design, but that was because it violated the law. It sets a very dangerous precedent for the entire country to start changing laws, and exempting projects, for the convenience of one very tiny area of the country. MNDOT was told by the NPS in 1996 that this design violated the law, and what did they do? MNDOT will be responsible for keeping this bridge open, if it falls and kills people, just as MNDOT was responsible for supervising the work and bridge on 35W when it fell.
Katherine
9:52 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
I think it is more than people going back and forth to work. Do you live here? what are the other options that you are speaking of? Study other options? hasn't 40 years been long enough?
Katherine
9:47 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
It is such a shame that this bridge has been the focus of Stillwater for 40+ years. People have been bought out of their homes and had to relocate, several years ago, only to be stopped once again. It is time to BUILD the NEW bridge. The traffic on Main St in Stillwater is outrageous. People who have lived here know what I speak. The current bridge is unsafe have you seen the videos??
If a car goes into the river and a family dies, then what happens? then do you nesayers say "oh what a tragedy" "Stillwater should have done something" this is the time to build a new bridge to bring us into the 2012 and beyond. When the Lift bridge was built is was NOT design for the volume of traffic. It is the birth place of Minnesota and what to come and see the town. Call our new representative and voice your opinion and flood her phone on Monday. Let's get it done.!!!
Susan
9:14 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
I have seen the video on The History Channel. Television shows of this type are made to be controversial, and to get ratings. It was not only in poor taste for our mayor to participate, it was simply irresponsible. Have you read MNDOT's reply to the show in April 2011? Now, I have stated clearly that I don't believe in MNDOT's statements, but fear mongering should not be a reason to spend so irresponsibly.
rwilliams
10:04 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
If the safety of traveling across the bridge is an issue, here are two options for you:
Move to Minnesota, or
Use the 94 bridge.
What's the problem?
Jim
1:00 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Your proposal makes WAY TO MUCH SENSE.
Nowhere in any constitution of the USA, Minnesota or Wisconsin is there a requirement to provide a quick ride to work from the other side of the St Croix river.
NOWHERE!
Mary
11:32 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
The problem is, rwilliams, that the cut through traffic on Hwy 5, Owens, Brick Street, Deerpath, Myrtle, etc trying to get to the bridge is taking its toll on the city streets, residents and the environment. Susan lives on a quiet cul-du-sac and doesn't have the cars streaming by her house nor does she have to wait for traffic to clear like I do. Are there homes for 9,000 more people in Stillwater? Come on that argument doesn't make much sense nor does it solve any issues. Be part of the solution or get out of the way. Where would we be if people had had this attitude after the 35W bridge collapsed?
Susan
9:02 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Mary and Katherine, I live two blocks from Main Street in Stillwater, and even though my street does not get the over-flow traffic from the bridge (they go the other direction), it is riddled with pot holes and patches which the city has yet to fix. Why? because they need to pay lobbyists $900/day for this mega bridge!
The other options to ease congestion? Stop lifting that bridge so often! Why won't Stillwater work to change the archaic law that says the river traffic has right-of-way over the road traffic? Maybe because people with river boats have some very close ties with our Mayor?
We do not have any more of a rush hour back-up here during the winter months, than other towns of this size. This tells you that it is the lift that is causing the problems in the summer. Why does that bridge need to go up every half hour, or every hour? Boaters can easily adjust to every three or four hours. Or are you saying that 9,000 commuters should continue to be inconvenienced so a few boats can get under the bridge?
How about making the bridge one way for an hour in the morning, and then again in the afternoon?
How about changing the timing of the stoplights downtown? It worked on Hwy 5, it can certainly help downtown.
How about a foot patrol officer downtown to direct traffic during heightened traffic times? Oh yeah, I forgot, Stillwater claims poverty on things like extra police, because they have to pay lobbyists!
Mary
3:04 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Stillwater has paid a lobbyist as long as I can remember. The only difference is that the time if finally right and the lobbyists are getting the job done. If we got this close and failed because they went the cheap route what would we gain. I heard at the council meeting a per hour price. Where are you getting the $900/day? Id rather have a high bridge a mile south of Stillwater than the monstrosity (so called sensible bridge) blocking the entire view of Stillwater that would not solve the current traffic problems. The lift bridge has gone up and down long before the current mayor or previous mayors for that matter. That's what LIFT bridges do. The schedule is set by the DNR who control all things water related.
Susan
3:38 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
It is the US Coast Guard that controls the lift schedule, and I am certain (because it has been done before), that if the powers that be in Stillwater wanted this done, it could be done. Why don't they? Because it weakens their argument that we need this mega bridge to ease congestion in downtown.
On the 21st the city council approved $15,000 for two lobbyists, for the next month. We are still currently paying the Conach Group $1500/month. This all comes to an end on March 15th - but actually The House is only in session until the 8th. Using a start date of Feb. 22nd, and counting days until March 8th, gives these lobbyists 16 days - IF they are working on the weekends. $16,500 divided by 16 days is $1,031.25 per day....so my $900/daily figure was less than what is being paid. This is absolute insanity, and I hope our city leaders are held more accountable for this money going to waste, than they were with the $40,000 they lost in their last botched attempt to funnel money into the Coalition.
Yes, Stillwater has now paid nearly $900,000 to lobbyists in the last twenty years. Our mayor stated, on the record, that this thing didn't get any momentum until the last year, so have all those tax payer dollars been a waste?
Old Mort
1:46 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Stillwater needs a new bridge...everyone knows that. But not a $700,000,000 to $800,000,000 monster freeway bridge for a measly 9000 commuters from Wisconsin. The I-35 bridge was rebuilt in 1 year and two months for a paltry $234,000.000! That is ONE THIRD the cost of the proposed bridge at Stillwater. What is behind all this hooha? Somebody gonna get rich over there buying land? Or maybe it was already bought? I smell a rat. Listen to McCollum..she is the only politition with any brains....
Mary
3:23 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
The cost of the new St. Croix River bridge is less than $300,000. The rest of the cost is to rework Hwy 36 and create holding ponds to prevent run off that is currently polluting the river. The cost is less per square foot than the Mpls. bridge. When the 35W bridge fell MNDOT was asked to identify the worst bridges in the state. Stillwater Lift bridge was at the top of that list and that is why the money to build this bridge became available. The 35w bridge had existing ramps, overpasses, etc. already in place. The only thing similar in the two bridges is that they are both "fracture critical" bridges; if one piece breaks, the whole bridge goes down. I don't think even McCollum wants that on her conscience. If we send the money to Faribault or do another light rail project we still have a dangerous structure in need of repair.
Susan
5:38 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Yes, the cost of the "span" is $292 million for 18,000 cars daily. The cost for 35W was just under $250 million for 140,000 cars each day.
The population in St. Croix County is projected to increase 58% in the next 20 years, which will bring the number of cars using this bridge to approximately 27,000. This bridge will never reach capacity before it needs to be replaced.
MORE money to move one eighth the cars.
Jim
2:02 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
This bridge reminds me way to much of the building of North High School in North Saint Paul. When a new school was to be built the location was under debate. One of the cheif advocates to retain the school in North Saint Paul owned a house on the site of the new location. BTW a house they were attempting to sell for years with no buyers.
Well the advocate got her way and her house was bought by the school district and she moved to Oakdale.
IMHO one of the main pushers of a new bridge are property owners in Wisconsin they have obviously the most to gain. In talking to Mary Larue who cuts my hair in North Saint Paul and lives in New Richmond (I think). Mary owns buildable lots and can't wait for the new bridge to get done.
There are plenty of empty houses in Minnesota for those Wisconsin commuters, they can move to Minnesota.
Mary
3:21 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
If we were to copy the "logic" expressed on this blog, the 35W bridge should never have been rebuilt. Here is what we would have heard...
"There were plenty of other bridges close by that could have been used."
"People could have moved closer to their offices rather than burden the state with the cost."
"I don't drive across that bridge often so it must be an insignificant problem."
Luckily we had forward thinking people making the decisions and didn't have to study it for 60 years. Let's build this bridge before we need to pay out claims for loss of life and build memorials on both sides of the river!
Susan
3:56 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
And thankfully, we have legislators that factor in cost vs. benefit....there are hundreds of thousands of people living, and working in Minneapolis. The 35W bridge is a vital link for carrying commuters and truck freight. The population there supports the number and size of bridges. The population here does not.
Mary
4:08 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
What's your real issue Susan? The money? The size of the bridge? That it goes up and down every half hour in the summer? That not enough people drive over it? Is "your town" of Stillwater less important than the big city? Are 13 lives lost in Mpls. more important than a 5-10+ potential lives in Stillwater or Wisconsin if this bridge falls? What is your real motive?
The people of this side of the metro deserve to drive safely too. There has been a river crossing since the 1800s. Let's make it a safe one!
Susan
4:20 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Oh come on...seriously? I don't value one person's life over any other's, and I do not think this is my town. I am simply showing that reducing the lift schedule will help ease congestion in downtown Stillwater, and cost almost nothing.
Yes, I am opposed to the size and cost of the freeway bridge because the population here does not justify either.
I want a SAFE and reasonably sized, and priced bridge built. I want MNDOT to take responsibility in their failure on the 35W bridge, and their lack of judgement on this bridge. I want more people in Stillwater to learn about the background and details of this proposed project, and those who are pushing it. I would hope they would want to be more informed about where their tax dollars are going - at a city, state, and federal level. And I have a right to want these things, and express my opinions.....just as you do.
Randy Marsh
6:28 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
There has been much disagreement expressed on all these threads over the past several months, but I would just like to point out that not a single poster has been as ill-informed as Mary. You are completely clueless. There is much gray area and room for debate, but Mary is simply wrong about darn near everything she has said.
joe
1:19 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
Mary I agree with your reasoning and your facts. Randy has neither fact nor reason in his favor. The only response he can offer against your effective presentation is to ridicule, because facts don't support his apparent desire to prevent the building of any new bridge. Like others on this board he ostensibly objects to the cost and says we should find a way to build a cheaper bridge. His real complaint seems to be that he doesn't want Stillwater or Western Wisconsin to be developed further. I don't know how that would hurt him but apparently he doesn't want anything in his world to change. Luckily he's not the only one with a voice, and he's in the minority.
eyemhear
1:56 pm on Monday, February 27, 2012
If the goal is to reduce traffic congestion in downtown Stillwater, why has there NEVER been a dime spent on a traffic management plan? Traffic could be metered through downtown; a policeman could manage the traffic lights; right turns could be banned to stop the traffic through the neighborhoods. Bridge traffic could be routed down Water Street and thru one of the parking lots. This is not rocket science!
Mary
3:49 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012
That sounds like a very quick route through town, no bottleneck there!
Mary
3:16 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012
Thank you Joe. Finally and thankfully the bridge legislation passed today with 80% of the house in agreement that we need to move forward. This is truly a historic day!
Jim
4:59 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012
$700,000,000 bridge for 9,000 commuters.
MnDOT won't build a $5,000,000 bridge over 120 at 36 with 40,000 commuters using the intersection.
BRIDGE TO NOWHERE!!!
It's NEITHER the first BRIDGE TO NOWHERE built by Government nor will it be the last.
Susan
6:17 pm on Thursday, March 1, 2012
The historical, magical, miraculous parting of the seas moment is upon us...of-course we must now pay nearly a billion dollars for our modern day miracle, but the commute of people in one corner, of one county in Wisconsin is worth it.