weird...another TAX put on us by the dems...big suprise there...
Tolls suck- ask anyone that lives near one.
EVERY toll road I have been on has been a pile of garbage...its like the $$ only goes to fund the toll booth workers...not for roads.

The idea was discussed and voted down by the 27 MN/WI/US stakeholder groups during the multi-year negotiation process, and to raise it now is wrong. Either there's $ to build the bridge or there's not, and if not, then halt the process until there is. As one of the hard working stakeholders (Chair of the Stillwater HPC), I feel that raising the toll road idea at this point is insulting, and the idea should die a swift death.

Trolls have always been associated with bridges. I say, unless they begin forcing users to pay to cross over their bridge, let us just leave the trolls alone.

Seriously? A legislator from Mpls proposing a toll bridge? How about we we make the new I-35 bridge a toll bridge? Under the same thinking, it would fund it and pay for maintenance also. For once, I agree with a Republican.

What a monumentally terrible idea.

This idea was floated about 5 years ago, I'm pretty sure.

with jobs so hard to find, people would be forced to pay the toll. it's not like people can just up and find another comparable job. this is total b.s.

I think it's funny that people are screaming about $1.50 per crossing. When I drove across Øresund Bridge this summer, I had to fork over 43€ each way.

Do we have tolls elsewhere in Minnesota?

They can't do tolls on roads in Minnesota unless there's a way to charge "rich" people more. They'd have to base it on year of your car, like license tabs, e.g. the guy in the new Porsche pays $20 to cross while the old Subaru pays 50 cents (or better yet, gets a "credit" and is paid to take the toll). It's only fair.

I really don't think the majority of taxpayers in Minnesota (not sure about WI) realized when this massive bridge was approved, what it meant to the whole state. Since the amount MN has agreed to is upwards of 70% of MNDOT's total budget we must be prepared for extreme cuts in road repair, snow plowing, weed control, state park maintenance, line painting.....well you get the picture....every where else on state roads. There is just not enough money in our coffers to do it all so we must prepare ourselves for some decay of present infrastructure. Also, a monumental, irreversible change is the fact that we are running this structure over Minnesota's only river that qualifies under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, a national state park. This is akin to running a 6 lane freeway through Yellowstone or any National Park. One of your readers was willing to cross over the 94 bridge rather than pay a toll. I would rather cross over the 94 bridge too, but it is to apply my common sense on how our state budget should be distributed and to preserve a precious natural environment. We should halt this bridge until everyone in Minnesota understands this spending madness is way out of whack for the return to our state.

massive bridge? how? last i heard it was four lanes....thats not massive.
scenic river...with a giant smokestak...
you all say use the 94 bridge. um. no. apparently the forefathers of the past figured we needed a crossing at stillwater. this new bridge is just replacing that worn out POS.
my only gripe is that it dosent appear to have space for future rail line on it.

It's ridiculous to propose a toll after the funds for the bridge have already been approved. The bridge is getting built using existing funds. It is NOT overbuilt. How many of you complaining actually live in Washington County and the St. Croix Valley? Traffic on Hwy. 36 demands an adequate river crossing, which does not come inexpensively. The bridge will be located next to the Andersen Windows factory and the King Power Plant, not a particularly scenic part of the St. Croix. And to say that the I-94 bridge is just "a few minutes away", no. It is 7 miles away, at least 10-15 minutes each direction - longer on the Wisconsin side since it is necessary to drive through Hudson and North Hudson. Don't make it difficult to use the bridge because you're not happy about it being approved!

The constant naysayers must have their day to lament something. It was just a "finger in the wind" test for a toll.

Most of the naysayers can't even get the costs right as they constantly include the costs of upgrading Hwy. 36 in the total. This is a separate project involving MN only.

I've seen WI news articles proposing a toll also. It's not about paying for building the St. Croix bridge. It's about drumming up more $$ to repair other transportation infrastructure. I cringe whenever I hear someone complain that Wisconsinites should be happy with having the I94 bridge. It's a transportation route for semis! Which leads to .. how does a toll affect Minnesota. If Wisconsin were smart that would lead to commercial development to eliminate the need to head to MN, at least to shop. Commodities moved over the bridge would add the overhead into the price of that product. MN would begin to lose considerable sales tax revenue .. I for one prefer shopping in Stillwater than Hudson (which I personally avoid like the plague -- driving in Hudson traffic to shop along the 94 corridor is already inconvenient and a hazard. Anyone commuting to work in either direction would be hurt the most .. even at $3 a toll, that's a bite out of one's budget. Those who complain about WI residents heading to work in MN. Have you been traveling the bridge in the morning commute and seen just how many cars from MN are heading to work in WI? I think you'd be surprised.

Adding a toll for crossing this bridge is a major change in the way any road or bridge has been funded in Minnesota. If the reason for the toll is to fund this bridge alone, the $3.00 toll is excessive. If this is a way to increase revenue for all highways in MN, then why only have a toll on this single 1 mile bridge? There are "massive" bridges all over the state that should also be canditates for tolls. The cost for crossing this bridge is pennies per trip, not dollars. This funding source needs to be debated for all bridges and roads in the state, not for a single bridge. Especially now, after the funding and planning for the project have been set in motion.

Outside of light rail, Art, I don't believe there has been a single transportation project of this scale in Minnesota. How the powers that be decided that such a large chunk of Minnesota's transportation dollars should go to a project that primarily benefits Wisconsin commuters is beyond me.

Here's the reason anyone who claims to be a fiscal conservative MUST be against this project. The growth ponzi scheme is over.
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2010/3/15/victory-on-the-st-croix-but-over-what.html

Bridge toll is DOA in Wisconsin. Walker and company will not approve. Not to mention the question would be in litigation for decades -- far longer than the Sierra Club used to stall the bridge.

Anyone on here complaining about taking MORE taxpayer money by tolling crossers is entirely missing the point. This bridge is $670M+ of TAXPAYER money that could otherwise be going to fund OTHER projects. Thousands of MN and WI roads and bridges currently in disrepair. You need to differentiate between a USER FEE (toll) and a TAX. Tolling the users of this bridge (all 14,000 of them daily, many of which are cabin-goers or shoppers looking for clothing in MN or beer in WI) for this 'wonderful' bridge wouldn't even begin to cover the up-front construction costs, let alone the debt service (interest) or future maintenance (in 20-25 years what is the financial liability of THIS bridge, and will it get passed over for some new fancy one in Prescott, WI????). If people aren't willing to pay $3 to cross it because there is a bridge 1.5 miles north or a freeway bridge 5 miles south, then WHY ARE WE BUILDING IT!?

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/10/24/dig-baby-dig.html

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2010/11/29/the-ridiculous-old-economy-project-that-wont-die.html

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2010/3/15/victory-on-the-st-croix-but-over-what.html

From: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/97022124.html?source=error

"No one would question the importance of reconstructing the I-35W bridge, with its 140,000 vehicles crossings daily, at a price of $234 million. But $668 million to accommodate 3,000 more crossings daily [above current usage on the Stillwater bridge]? Is that a wise expenditure of tax dollars?"

Seriously, we're talking about a minor inconvenience of drive time for people who CHOSE to live ina particular area given where jobs, shopping, recreation, etc are. Why are we subsidizing this lifestyle. Furthermore, building what is essentially another high-capacity freeway will only encourage further low-productive development across the river. Why is this a good idea? How can we justify building new bridges when there are over 1,100 structurally deficient ones in MN that carry a combined 2.4M vehicles a day?? This is simply outrageous. The bridge project should be cancelled, and if not, absolutely tolled to cover the outrageous cost per passenger to fund our other liabilities in this state.

I just do not understand you folks and your constant "woulda", "coulda", "shoulda". I have lived in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and now Wisconsin (which I am beginning to think was a big mistake), My work took me to at least 20 other states and a couple of other countries where I spent enough time to get a "feel" for these areas. The most recent time was six months spent in the Seattle area. I have lived in this area for nearly 40 years.

I have never experienced or observed the level of negativity that I see in this area. There is the focus on "the bridge"; the is the non-stop sniping at the Hudson School Board.

What causes it? Is it in the drinking water? It's against, against, against. When decisions are made then there is constant carping about the decisions.

I'm not talking about any single person, but the overall attidude around the Valley is just as if there is a huge black cloud over the area.

The bridge and apporach roads are going to be built. The area is going to continue to grow no matter how many complaints are lodged. A grand compromise was reached; the Lift Bridge will remain as a historic artifact and the new bridge which will be a stunning example of engineering will be built. Why is this bad? If one wants to see an example of an ugly bridge, just take a look at the I-94 bridge in Hudson. The new one will be graceful with pleasing lines.

Look to the future people and stop whining, bitching and complaining.

CM, perfect post! That's called M
Minnesota nice.

Alex Mundy, not really sure how the facts are helping you out. The 35W bridge carries over ten times the traffic that the St. Croix Bridge will carry. And, sticking to reality, you'll notice that Vehicle Miles Traveled peaked about 5 years ago and is declining. It looks like people will drive less than they did in the past. So it's actually reasonable to now assume that the actual numbers will be less than the projected numbers for this bridge. Therefore 50 or 100 years from now this bridge will be needed even less than it is needed today.

Alex M,

As you stated, the I35W bridge included incentives for early completion, which inflates the price. Even with that said, it cost less than the St Croix bridge while carrying nearly 10x the daily riders (and have 10 vs 4 lanes even if it is shorter).

http://goo.gl/YLMdo

I'm confused why you dismiss certain costs in building this bridge as if they're marginal in comparison to other bridge projects (35W,deficient bridges in both states that only require construction). Are any of the following not KEY components to having a functional new StC bridge: WI/MN approach, TH36 intersection, ROW acquisition, contingency/risk, bonds/insurance, Engineering/management?? To build this bridge, the cost is $574.4M. The 35W bridge cost included all of those categories (as applicable).

What is the cost breakdown of those 16k crossings on the Hudson bridge? The quality of life lost for the extra 7 miles to the Hudson bridge, & the hard costs (gas, wear on vehicles)? Please don't include lost money based on the time-value of money, because it's not real money people are losing, as that time will rarely, if ever, result in lost wages.

This project needs to die. Fix the current bridge and provide the environmental improvements. Fix the rest of the bridges in MN with the money saved (~$371M), avoid asking taxpayers for more money to fix them. WI can do the same. Stop inducing more traffic to low productivity places.

Why is it necessary to bring the Constitution of the United States into this discussion? My comments and those of others have nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

My comments had to do with "a spirit of negativity" and the continuous repetition of the same comments; not with the rights of people to make them.

Yes housing prices are down over what they were before the Great Recession, but they are rising as the economy slowly recovers from the depth of recesion. Housing starts are increasing on an annual basis. There are currently 14 new homes under construction within a 3 minute drive from my house.

With $4 gas comes 40-50 mpg vehicles to level the playing field.

We live in the 13 county Twin Cities Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the US Census Bureau, which includes St. Croix and Pierce counties. In our particular corner of the area there is a river which physically divides the state, but it does not divide the economic area. We should be happy and proud to live in such a growing and prosperous area, many other parts of the country should be this lucky. Good infrastructure and schools are part of what keeps such a metro area growing and healthy. Most people (including me) didn't think that the LRT line in Mpls would be used. I was wrong as it is highly successful and two more lines are being built.

This progress is not helped by constant nagging and whining. The bridge is going to be built whether over a river or a lake.

Most states would want people to come in from outside to help extend the economic base of the state. Afterall, these Wisconsinites buy things in Minnesota and contribute to the success of the companies they work for. Shouldn't everyone want that?