What does being fiscally conservative have to do with this project? Are you saying that if you are fiscally conservative you can't spend over a certain dollar amount on certain projects? Being fiscally conservative means not wasting money. If you think this is a waste of money then you should start going through the budget. It is expensive but the bridge is definitely needed and will lead to a lot of development, eliminate Stillwaters traffic problems, and allow 9000 people per day to enjoy more time with their families or whatever else they want to do.

Chad, I suggest you do some research on the cost of bridges relative to the number of cars that use those bridges. This bridge is a huge waste of money. Yes, the lift bridge needs to be replaced, but it should be replaced with a more appropriately scaled and priced bridge. MNDOT claims that this mega bridge project is the only feasible design. MNDOT also says that the lift bridge is safe...are you believing one of their claims yet not the other?

So the only qualification for a bridge and its cost is the number of cars that travel it per day at this current time? If that's really what you think there is really no sense in arguing with you because your blind to all the considerations that really matter such as future usage, eliminating the traffic problem for an entire, amount of development which in turn increases tax revenues and another fifty things that need to be considered. MNDOT stating a bridge is safe states nothing about whether the bridge is functional for travel. That doesn't help your argument at all and I'm not sure why you are acting like having a safe bridge means you can't replace it.

That is not at all what I am saying...my point is that if you believe MNDOT when they claim that this $690 million freeway mega bridge is the only feasible option to replace the lift bridge, then why wouldn't you also believe them when they say that the lift bridge is safe? In other words, I do not believe MNDOT and their claims.

I understand the issues involved, and am very versed in both sides of the argument. I have no problem replacing the lift bridge, but I want it done in a fiscally responsible way. Spend less money on a smaller scaled bridge that WILL get the job done for current and future commuters. I believe that the population in St. Croix County is projected to grow by 58% in the next 50 years. If you take the same number and apply it to those that will use the bridge, it raises the number of daily commuters to just over 14,000. The freeway bridge design will be old, and in need of replacement before it ever comes close to reaching capacity. There is no need for such a large, expensive bridge here....the population does not support it.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/stcroix/background.html

: As owners and operators of the bridge, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Wis/DOT) have grown concerned about the condition of the Stillwater Lift Bridge and continued operations of the lift mechanism. Built in 1931,the Lift Bridge is approaching the age at which substantial investments will be required to keep the bridge operating, thus maintaining navigation on the St. Croix River. The narrow widths and functional deficiencies of the approach roadways are also of concern as the traffic on these roadways operates at or above capacity.

3. What options have been considered to cross the river closer to the Lift Bridge: Alts D&E:

A3. Multiple options to cross the river closer to Stillwater were studied as part of the project development process and thoroughly reviewed by the project Stakeholders. These options are identified as Alternates D and E in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Assessment (SDEIS). Both options provide a new bridge crossing that crosses diagonally near the Oasis Cafe in Minnesota to the existing Hwy 64/36 roadway on the east end of the lift bridge. The difference between the Alternates D and E is that one of the options uses the lift bridge for westbound traffic. During the development of these options it was determined that they would have greater environmental impacts than the Preferred Alternative Package that was selected. Impacts were greater on protected historic properties, park properties, bluff areas, floodplains and wetlands, commercial properties and other areas. Alternative D and E were dropped because, in general, they did not solve the purpose and need of the project and had more significant environmental impacts on protected resources than the Preferred Alternative. For a complete description of all of the alternative considered, including Alternatives D and E, please see the SDEIS, Chapter 3 and then for reasons why Alternative D and E were not selected as the Preferred Alternative, please see the SFEIS , Chapter 3 pages 5-8

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/pdfs/ConditionSummaryApril2011.pdf

And here, just last year, MNDOT claims that the bridge is safe, and rated the way it is because of funding. This is why I choose not to believe them. There is also another statement arguing against the diagonal bridge design and it's costs, but if you read it carefully, you see that it is full of phrases like "could be" and "may be". This is because no one has actually done the final calculations on this design.

This all comes down to who you believe, and I have heard strong opinions, read detailed reports, and listened to so-called experts in the field. Because of MNDOT's conflicting information, fierce desire for a 65 mph corridor, and refusal to start looking in a new direction in 1996 when the NPS told them this design was in violation of the law, I do not believe them.

I wonder if she told Governor Dayton he was crazy when he called her on Tuesday to tell her the news?

It is nice to see a story that puts the biased survey, and the argument over the high priced bridge design vs. a lower cost, more appropriately scaled bridge in the same paragraph. I was called to take this survey...they made it very clear.."are you in favor of the $690 million dollar bridge, or no bridge?". Of-course people who put out the survey got the exact results they wanted! Why were they afraid to add a third option, of a smaller, less expensive bridge?

What other questions were you asked during that survey, Susan?

I find it very telling that I was asked how likely I was to vote for, or against my current legislators if they supported this bridge design. They then asked a follow up question as to "how likely I was to vote that way". Why would a real estate group ask this?

I will add more later.

Many questions were ranking. For example: How important is a new bridge to you, with 1 being not at all important, and 5 being the extremely important? l think that this is leading to a false answer, as I do think it's important for a new bridge, but I don't think it's important, or necessary to build a $690 million freeway bridge.

Another question asked to rank the importance of 5 items: One item was a new bridge, one item was jobs, etc...well I think BLOCKING this freeway bridge, and building a less expensive bridge is important, so I rated it fairly high, but when the information was put out, I believe they stated that most people said that getting the proposed freeway bridge (instead of any bridge) built was one of the most important issues to them.

As the survey went on, I knew exactly what was happening...they were asking questions designed to get the answers they wanted: Yes, a bridge is important, and yes I want a bridge built, but when they spoke of the results, instead of saying most want a new bridge built, they said that most supported building this freeway bridge.

Full disclosure: At one point, the pollster did mention the cost of the proposed bridge, but this was after the important, misleading questions had already been answered.

At no time did the pollster mention an alternative design, or spending less money. At the end I asked him to make a notation that I believed they were going to get/give misleading information, because this was left out.

The problem with people such as you Randy is that you see a big price tag and think there has to be something cheaper. Unfortunately getting a new bridge approved in a different location would take years and when it got approved with the increase in costs, inflation etc. it would be just as expensive. Please stop confusing fiscally conservative and being cheap. Your giving a bad name to those of us who are actually fiscally conservative but think long term. Sometimes spending more money up front saves you money in the long run. If you use this same philosophy with your house you might want to watch out; that roof patch you did might just fall in during the next snowstorm.