Apparently Bachmann has spent so little time representing her district that she thinks traffic will be funneled to I-95. Hopefully other members of the house will see through this pathetic propaganda that ignores many relevant factors. Hopefully representatives around the country will respect the need to validate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act rather than trample it based on half-truths and misinformation.

There has to be a cheaper solution.

They havn't considered a crossing north of Stillwater. Just say using 96 and then a bit farther north to get to a narrow section of the St Croix. Once you are at a narrow section just construct a suspension bridge like the Golden Gate with NO impact on the riverbed and a work of art to enhance the view of the valley.

For the old lift bridge, remove the piece of junk, sell it to someone dumb enough to buy it. Restore the riverbed to pre-lift bridge condition.

BTW, use money saved to install trolley cars on the hills of Stillwater making it a mini San Fran.

Micheal, ther isn't an inch of the St Croix that isn't designated as a park, scenic waterway, national reserve, etc etc..

The idea behind using a crossing where the river is much narrower will lower the cost, allow a less expensive suspension bridge to be constructed and preserve the view from Stillwater downstream. And yet provide the needed crossing into Wisconsin. Also a suspension bridge won't impact the riverbottem AND be a piece of art. Can you imagine the attraction of a beautiful suspension bridge like the Golden Gate in the St Croix river vally up stream from Stillwater?

Once in a while Government needs to think out of the box and make visual improvements while providing important infrastructure improvements.

The proposed bridge has NO appeal at all and looks like a hunk of junk!!

I wonder how much thought they gave to expanding roads south to I-94 from Hwy. 36 in Minnesota and also on the Wisconsin side (heck, run a four-lane road through Willow River State Park for all the Wisconsin commuters and see how they like it). It might add a few miles to a commute, but it beats spending $700 million for a bridge that serves a modest number of people. Diverting traffic to I94 is a far more cost effective solution.

Close the lift bridge don't build a new one. Send them all to Hudson.

Honestly, improve Manning to a 4 lane from 36 north to 96 with grade seperation at all intersections, do the same to 95 and the short distance to the narrows of the St Croix. Wisconsin side, snap a chalk line from where the new bridge crosses to the 4 lane 35/64 build a 4 lane highway.

Again the new bridge would be a suspension bridge and actually improve the appearence of the river valley.

Remove the old lift bridge, scrap prices are high. Remove the approach to the old lift bridge returning the St Croix to its pre lift bridge channel.

Stillwater traffic would be reduced to nothing, if Andersen Window workers complain let them put a ferry in place to carry them from the plant to the Wisconsin side to a "Park and Float" lot, they now use a river ice road to cross the St Croix. They could park on the old lift bridge approach highway, the big hill.

Improving 96 to 4 lanes from White Bear to the new suspension bridge would be a good idea supplying another route for metro traffic destined to Wisconsin.

Has MnDOT considered a plan like this?

What would be the cost?

Environmental impact would be much less with no supports in the river and a suspension bridge would actually improve the appearence of the river valley making it a tourest destination.

Think about it..

The way the question is posed in the above poll doesn't give a clear view of the bridge question. I doubt that many people, at this point, would dispute the need for a new bridge to replace the lift bridge. The question more relevant is, "Would you support a smaller version of a new bridge?" Why this monster bridge without any compromise is a mystery to many. Even the Sierra Club has signed on to a smaller version, according to Betty McCollum. A discussion about size seems to be needed, not hysteria around " We need a giant bridge and nothing else!". Even if the Democrats have abandoned those who still believe in the environment it seems possible to have a sensible discussion about the size and cost of the bridge. I hope that can still happen without throwing more taxpayer money at the coalition for a super-size bridge. You know what happens to your stomach when you supersize your burger meal; please don't do that to our taxpayer stomachs those of you who ultimately will make the decisions.

I agree with Jim Martin. The poll isn't fair. I voted no, meaning I do not support the freeway style $700,000,000.00 bridge that is mainly for 9000 commuters from Wisconsin and supported and pushed on us already over taxed Minnesotans by Wisconsin politicals: Bachmann, Franken and Klochabar. Or are they just lobbyists for Wisconsin? I haven't figured it out yet.

Point taken, Martin and Jim. That's why it says four-lane St. Croix River Crossing Project. The other proposal (for a smaller crossing) was three lanes. I apologize if that wasn't as well stated as it should have been.

The Tacoma suspension bridge was constructed for $800,000,000.

http://bridgepros.com/projects/TacomaNarrows/TacomaNarrows.htm

As can be seen the Tacoma suspension bridge carries 90,000 vehicles per day. 6 lanes with shoulder for bikes etc. It is designed for a second deck to be added as needed. The Tacoma bridge is 5,400 feet long. All this for $800,000,000, same price as the proposed St Croix bridge.

Simple question: why is the proposed bridge over the St Criox SO EXPENSIVE?

IF a Manning to 96 to 95 to a suspension bridge route was constructed, about 10 interchanges would be required for $10,000,000 each and a 2,000 foot suspension bridge would be needed with 4 lanes and no requirement for accomodating a second deck.

The 10 interchages would cost $100,000,000 and a 2,000 foot 4 lane suspension bridge would cost about $300,000,000 for a total cost of $400,000,000 OR 1/2 the cost of the proposed 5,000 foot bridge.

The net result would be the transformation of the view upstream from Stillwater into a very scenic view making it a favorite of photographers and tourists. The old lift bridge could be removed and river bed restored to the pre-lift bridge condition, the new suspension bridge would need no in river abutments, a win win for Stillwater and the environment. Additional enhancemet to Stillwater would result with the addition of cable cars to a couple of hills in Stillwater.

This alternative should be considered.

People can have their opinions on Bachmann and McCollum, and their difference in positions on the bridge.  Some people can question the costs and location, the number of lanes, a larger or smaller bridge, or whatever they want, but their is one thing that cannot be disputed at this point; multiple surveys, whether scientific or not, have clearly concluded that the majority of the people want a new bridge.

It's also a fact that the majority of people elected these people to office to vote on issues such as this in our interest.   So argue about the money, the view, the clams, or whatever other picky little thing you want to support your position against the bridge, but just realize you are in the minority on this subject.  

The bottom line is that the proponents of they bridge are dong what the majority of the people want, pushing to pass the bill and get the bridge built as proposed.  

My guess is it will work out just like it is suppose to, the majority will prevail. 

Pretty sure Ellison is not in favor of this $700 million boondoggle, Jim. Also, I hope Mary any everyone else who uses this bridge are required to pay more than a nominal toll for the convenience of being catered to with an unnecessarily large bridge. While we're at it, can someone please explain how more development in the St. Croix Valley benefits the majority of residents here? If they want that, I'm sure there are plenty of empty houses in Woodbury and North St. Paul. Some businesses will certainly benefit, but I can't see how this additional development makes this area a more attractive place to live.

Randy, Ellison is not in favor because he needs the tax money for his social programs. I agree with Bob K statements.
Why should a WI resident have to pay a toll for using a bridge partially funded with Federal tax dollars (my and everyone else' taxes). If that is your reasoning...WI should start charging tolls for the Hudson and Prescott bridges. The Hastings bridge is being replaced because of structural deficiencies.......not a whimper? The Stillwater bridge is an accident waiting to happen. (I35 ring a bell?) The pundits will keep the din alive to stop the process. Just build the bridge!

99.9995 % of this country do not know nor care where or what Stillwater wants.

For those of you who can't understand how a river crossing can cost so much, check out the Forth Replacement Crossing in Scotland.

Designed after a "a rigorous assessment by an international team of architects and engineers," this four-lane, cable-stayed bridge project (just like ours) was initially estimated at $2.7 billion to $3.6 billion.

Now, because bids for the bridge and roadway work came in lower than expected, the total estimated cost range for the project is $2.3 billion to 2.5 billion. The project is currently on track to be completed in 2016.

So the moral of the story is:
a) It costs a lot of money to build a river crossing,
b) contractors who are hungry for work in this economy and eager to be part of this high-profile project could bring costs for the St. Croix River Crossing BELOW the low-end estimate of $574 million and
c) Scots are very thrifty.

The Tacoma bridge carries 90,000 vehicles per day.

The Tacoma bridge composed of 2 (two) separate suspension bridges, view the photo in the link.

The Tacoma bridge is 5,400 feet long, much longer than a narrows bridge over the St Croix upstream from Stillwater at 2,000.

The Tacoma bridge is engineered to accomodate a second deck under the original deck to allow 180,000 vehicles per day.

http://bridgepros.com/projects/TacomaNarrows/TacomaNarrows.htm

In comparison the proposed bridge over the St Croix at a cost of an extimated $700,000,000 (seven hundred MILLION dollars) is a mear one hundred million less than the Tacoma bridge. Meanwhile the St Croix bridge is estimated to carry 7,000 vehicles per day.

While I generally agree with Bachman and disagree with McColumn on this bridge I must agree with McColumn.

The proposed Stillwater bridge is clearly a bridge to nowhere with a price tag of at least double what is really needed for 7,000 vehicles per day.

A nice looking suspension bridge like the Golden Gate can improve the view of a natural area, like it does in San Fransisco. How many people travel to San Fran with the sole reason of looking at the Golden Gate Bridge?

I understand that many people will see a real benefit of a new bridge, like Mary Larue of New Richmod will realize a benefit from increased land values, but if anyone of reasonable intellegence does a comparison to the cost of the proposed bribge and the benefit of 7,000 vehicles a day using the $700,000,000 bridge it becomes OBVIOUS the bridge is not worth it!

It does NOT pass the tried and true "stink test" OR a more common these days "reasonable test".

Heck each and every person crossing the bridge could be given $100,000 for the cost of the bridge, give them $100K to not cross the bridge.

We need to be carefull to NOT waste this amount of money when ther are so many needs much closer to the Twin Cities, example we have a stop light at highway (not really a highway) 120 and highway 36 in Oakdale. That intersection has 50,000 vehicles pass through it every day which is 7 times that number that cross the St Croix at Stillwater. Another stop light at Hadley and 36 in Oakdale which can stop 40,000 vehicles EACH DAY..

Road builders in Minnesota have underbuilt the Twin Cities forever and it's time to build out the roads that are used the most NOT the least.

Priorities Please.

DO NOT build what the "country boys" want!!

I still cannot believe that Bachmann, Klobuchar and Franken, after being presented with the facts, the cost, and the amount of use this huge fiasco of a bridge is going to cost, are still pushing it. If they had any brains they would back off and think about it. Maybe say: "Boy, you know...this is going to cost the people of Minnesota a lot of money just to accommodate these Wisconsin commuters who will infact be using it by far the most. Gee, maybe we should consider something smaller and cheaper for those Wisconsin commuters. And how about those poor people in Oak Park heights? We'll raise their property taxes about $500 to $600 a year for 20 years! Geeze...none of them will vote for us ever. Wait! We'll get all those commuters to vote for us! No wait...hey...they can't vote for us!" This is just another bunch of not too inteligent politicians getting together to bend us (over taxed) Minnesotans over and spend the money we don't have. Are you getting a property tax refund this year? A renters credit? These people say we are so broke that they cannot afford to give us these refunds. I propose that if that monstrosity of a bridge happens, that no one vote for these inexperienced politicians. Go to youtube and type in Michele Bachmann. You will see how inteligent this woman is.

The builders of the Tacoma suspension bridge, Bechtel, indicate the Tacoma bridge cost about $1,500 per square foot. Given that number a suspension bridge over the narrows of the St Croix north of Stillwater would cost about $180,000,000 OR one hundred and eighty million dollars, 60 foot wide deck (4 traffic lanes and 10 feet for bikes and pedestrians), 2,000 feet long.

An additional 100 million for work on Manning and 96 and 95 and the solution comes in at $280,000,000 OR $420,000,000 less than the proposed bridge.

I'm 100% with McColumn on this. Bachman, Ellison and Klobachar are making a BIG mistake supporting a huge very expensive white elephant, bridge to nowhere.

Government, Don't make this BIG mistake, creating a huge eyesore on the lower St Croix, instead construct a work of art of a suspension bridge to be treasured by photographers and artists alike just north of Stillwater.

Do this RIGHT!

Martin, Poor Minnesotans having to pay for part of a bridge. Can you say Federal tax dollars here. That means others' money.....not just your tax dollars going towards the bridge...whatever it may be.
Jim, Again..North crossing dead!! Not even on the planners' horizon. Government don't make a big mistake creating a HUGE eyesore north of of town. The blight is Stillwater south to Bayport. Do this right and build A bridge in the Oak Park Hgts to so. Houlton corridor. If the suspension bridge is your favorite...why don't you write a nice little check out to buy your favored option? You stated that the road builders have under built? Here is the chance for redemption and forward planning to take place. The "country boys" will prevail

A well designed suspension bridge is NOT an eyesore. The Golden Gate is NOT considered an eyesore.

The blight is a power plant visible on the shores of Lake St Croix, and a huge smoke stack. BTW the smoke stack may well go away if the plant is converted to Natural Gas or a clean coal plant.

Andersen Windows as an eyesore may well go away as their sales are down as a result of China window production.

To construct a huge ugly bridge through the middle of Lake St Croix would be a mistake. Think about Lake St Croix without the smoke stack and without a highway bridge in the middle of it.

I have done a lot more than anyone else making comments out here. I've contacted Bechtel who would construct a suspension bridge. I've estimated the cost of grade seperation.

The total cost of a Manning route and a suspension bridge over the narrows of the St Croix river is $420,000,000 LESS than the proposed bridge. That $420,000,000 can be used for other more needed highway projects instead of being wasted on an ugly very expensive polluting bridge through the middle of Lake St Croix.

Not to mention a route north of Stillwater would reduce traffic on highway 36 from highway 5 east to the river, currently an accident reduction area, the northren route would also result in NO new bridge abutments in the middle of Lake St Croix which going forward WILL be a hazard to recreation boating on the Lake.

Jim, thanks for contacting Bechtel. I respect your opinion as one of the Greatest Generation, but you're leaving out some important costs. Like a road on the Wisconsin side that connects your suspension bridge to 64. And right of way costs, environmental mitigation costs, contingency/risk costs, and -- unless Bechtel built it into the cost of their bridge -- engineering costs. Those additional costs would eliminate and probably exceed your savings.

How did MnDOT get to proposing a $700,000,000 ugly bridge, through the middle of Lake St Croix, adding hazards to recreational boaters, disturbing the riverbed, adding traffic to highway 36 which is already an accident reduction area?

All this for 7,000 travelers to Wisconsin?

The cost is $100,000 per traveler...

HMMMMMM, me smells a bridge to nowhere!!!

This is a real stupid project, NOT defensible. Smells and does not pass a reasonable test.

Bad Idea.

Thanks for the info Shawn, votes were taken on the best site back in the 1980s with no regards to the 2012 costs: environmental, money, watercraft users on the affected river, impact of additional traffic on highway 36 already an accident reduction area.

It's time to revisit the siteing of the bridge because its been near 30 years since feedback was taken from the affected areas.

And in order to properly select the best site it might be necessary to overrule some objections. Any project will have objectors and supporters, in this case the best site should be selected by experts on all aspects of the project and build a suspension bridge north of Stillwater at the narrows of the river, LOL.

You know what? I don't think that anything we write in here will do even a little bit of good. Bachmann, Franken and Klobuchar will do exactly what they want. None of these clowns will get my vote again. $700,000,000.00 for a bridge between Stillwater and Houlton...what a bunch of crap.

Martin, sadly I agree with you. I do know one thing that Stillwater residents can do next week. On Tuesday night the city council will be voting to give more lobbying money in an effort to get this bridge passed in Congress. To date the city has spent $18,000 on a lobbyist (the mayor's neighbor), who claimed that he could not report anything to the city because it was some sort of a secret. The city also lost $40,000 in a botched attempt to funnel money into the group that the mayor co-chairs, to be spent on lobbying for this bridge. This is during a time when the city contends that it can not afford to fix the horrible condition of many of the residential roads, contribute a little money to a proposed dog park, or other things that might benefit the city's residents. Going to the meeting and showing your disapproval of a vote to dump more money into lobbying for this bridge would be a good start - tell them $58,000 is enough for one year!

Susan: The people of Stillwater are desperate. They are tired of the congestion from the commuters from Wisconsin and the people from inland Minnesota going through Stllwater on the weekends during the summer. Motorcycles tearing up the main street. Little do they know that everywhere in the twin cities people go through the same thing. Me, a Mahtomedite going to that meeting and voicing my opinion, I would most likely get lynched. Your city has been touting itself as a tourist town for decades. With that, everyone knows weekend traffic is going to happen. It's part of doing business as usual. I, like all the rest of the Stillwater population know a newer bridge has to happen. But please, not a $700,000,000.00 bridge like the one they are pushing for. Bachmann and Franken are looking for votes, Klobuchar just wants to help people regardless of the cost. I feel that a bridge costing less than half of what they are pushing for would solve the needs of both States.