St. Croix River Crossing

[seanrichardryan]

"There's not a major bridge project in the country that doesn't involve the use of tolls and other creative financing mechanisms," Gov. Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky said in an interview.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/us ... y.xml?f=19

[Minneboy]

This new bridge will cut an hour off my drive to my cabin in WI. Money in my pocket.

[Scott Wood]

Google maps shows it as being a 24-minute drive from one end of the current bridge to the other, without actually using the bridge (i.e. use the I-94 crossing). There would have to be pretty heavy traffic for the new bridge to cut a whole hour off of any drive, even if you compare it to no bridge at all rather than the possibility of a more modest bridge.

[RailBaronYarr]

This new bridge will cut an hour off my drive to my cabin in WI. Money in my pocket.

Money, or time? How much money? Would you say the collective savings of every cabin-goer is the cost to build the bridge?

[stp1980]

I hate to defend this one but there is already the equivalent of a four lane freeway on either side of this. The project here was only a matter of time. if not 20 years after when it first could have been built. Yes it will push a corridor of sprawl leapfrogging Lake Elmo to the south and push it out into the farmland of Western WI. WI tends to build commuter freeways much more quickly than in MN often in anticipation of future development.

[mattaudio]

Is it anticipation of or the cause of future development?

Long ago, I thought it made sense to build infrastructure in anticipation of its demand. We cannot afford this. Sure, it makes sense to do some planning, to figure out what corridors would likely require upgrades. Basic stuff like building overpasses with wider clearance below, or placing easements in new developments that are along highways, or ROW purchase when obvious and cheap. Or the most obvious thing we can do to help ourselves in the future: ABSOLUTELY no new private land access along roads/highways. That's what streets are for.

[Minneboy]

Google maps shows it as being a 24-minute drive from one end of the current bridge to the other, without actually using the bridge (i.e. use the I-94 crossing). There would have to be pretty heavy traffic for the new bridge to cut a whole hour off of any drive, even if you compare it to no bridge at all rather than the possibility of a more modest bridge.

I'm talking combined trip savings and you'd have to have spent time either waiting to get across the bridge or driving south to the 94 bridge which actually adds more time. Believe me there are many many cars with MN plates crossing over both those bridges.

[mattaudio]

That's exactly what he said. It's 24 minutes to go south from Stillwater to Hudson, cross over on 94, then north to Houlton. Is that worth $22 per crossing? Nope.

[stp1980]

[quote="mattaudio"]Is it anticipation of or the cause of future development?

It is a case of if you build it, and the economic incentives are there (even if skewed) when you look at it in retrospect it would be in anticipation of, however it is much more likely the cause of future development.

Do Somerset and New Richmond need a freeway? No, not really. Will their populations increase and the traffic on this road? Yes definitely. Will these people who move here complain when gas prices do go over $4 a gallon? Of course! Will I feel sorry for them No!

Wisconsin has more funding for roads than MN, they also have a spread out population (politically you can see how this works out in terms of their planning, every legislature can point to the freeway corridor in their district). When you look at a roadmap of WI, there are many freeways, or freeway like roads. Some are regional corridors, small city to small city, others are like this one, commuter freeways.

[RailBaronYarr]

That's exactly what he said. It's 24 minutes to go south from Stillwater to Hudson, cross over on 94, then north to Houlton. Is that worth $22 per crossing? Nope.

This is the point. I guarantee you if charged a $6, $10, whatever toll each time you cross it (you and the other "many" MN plates currently taking some route out this way) you would choose the route that costs a bit more time and gas but far less money overall. This is a total waste of $700M (up front) no matter where the money is coming from.

[UptownSport]

I wonder if Off-Sale liquor stores will spring up on the Wisconsin side, and filling stations on Minnesota side.
Are our (MN) clothing tax savings enough to attract WI shoppers?

It's difficult to enforce exactly where a car is licensed; if one state or locale is less expensive you can drive with the other state's plate but opposite state's address- Either DOT will gladly take your money.

[RailBaronYarr]

I wonder if Off-Sale liquor stores will spring up on the Wisconsin side, and filling stations on Minnesota side.
Are our (MN) clothing tax savings enough to attract WI shoppers?

It's difficult to enforce exactly where a car is licensed; if one state or locale is less expensive you can drive with the other state's plate but opposite state's address- Either DOT will gladly take your money.

Neither of the things you just suggested encourages people to live on one side or the other. Only businesses. And people will drive to get there. Bad for our roads (cost, size), bad for the environment, and bad for encouraging better development patterns.

I ask, why do we need a bridge this size so close to 94? Are we really that concerned with the number of people who choose to live in one state and drive long distances to where they work? Are we really catering to the weekend crowd of cabin owners who visit said area maybe 10-15 times a year (yes, some cabin nuts go more). All to the tune of $700M??? Why can't we just say no to these projects!?

[mplsjaromir]

I think frack sand mining is the real reason this is getting built.

[UptownSport]

Baron,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all advocating the bridge- Contrary.

[Minneboy]

It's funny but those who object sound like those who objected to the LRT. Trains or bridges to nowhere. Yea maybe they are different but the complaints are the same. Now lets see what the bridge rewards will bring. Not to mention replacing an outdated dangerous bridge.

[RailBaronYarr]

It's funny but those who object sound like those who objected to the LRT. Trains or bridges to nowhere. Yea maybe they are different but the complaints are the same. Now lets see what the bridge rewards will bring. Not to mention replacing an outdated dangerous bridge.

Well the complaint may be the same but the reality is nowhere near truth.. The StC bridge is projected to have 16,000 cars travel across it each day. The Hiawatha LRT has 34,200 riders per day. Double. The StC bridge project is an alternative to a freeway 5 miles away and the current crossing 1.5 miles north that both connect the areas already. Hiawatha connects such places as Downtown, the Dome (future stadium), neighborhoods along 55, Fort Snelling, our only international airport, and the MOA (even if that is a horrid site, it is still owrth noting they're connected).

I'm not saying there are literally no benefits to this project. But 85% of the financial "return" the project states comes in the form of time-savings for people. Cabin-goers, people shopping in MN for clothes or Wisconsin for beer, etc. That is not REAL money. People won't take the 15 minutes they save and turn it in to hard cash to spend. This is a project that has almost no financial return to it. If they do charge a toll, just to cover construction costs (not maintenance or debt service), the toll would need to be ~$6, each direction. That's IF anyone will choose to pay it and IF the states can even work that out between each other. But whatever benefits do exist don't come close to scratching the costs... I can't say the same about the LRT.

[mullen]

this bridge is just so sad all around. a testament to sprawl and the further degradation of the environment. i'm really glad franken, klobuchar and bachmann worked so well together to ram this through.

[mattaudio]

It's a false dichotomy to claim we needed to choose between letting the existing bridge fall into the river and a new freeway bridge to the south.

I've always thought it would make sense to have a bascule bridge feeding into downtown in place of the existing bridge. I know people complained that the bridge opening for river traffic causes congestion and that all the traffic suffocates downtown Stillwater. Honestly, I think Stillwater is going to suffer somewhat when this traffic is gone.

We should be concerned about how the traffic impacts downtown Stillwater, but we should not be concerned about the congestion considering drivers have the choice to cross at Hudson or Osceola. Instead, I thought the new bridge could either directly connect to Myrtle Street, or the westbound traffic could connect at Myrtle and the eastbound traffic could depart from (existing) Chestnut. There could either be a signature two bridge aesthetic with two bascules on existing western channel, or to save money the causeways could connect and the bascule could be further to the east closer to the earthen causeway so that only one bascule is needed.

Then, we can start thinking about some creative ways to keep traffic moving. First, one thing that would help is having more lanes at the queuing spots and across the bridge to accommodate spikes during and after a bridge opening. This works just fine in Prescott.

Secondly, there could be a northbound approach road parallel to Main Street. This could use the old RR ROW which is now just a big gravel alley. It could probably even be trenched under Nelson Street with all the money saved over the existing plan. I realize this road expands capacity, but I think it's necessary since queuing eastbound traffic really does suffocate Stillwater especially during a bridge opening.

Finally, there could be some major streetscape improvement downtown, such as neckdowns and other traffic calming.

I bet all this would have been less than 1/3 the cost of the existing plan.

http://goo.gl/maps/XVGUr

[UptownSport]

Haven't heard there's danger of a bridge collapse.

So you're saying two bridges?
One ways?

[aguaman]

“I think this is a crazy proposal,” Rep. Bob Dettmer (R-Forest Lake) said. “I will not be voting for any kind of toll road or toll bridge between the great states of Minnesota and Wisconsin.”
http://woodbury.patch.com/articles/toll ... r-crossing