Page 1 of 10

St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: August 5th, 2012, 5:07 pm
by Le Sueur
Status:
*Approved Construction Begins 2013
*Replaces 80-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge with a four-lane bridge that will connect expressways on both sides of the St. Croix River
*New roadway approaches on both sides of the river
*Extensive trail facilities that will include converting the Lift Bridge to a bike and pedestrian facility
*Completion Est: Fall 2016
*MNDOT project page: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stcroixcrossing/


Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: August 5th, 2012, 9:41 pm
by PhilmerPhil
BOOOOO!!!!

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: August 6th, 2012, 11:42 pm
by mplser
just another example of government subsidizing suburban sprawl

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: August 7th, 2012, 11:44 am
by LRV Op Dude

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 8th, 2012, 9:40 pm
by Le Sueur
Update:

*Foundation work will be bid as separate contract and start Spring 2013 (A year early, but overall schedule is still completion in Fall 2016)

*Summer foundation load testing:
Based on information from the $3.5 million load-testing effort, the project team also reduced the number of bridge piers from six to five, and shortened the depth of the drill shafts from 160 feet to between 130 and 140 feet.
F&C:MnDOT to start St. Croix Bridge work in 2013

*And something for those who think floating cement trucks on the Saint Croix is pretty cool:
[BBvideo 650,400]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIw7DlZzUrQ[/BBvideo]

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 12th, 2012, 6:49 am
by aguaman
BOOOOO!!!!
i'll second that motion. moderator, please change the title to "bridge to nowhere" ;)

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 12th, 2012, 7:41 am
by min-chi-cbus
BOOOOO!!!!
i'll second that motion. moderator, please change the title to "bridge to nowhere" ;)
How about "Bridge to cheese and Sunday alcohol"?

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 12th, 2012, 8:36 am
by mullen
i hate this project and everything it entails. mark dayton and al franken are morons for supporting this. short term jobs gain with no vision for how this will effect minnesota in the long term. not wisonsin, minnesota. it will ensure the twin cities remains one of the nation's sprawl leaders.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 12th, 2012, 8:40 am
by mplsjaromir
i hate this project and everything it entails. mark dayton and al franken are morons for supporting this. short term jobs gain with no vision for how this will effect minnesota in the long term. not wisonsin, minnesota. it will ensure the twin cities remains one of the nation's sprawl leaders.
Don't forget Amy Klobuchar and pretty much the entire GOP state and congressional caucus as well.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 12th, 2012, 12:21 pm
by aguaman
that's what makes it so awesome. it was a rare bipartisan agreement that something designated wild and scenic and intended to be preserved must die.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 12th, 2012, 6:56 pm
by UptownSport
I think that about sums it up.
I'd agree with the Sunday alcohol, but didn't we pass that against strong alcohol lobby opposition??

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 13th, 2012, 5:15 pm
by 1200onthemall
I find this project totally ridiculous, just saying......

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 13th, 2012, 7:33 pm
by min-chi-cbus
I think that about sums it up.
I'd agree with the Sunday alcohol, but didn't we pass that against strong alcohol lobby opposition??
I don't know what that means, but did MN pass a law that allows alcohol sales on Sunday, or even at places other than liquor stores (not including 3.2 alcohol)?

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 13th, 2012, 9:46 pm
by UptownSport
That's what I'm asking.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: October 13th, 2012, 9:49 pm
by UptownSport
As you know, gangs are a prominent part of prisons. When I worked in the Minnesota Prison system, the most powerful gang was the 'Somerset Mafia.' It wasn't composed of inmates ...

We had / have reams of Wisconsinites promoted to positions well beyond their capacity, when there were plenty of qualified people right here to fill the positions. They'd define 'cronyism.'
Of course, you don't hear of issues in prison system unless someone gets over the wire, so incompetence is hidden from public.

It irks me that now they'll have a nice, golden path to get to work.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: February 18th, 2013, 10:44 am
by Didier
Did anyone else read the Star Tribune article yesterday saying that DFL legislators might try to push for a toll to help pay for this bridge?

Was a toll ever really discussed in earlier stages? It seems like a no-brainer given the specialized nature of the bridge. It was built primarily for commuters who live in Wisconsin but work in Minnesota, no?

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: February 18th, 2013, 11:12 am
by mplsjaromir
A toll seems unlikely due to the fact that Minnesota, Wisconsin would have to agree. Also congress would have to pass a law allowing this to happen.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: February 18th, 2013, 11:41 am
by RailBaronYarr
A toll would certainly help pay for this thing's cost, but it would be drops in the bucket. Honestly, is there ANY way to get the politicians who were behind this thing to see the light and reverse the decision?

If anyone is truly serious about "fix it first" as the SOTU made so clear, we would cancel this thing and use the funds to fix every single deficient bridge in the state (maybe put some of them on a diet to reduce future maintenance costs). Of course, that would violate the strings attached to the federal money. Ugh. I hate this bridge project.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: February 18th, 2013, 1:12 pm
by mattaudio
I wonder if they let the foundation work as a separate contract so they could start physical work early in 2013 making it harder to cancel.

Re: St. Croix River Crossing

Posted: February 18th, 2013, 8:48 pm
by Didier
A toll would certainly help pay for this thing's cost, but it would be drops in the bucket. Honestly, is there ANY way to get the politicians who were behind this thing to see the light and reverse the decision?
To be sure, the Star Tribune article estimated a toll could pay for approximately half the cost.