St. Croix River Crossing

[RailBaronYarr]

Shocker. The same people complaining about fare-recovery on transit systems seem to think that gas tax/motor vehicle registration magically pays for 100% of our roads (and that we don't have billions in unfunded liabilities just in the state of MN alone). This project truly makes my blood boil.

[Scott Wood]

Some funny quotes in that article.

"We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem —we can’t keep going back to the taxpayers for more money." ...when tolls would reduce the amount of money taxpayers would have to contribute to a project that actually does represent "problem spending".

[twincitizen]

MNDOT annual report just released: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stcroixcross ... rt2013.pdf

[Mdcastle]

Mn/DOT decided to take the second lowest bidder for the Minnesota approach roads (which is 100% Minnesota money) because the lowest bidder didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost $6 million.

[PhilmerPhil]

Wishing C.S. McCrossan the best of luck on this one: Contractor sues to stop St. Croix Bridge project

[RailBaronYarr]

Mn/DOT decided to take the second lowest bidder for the Minnesota approach roads (which is 100% Minnesota money) because the lowest bidder didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost $6 million.

And while we're complaining about a $6M difference, the project itself costs MN/WI/US taxpayers $700M for 16,000 people a day to save 5-10 minutes.

[Mdcastle]

The anti-car people shouldn't get their hopes up. I read the actual complaint, and what they're asking for is to halt work on the approach road on the Minnesota side until they are either awarded the contract or the contract is rebid. It doesn't affect any other part of the project, including the other two major contract that have been let, the design of the main span and constructing the foundations, and presumably there's enough time to sort things out so we don't have a bridge just ending in grass on the Minnesota side.

[mattaudio]

I think it's a little simplistic to say that people criticizing this bridge are anti-car. I'll even benefit from it on occasion, but I think nearly everyone should be able to see that the value proposition is questionable. $700 million would have been much better spent upgrading 35W/494, or finishing a six lane beltway in Plymouth or the NE burbs, or it would have made a dent in an upgraded Lowry Tunnel, or any other number of road projects that would achieve much higher utility for our investment.

Also, leave it to government to lower the value proposition even further by not taking the best bid for the project. Government also likes to brag about how many jobs are created through projects, as if temporary jobs are a criterion equal to the project's utility. I'm sure private enterprise would be able to create many more jobs if they overpaid their vendors, but they're not in the business of creating jobs upstream in the supply chain since it is nearly always in opposition to providing the best value for their customers.

[Nick]

The anti-car people shouldn't get their hopes up.

I'm all about cynical dissenters on the forum (2013 is a super cynical year for me so far) but implying that the St. Croix bridge is anything other than a gigantic waste of money is...incorrect, at best.

[Mdcastle]

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. The $700 million figure every tosses around comes from rounding up the high estimate for the total project cost, not the Minnesota share, and not factoring in the costs of not building it. We can let the Wisconsinites deal with how to connect the freeway on their side to I-94, but I-94 on the MInnesota side is running close to capacity, so deduct some for improvements there, and we're down to maybe $300 something millions that could theoretically be used for other projects.


I don't think it's unusual to complain about the $6 million and not the $700 million, I'll spend $700 on nice stereo equipment but get bent out of shape when I lose $6.00 in the snack machine.

[Nick]

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. The $700 million figure every tosses around comes from rounding up the high estimate for the total project cost, not the Minnesota share, and not factoring in the costs of not building it. We can let the Wisconsinites deal with how to connect the freeway on their side to I-94, but I-94 on the MInnesota side is running close to capacity, so deduct some for improvements there, and we're down to maybe $300 something millions that could theoretically be used for other projects.

Well, no, though. There are projects that are good ideas, projects whose merits are debatable, and then there are bad projects that are conceived more or less from the inability of planners and politicians in their fifties and sixties to grasp that the status quo we had in 1993 has not only changed, but was never a particularly good idea to begin with. This project is in that last category. It's not a "cars are bad" thing at all. This is hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bad spending that will, ironically, largely benefit the kind of people who will balk at things like education spending "because we're broke". Obviously that's a huge generalization, but really--this is a bad project.

[RailBaronYarr]

What exactly are the costs of not building a bridge connecting a small city to farmland that's 10 minutes away from another bridge?

I would go one step further and say that it's not even connecting a small city to said farm land. Now, no one will even pass through Stillwater on their way to farmland (which will soon be development only supported by the fact that we built this bridge in the first place).

Regardless of where the total comes from, or the insignificant amount spent on upgrading trails along the river or making hte current bridge a nice bike crossing, the project will cost $700+M. Saying the bridge itself only costs $280M is meaningless as well, as the bridge could not function without the MN and WI approaches, which make up the majority of the rest of the project costs. This isn't an anti-car argument. I own 2 cars and 2 motorcycles. But development that will be 1) extremely expensive for such a small amount of crossings per day and 2) inherently car-dependent, rather than multi-modal and financially self-sustaining.

[mattaudio]

Discussion about affirmative action, women/minority owned business requirements for government contracts, etc should take place in Anything Goes. I have split the topic, and posts which did not relate to the St. Croix River Crossing project have been moved here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1334

[Minneboy]

What exactly are the costs of not building a bridge connecting a small city to farmland that's 10 minutes away from another bridge?

I would go one step further and say that it's not even connecting a small city to said farm land. Now, no one will even pass through Stillwater on their way to farmland (which will soon be development only supported by the fact that we built this bridge in the first place).

Regardless of where the total comes from, or the insignificant amount spent on upgrading trails along the river or making hte current bridge a nice bike crossing, the project will cost $700+M. Saying the bridge itself only costs $280M is meaningless as well, as the bridge could not function without the MN and WI approaches, which make up the majority of the rest of the project costs. This isn't an anti-car argument. I own 2 cars and 2 motorcycles. But development that will be 1) extremely expensive for such a small amount of crossings per day and 2) inherently car-dependent, rather than multi-modal and financially self-sustaining.

The multi-modal point is quite valid. Though it does have bike lanes, I suppose it could add a bus lane and even incorporate a future LRT lane on the bridge but at what cost, especially considering there are no train lines on either side at this point.

[Minneboy]

Mn/DOT decided to take the second lowest bidder for the Minnesota approach roads (which is 100% Minnesota money) because the lowest bidder didn't employ enough women and minorities. This act of political correctness will cost $6 million.

And while we're complaining about a $6M difference, the project itself costs MN/WI/US taxpayers $700M for 16,000 people a day to save 5-10 minutes.

You are very wrong about your time amounts. I'll challenge you to actually try to make it point to point in 10 minutes via the 94 bridge. Have you ever tried driving through Hudson and then North Hudson, especially when the Stillwater bridge is closed and during rush hour? Try adding an hour to your trip. Also do you use your motorcycles strictly for commuting or do you and possibly groups of your friends go out for afternoon cruises just for fun? I've often wondered how much gas is being wasted when these large groups of people on their motorcycles are out cruising. I don't know people who hop in their cars that do such a thing. I know people used to go out for Sunday drives but I just don't think people do that these days with the price of gas. So getting back on topic the gas and money and time saved for these 16,000 people is significant when applied on a daily basis over a years time.

[mulad]

The multi-modal point is quite valid. Though it does have bike lanes, I suppose it could add a bus lane and even incorporate a future LRT lane on the bridge but at what cost, especially considering there are no train lines on either side at this point.

I had considered using the bridge as an opportunity to realign the Union Pacific tracks through the area. A blufftop-to-blufftop bridge would be much more attractive in the future for passenger rail service to Eau Claire or other points east (Chicago, Green Bay) than the current route which snakes from Oak Park Heights (nearly Stillwater) on the west side all the way down to Hudson on the east side.

Though my other idea has been that tunnels should bore down from the higher elevations away from the river down to a low-level crossing which would minimize visual impact to the valley. That wouldn't tunnel under the river -- just emerge on the side of the hill.

[RailBaronYarr]

You are very wrong about your time amounts. I'll challenge you to actually try to make it point to point in 10 minutes via the 94 bridge. Have you ever tried driving through Hudson and then North Hudson, especially when the Stillwater bridge is closed and during rush hour? Try adding an hour to your trip. Also do you use your motorcycles strictly for commuting or do you and possibly groups of your friends go out for afternoon cruises just for fun? I've often wondered how much gas is being wasted when these large groups of people on their motorcycles are out cruising. I don't know people who hop in their cars that do such a thing. I know people used to go out for Sunday drives but I just don't think people do that these days with the price of gas. So getting back on topic the gas and money and time saved for these 16,000 people is significant when applied on a daily basis over a years time.

Again, no one is claiming the Stillwater bridge isn't a problem in how it closes and causes traffic. The point is that this an extremely expensive bypass for a relatively small number of crossings, and if the savings really, truly are that great, then there has got to be an amount of money they would be willing to pay to shave that off their trip, at least close to justifying the cost of the bridge. I'm confused what point to point you're referring to.. this bridge doesn't seem to make sense to connect one side of the river to the other (ie local trips), it is serving the longer-distance commuters.

As to the challenge on my personal habits with motorcycles.. one is a smaller, trail-street bike that was my father's that we restored together, I rarely use it (but might consider it when I move back to Minneapolis as it's easier to navigate). The other is a 600cc street bike I use to commute on Fridays when wearing jeans and as an alternative for buzzing around town to see the movies, grab a dinner, visit my family, etc instead of using my car. I'm not sure what your problem with people getting together to ride during non-peak times, often on roads that aren't major thoroughfares (not that I do this anyway, my dad and a friend in Denver are the only people I know who ride). But I don't hear any motorcycle enthusiasts out there demanding that a $700M scenic road be built strictly for their enjoyment.. they use the built environment for their weekend cruises.

[Minneboy]

You've possibly never seen the endless lines of mc riders clogging the streets of Stillwater to get across the current bridge. Pretty disgusting waste of gas but then I'm not a fan of snowmobiles and ATV's ...for that matter recreational boating. I'd personally like to see people who use gas for these type of purposes charged a higher rate...or a toll tax equivalent.

[Mdcastle]

My own philosophy is that anything the government provides should be funded by income taxes since it's easy to make those progressive, as opposed to sales taxes an user fees, but I do agree if we toll anything tolling this bridge would make sense due to the high cost and lack of a nearby free alternative. I just wish that MnPass would be compatible with the EZPass network so I don't have to keep stopping at toll booths whenever I'm in Chicago. I even got caught without coins at an exact change only plaza and had to pay online.

[Mdcastle]

I was out there taking pictures and saw they have a neat sign where the Wisconsin touchdown will be.


IMG_2707 by North Star Highways, on Flickr

Wisconsin bought right-of-way in anticipation of the Braun alignment, so they have to buy more and will have some to sell, but they already bought and remove the two bluff-top houses behind the sign.