Committee approves Stillwater bridge bill

“We have known for years that the St. Croix River Crossing is the best solution to solve our region’s unique environmental, traffic safety, and historic preservation goals. We are hopeful that Congress will agree and let this project finally move forward,” they said in a statement. “We need to work even harder now to make sure we don’t lose this opportunity to make the new bridge a reality.”

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by Joe Musich on 10/05/2011 - 04:51 pm.

    The day still water died.

  2. Submitted by William Pappas on 10/05/2011 - 08:30 pm.

    The extreme local impact of this bridge is evident by those who flew to Washington to lobby for its passage. All of the proponents came from three small towns: Stillwater, Sommerset and New Richmond. They were the mayors of the three towns, the county commissioners of Washington and St. Croix Counties, the heads of the Chambers of Commerce of the three communities, a few union reps, councilman Rousch from Stillwater and elements of the Coalition for the St. Croix River crossing. Not anyone from Bayport, Oak Park Hts, Marine, Hudson, Lake Elmo joined to lobby. Why? Because most of those communities are totally unaffected by the bridge issue, even though they are just a few miles from Stillwater. Yet here we are willing to spend 700 MILLION DOLLARS for the benefit of three small communities, preventing the repair and maintenance of bridges in far worse condition than the Stillwater bridge. To invest this heavily at a time of constrained budgets in a very local infrastructure project is madness on any level. Providing a template for future development on Wild and Scenic Rivers is not a good omen for the Valley around Stillwater or any other designated River all across America. Building a bridge that promotes 20th century growth in the 21st century is not only backward but fiscally insane for Minnesota.

  3. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 10/05/2011 - 08:47 pm.

    The fix was in. Too the alternate bridge proposal was not given more consideration.

  4. Submitted by Ameer Hashw on 10/05/2011 - 09:44 pm.

    ““The proponents of this project are not trying to build a bridge, they’re trying to build an icon,” said Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, who compared the $700 million bridge with the much more heavily-trafficked Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, which cost $234 million.”

    Sums up my feelings fairly well. Anybody else find the irony in Bachmann sponsoring this?

  5. Submitted by jody rooney on 10/06/2011 - 02:31 pm.

    The delay tactics by a vocal minority kept this bridge from being built for the last 15 years. If they had been so concerned about cost they could have been more compromising in the past.

    I live near Stillwater and it is without a doubt one of the most beautiful communities in the country with or without a new bridge. Fall lunch at one of the outdoor cafe’s is perhaps the ultimate Minnesota passive outdoor experience.

    But there is nothing wild about the lower St. Croix (where the 9 foot commercial channel is designated) except perhaps avoiding all the boat traffic on a week end. Scenic is in the eye of the beholder, many people find the Golden Gate Bridge scenic. The bridge will be one element in an outstanding landscape. It will not have the same character as the nostalgic old bridge but then neither do the down town condos.

    If the bridge offends you don’t go to the area, please. The locals would prefer it. Frankly it’s over crowded. You all can go find someplace else for that fall lunch in full color splendor. Although as a person who tours the rivers regularly I can’t think of a better spot.

Leave a Reply