Just wondering who is paying for the St. Croix River bridge (Minneapolis: hotels, construction)

[Govie]

Is Minnesota fully funding the St. Croix bridge?


Don't Wisconsins need the bridge more?

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by Govie

Is Minnesota fully funding the St. Croix bridge?

Don't Wisconsins need the bridge more?

Both states are paying for the bridge.

[Green Onions]

Originally Posted by Govie

Is Minnesota fully funding the St. Croix bridge?

Don't Wisconsins need the bridge more?

Minnesota is paying for about 55% of the cost of the bridge.

[xandrex]

I really don't understand why Minnesota is paying for more of the bridge than Wisconsin. It should at least be 50-50 split. But really, the people in Wisconsin need this more than Minnesotans need it. It's supposed to help with the commute of people who live in another state and promotes sprawl. I don't exactly see how this helps most of Minnesota.

[Green Onions]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I really don't understand why Minnesota is paying for more of the bridge than Wisconsin. It should at least be 50-50 split. But really, the people in Wisconsin need this more than Minnesotans need it. It's supposed to help with the commute of people who live in another state and promotes sprawl. I don't exactly see how this helps most of Minnesota.

Most people in Wisconsin who commute to the Cities to work use the I-94 bridge, which serves 5x as many vehicles daily as the Stillwater Bridge. The Stillwater Bridge serves a more localized population, which is greater on the Minnesota side of the river. The bridge will almost certainly bring more money into Minnesota than it carries away. This is probably behind the slight cost imbalance.

I imagine there are standard formulas for calculating the respective cost/benefits for different jurisdictions cooperating on a joint construction venture such as this that are routinely applied whenever a bridge across a border is being planned.

[Thegonagle]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is as follows: Part of the total cost is redesigning and rebuilding the hwy 36 approach roads, and the interchange at hwy 95. We have more work to do on our front, so our side will cost us more. If the project is broken down line by line, the bridge by itself is still supposed to be split 50/50.

Part of the controversy in altering the plan for the new "mega bridge" is that although we are building and managing this, it's a joint project, and Wis-DOT has already spent a large amount designing and building new roads to hook up with the new bridge.

In a way, it's already "in progress, awaiting final permits," ie; the Wild and Scenic Rivers exemption. It's never really mentioned on our side, but it's an elephant in the room nonetheless. The two states agreed on a plan long ago, and Wisconsin has even built parts of it already. They're going to sue the crap out of us if we back out. I think that's the major reason Governor Dayton, et al, have said "like it or not, this is the plan."

I might be wrong, but it's the only thing that makes sense. Otherwise, there's dirty dealing, because we don't need this now, and probably still won't in 30 years.

A regular, non-freeway 4-lane bridge (non-divided, plus sidewalks and bike lanes), near the old one would work well for a long time, and would help preserve the vitality of downtown Stillwater by keeping traffic moving through the area.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Green Onions

Most people in Wisconsin who commute to the Cities to work use the I-94 bridge, which serves 5x as many vehicles daily as the Stillwater Bridge. The Stillwater Bridge serves a more localized population, which is greater on the Minnesota side of the river. The bridge will almost certainly bring more money into Minnesota than it carries away. This is probably behind the slight cost imbalance.

I imagine there are standard formulas for calculating the respective cost/benefits for different jurisdictions cooperating on a joint construction venture such as this that are routinely applied whenever a bridge across a border is being planned.

I have never heard a "local" argument for building the bridge. Everyone has talked about this as a commuting bridge, which is why many people have said if people want a bigger bridge, they can go a little ways away to the I-94 bridge that already crosses the river.

[golfgal]

A 4 way bridge going into Stillwater would not work unless it connects either north or south of downtown, both of which have pretty much been ruled out because of design problems and the protected waterway issue. The roads in downtown cannot handle 4 lanes, there just isn't room, at least at the existing site, to put in 4 lanes coming off the bridge without tearing down historic buildings. Also, there is a real issue with semi traffic in downtown. The roads downtown do not handle the big trucks well at all. At least once a summer the corner of the building on the southeast corner of Chestnut and Main gets taken out by a semi as do turn signal standards.

[mn55110]

The Downtown Stillwater arguement is the traffic which sits at the stoplights along Main Street waiting to turn onto Chesnut Street to cross the existing bridge along with those crossing in from Wisconsin waiting in downtown to go up the hill to hwy 36 presently clog-up Main Street so those who shop and dine in downtown Stillwater can't get to where they need to be or parallell park on the streets. Downtown Stillwater has gridlock traffic.

If the bridge is built right after hwy 36 crosses Osgood then continues oover the bridge right-of-way, all the traffic between Minnesota and Wisconsin would avoid downtown Stillwater leaving the downtown riverfront to the local citizens, those who shop for antiques, dine, those who dock their boats at the downtown marina's etc.

The new bridge, right next to the existing Xcel Energy power plant, Anderson Widows factory and the state prison, would also give easy access to all the newer big box stores, hotels and restaurants all built along Highway 36 in Oak Park Heights such as: Menards, Lowe's, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Kohl's, Herbergers, Target, Cub, Kowalski's etc to the rapidly expanding # of residents across the St. Croix River in Hudson, Somerset, Houlton, New Richmond from the Wisconsin side along the expanded 4-lane Wisconsin Highway 64 which is built to connect along with Wisconsin Highway 35 at the bridge crossing right of way.

Many of these Wisconsin residents now cross at Stillwater work in Stillwater for the schools district, Anderson Windows, Cub Foods Corporate, the two Minnesota Correctional Facilities near the new bridge crossing in Bayport and Oak Park Heights respectively. Still others would continue to their jobs at 3M in Maplewood or onto downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul.

Most of these residents would have been able to remain living in Minnesota and not had to leap frog over to Wisconsin especially when their careers are in Minnesota in if suburbs of Washigton County and Ramsey County such as: Lake Elmo , Mahtomedi , Grant , Afton , Willernie , Dellwood , White Bear Lake , Hugo , Vadnais Heights , Hugo , Shoreview , Arden Hills , West Lakeland , were not all anti- growth or zero-growth cities and allowed some residential and commercial development.

The Interstate 94 bridge is already overcrowded between Hudson, Wisconsin and Afton Lakeland on the MN side and would be 5-plus miles though downtown Hudson and back 5-plus miles once you cross the other side of the St. Croix.

Back in the early 1990's when they built a Mississippi River crossing between the northeastern suburbs of St Louis, Missouri and the river town now suburb of Alton, Illinois (Alton, IL is very much like Stillwater, MN), Missouri paid only for the approach to the bridge along with connections to exising roads on the Missouri side while Illinois paid for the entire bridge along with everything on the Alton, IL side since Illinois residents now have improved access to their careers and businesses in St. Louis, MO

[Govie]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I really don't understand why Minnesota is paying for more of the bridge than Wisconsin. It should at least be 50-50 split. But really, the people in Wisconsin need this more than Minnesotans need it. It's supposed to help with the commute of people who live in another state and promotes sprawl. I don't exactly see how this helps most of Minnesota.

Exactly. Let the cheeseheads pay for it as far as I'me concerned.